Littlejohn

".. Please explain what Israel should do or should have done, which would be a path of peace?.. "


Well, it is very simple: kill all the Palestinians and rebuild in "peace" your Davidic kingdom ..

After all, even the Germans pursued a similar objective: to build a large Germany without the "Palestinians" that polluted their purebred ...

The whole world is country.


Littlejohn
.

Toto

Godwin's law, you lose.

[STAFFWARN]
==> Please avoid inflammatory political references[/STAFFWARN]

IamJoseph

Correct. But its not my POV or inclination to say so - its the evidence which says so. Nor do I refer to the genuineness of the belief by christians.

The inferred equivalence is not credible. While most people have a rejection of religions today, and there are more today than ever before in history, there is also the syndrome of casting all the M/E religions in one bag, and this is usually presented via pointing the finger most at the Hebrew bible - the usual suspicious scapegoat thing. The variance between the Hebrew writings, and the NT and Quran - are differences in both kind and degree. While the Hebrew writings gave more to humanity than anything else I know of - the reverse applies to the other two religions.

I looked hard but saw no new asset, advocations, acceptable laws or any new moral/ethical lessons from the NT & Quran, and a dismal manipulation of history, amidst rampant villification and racism. The issue is the pursuit of truth only - and this has become an uncomfortable thing [a disdained truth] - because it impacts on the genuine belief of more than half of humanity.

It has become far easier to accept a cherished lie instead. I found not a single verse in the NT & Quran in their version of history, along with the charges made against the Jews, to have an iota of credibility - and that the exact reversal of the charges apply. Admitting this has become a taboo - because it puts the genune believers in an abyss with nowhere to turn anymore. However, I see religion as a science and math - it has to be credible.


You have covered just about the whole planet and its history, contextual of its relative period. Europe hardly possessed a traceable history pre-3000 plus. Except for India and China, which does have a history and beliefs, independent and non-racial, there is not much else to report about. The Hebrew writings cover a period of some 4000 years, between Adam and the Roman empire, or what accounts to 6000 years as of today, backed by the oldest and most accurate calendar: there is no history per se older than 6000 years. That does not leave lots of gaps - compared to what, or what big history is missing here?

IamJoseph

I find the reverse is the case. You never said what Israel did wrong, or what she should do, nor gave any position what the wishlist of the nations in the middle-east wants to do.

Israel is the most legitimate state in the region, the only one with an evidential proof of her nation and borders being historical, as opposed the fictional non-historical states and borders made by Briton. None of those Brtish established states existed before 150 years. Israel is also the only state which was sanctioned by all the nations - at the UN, via a legal Motion, participated in by all the states in the region [all Arab states voted in the Motion], as well as the countries outside this region voted: which Arab state was established that way?

What I see is that despite being allocated the smallest land, the Balfour was corrupted, and 80% carved out for Jordan, then cited as a '2-state', when there was never any need for this, and when only Jews were called Palestineans. This corruption of the Balfour was done illegally, under extreme duress, when the jews were totally helpless following W.W.11. At this point, no one assisted, the christians and muslims being inclined to racism by theological doctrines. Israel said YES to this 2-state demand, retaining only 20% of the land originally allocated her, while more than half of that 20% is barren desert.

At this point, saying yes, and being legitimised via the UN - did not matter to the five arab states which attacked her - a flaunting of the UN, with a declared goal of genicide. This constitutes the worst crime in the UN's history - as yet without a UN Resolution number. Here, the number of Jewish refugees murdered and displaced in arab lands were far greater than the combined Arab claims - still no acknowledgement or compensation, nor is this pursued by Israel, due to a biased UN and its corruption by 57 islamic states and 25 EU states - all abjectly set against Israel.

The notion of today's Palestinians is a fiction invented by Arafat in the 60's, and so is the reasoning of displaced Palestinians: the UN creation of Israel does not become invalid because there were some Arabs already living in Palestine, nor does the lands in all the Arab countries become negated because Jews also lived there. Today's reference to Palestinians and the 2-state demand in what's left for Israel - is itself nothing other than a genocide demand on the jews. This is what I find, namely its a gencidal 3-state, demanding the demise of a nation, its capital and all this nation stands for, while the first 2-state which created Jordan is a moral and legal crime.

I say the Balfour should be restored, the Coptics who predate both islam & the Arab race should be given a portion of Egypt as a state, the kurds and druse also given states, and Pakistan and Bangladesh be restored back to India. What Europe did was terrible, carving out fictional states, based on oil, trade cntracts and religion, as opposed historicity.

The UN should not have two European Security seats, and all 57 islamic states should be accounted as one vote; Israel & India should be included in all UN motions, and an acknowledgement be made of the Jewish refugees of Arab lands; with the totally fictional term of Palestinean abolished as applying to Muslims: the world does not need a new golf course on soccer-sized Israel - in fact this is a gencidal demand not on the Pretend Palestineans, but on the Jews! Else there will not ever be peace, in Palestine or in a host of other parts of the world - this syndrome will extend elsewhere, proving the crimes perpertrated upon the Jews and Israel by European Christianity and islam.

The term '2-state' used today is a total lie, as is the term Palestinean. Israel is being accused of occupying 12% of the land allocated her in the Balfour [if another state is carved in Palestine] - even as she is overwhelmed to say YES to all these demands made upon her. Sorry, I disagree that Israel should be destroyed by the invented placebos used for this purpose.


Jews have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history.

Toto

[STAFFWARN]This is not the political forum. If you can't stick to BCH topics, this thread will be locked and removed to the graveyard.[/STAFFWARN]

bacht

You don't seem to be following the history books I know.

The Hebrews were latecomers in the Near East. There had been urban civilizations in Mesopotamia and Egypt since ca 3000 BCE. The Indus Valley cities were thriving before 2000 BCE (there were the Minoans by then too but their influence was on the Greeks).

afaik modern historians date the 'exodus' of the Hebrews to Palestine to the late 1st millenium, maybe around 1200 BCE. There is no evidence for them as a distinctive group before this time.

The Pentateuch is no longer believed to have been written by Moses (if he even existed). Much of the Hebrew bible may have been written in Babylon or later.

As far as the 4000 BC date, you might want to look at the old Sumerian king lists, which describe fantastically long reigns before their version of the flood. It's not much different from the opening chapters of Genesis describing the pre-flood ancestors of Noah.

Or, you can keep on with the apologetic literature. This is the Sunday school version of the Abrahamic faiths: emotionally satisfying maybe, but not historically reliable.

Littlejohn

I said already, in my previous post, that the Virgin Mary was born in 12 BC. Being practically absurd that might have given birth at the age of 5 or 6 years, it is patently obvious that the date of 7-6 BC for the birth of Jesus, it is a boyish attempt by the forger clergy to reconcile Matthew's nativity with of Luke one.

Jesus was born during the census administered by the Governor Quirinus. Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth century, confirmed that the census mentioned by Luke is the same as that mentioned by Josephus, who made clear that this census was happened 37 years after the battle of Actium, which occurred in 722 AUC. Adding 37 to this date, you reach the year 759 AUC, which corresponds to 6 A.D., since the 753 AUC it is the 0 year of our era.

That the nativity in Matthew is totally invented and incorporated in this Gospel some time after the original drafting of the same, there is ample evidence by fact that the birth of Luke (a gospel whose redaction has been estimated to be between 70s and 80s) completely ignores the "flight" to Egypt.

The reason because the nativity was inserted, at a late epoch, in the Gospel of Matthew, so you can imagine from that reported by Celsus in his work and that we know by "quoting" of Origen. As you know, in this work was described that Jesus was moved to Egypt, where he learned the magic arts of the Egyptians. That what was widely known among the Jews of the time (and, through them, even by pagan scholars, as demonstrated by the same Celso) is proved by the fact that the movement of Jesus in Egypt is also cited by the Talmud).

It was therefore clear that the 'affair' could not be denied by the counterfeiter fathers, who decided to place the Nativity in the Gospel of Matthew, which speaks specifically of Jesus' journey to Egypt, in order to persuade them devoteds' "audience" that Jesus was actually in Egypt, but in an age so small, about two years, which would have been virtually impossible to learn the magic arts of the Egyptians, thus making appear in the eyes of the Christian followers, truth of the pagans and Jews as a lie! .. The attitude of the Catholic clergy to deceive and lie, it is virtually in its DNA, so that in the early centuries it was considered almost a virtue, as the counterfeiter fathers justified themself by saying that everything was done for favor of the "holy" church and therefore, ultimately, for the same God (sic!)

As for John the Baptist, not only he was born before Jesus, but even before the Virgin Mary: perhaps a dozen years earlier.


Littlejohn

________________________

All of the material posted by Littlejohn, or with other nicknames traceable to him, must be considered in all respects copyright®.
.

IamJoseph

Fine. No contest. This has no contradiction with the Hebrew bible - which records perhaps the only historical and contemporary depiction of ancient Egypt.

The date given for the Hebrew bible's emergence, as per its own texts, is about 1250 to 1400 BCE.

There are not just evidences but hard proof: The Egyptian Stelle mentions Israel [a distinct group] and a war with it. One has to account here, there are no historically written books before this time either. The difference between Moses and Abraham is about 350 years - of this 210 years were quagmired in Egypt. This shows no blatant inconsistancies between history and what the Hebrew bible says.

'believed' does not factor here - there is no contradicting proof.

The Babylon exile occured in 586 BCE - there is a host of evidences of a Hebrew bible being active before this date, backed by numerous archeological relics [e.g. of david and Solomon; first temple relics; etc]. The most obvious proof is that Babylon destroyed an already standing Temple in Jerusalem built by Solomon 3000 years ago; and the Tel Dan find which proved David a true life historical figure. It doesn't get better anywhere else.


No - I only said 4000 years ago - without the BCE.

premjan

Jericho was an urban site in 9000 BC, and Mehrgarh in 7000 BC.

IamJoseph

Here, I'd be more impressed with a 'name' of a person or king from that period than all the C14 determinations. A name signifies a basic, speech endowed human as we know it today. This would make a grey area as b/w for me. The oldest [first] king in all recorded history is Nimrod [Genesis], and the oldest name of a person is Adam circa 4000 BCE.

These are historical names - at least they have the factors which are historical marks and human traits in its texts - such as husband, wife, children, nature of work, domestics, inter-fightings, places of residence, diets, historical names of rivers, etc. Also, these are backed by a calendar and a thread of history sounding details such as listing of offsring and generations. If anyone can evidence older names, it will be interesting.