Jim And Penny Caldwell's Archaeological Findings:

[Akheia]

Sorry I've taken so long to come back to you guys.  You've certainly given me much food for thought.  What started as a plausible 'down to earth' possibility, has opened a big can of worms.  Upon reviewing the Caldwell's findings, and reading their account, I was struck by how 'natural' the wanderings of millions of people in a desert (as portrayed in the Bible) could be.  The area in Saudi Arabia meets all the geographical etc criteria that would accommodate such a crowd, and whilst being skeptical that the sites found were the original ones, it enabled me to see how encampments, altars, a rock with gushing water etc, could have been a real occurrence.  You would need to watch the video I linked to, to appreciate where the Caldwell's are coming from.

 

As for that can of ever riggling worms........I cannot in all honesty, resolve the theological claims e.g the fall, with what science is revealing about our world.  I know 'Christians' who have no problem disregarding large chunks of the Bible that contradict science (and common sense) and hold onto the parts that do make sense: 'love each other'.  It was this 'cherry picking' that brought me to my crisis of faith recently, because I've always been of the opinion, that if one part of the Bible is suspect, then how can you rely on any of it?  The NT validates the OT, and so I don't think it's possible to throw out a part you don't happen to like.  I'm still holding out hope that Someone is out there listening (I can't help it, this hope is a part of me and never seems to wain) and so I've told them (like Margee did) that I just can't make sense of the Bible and for this Person to help me understand what it's all about (our existence).  I don't want to accept that there is no point to our existence and that my hopes, loves etc are merely a result of combinations of molecules.   My friend sent me a Christmas video the other day, that although is quite cheesy, actually brought a tear to my eye, because I could see the love and goodwill in people and how we are affected for 'good'.  Check it out:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Vnt7euRF5Pg&vq=medium

 

My heart goes out to you. I know this isn't an easy time for you, as you begin to question the old assumptions. It's like breaking free of codependency or any other addiction. As BAA's said, that video is meant to manipulate you. Sounds like it worked. 

 

I really want you to go further in your education efforts. You think it's even vaguely plausible that millions of Jews, donkeys, and goods wandered the desert for 40 years? Funny, the Egyptians stationed all around that area never mentioned them, and we've never not even once not even a little ever found any Jewish encampments out there from that era. Or any other really. Not to mention that, um, the Jews weren't actually in the enslaved situation that Exodus posits them as being in before their wandering, and that the Plagues aren't mentioned by anybody of the time at all so why were they wandering at all? The Caldwells start with an assumption ("IT'S FOR REALZIES GUIZE") and look for stuff that confirms it and ignore stuff that doesn't. That isn't how science works. They admit they're not real archaeologists and aren't following proper procedures or submitting their crap to peer review. The thing about how meeeeaniepie Middle Eastern gubmints aren't "allowing" people like them to handle priceless artifacts is a false canard. They're certainly allowing actual real archaeologists to do tons of research in the area, even in scary areas like Syria. Hell, some Westerner just found a Roman villa in Turkey (okay, it's not M.E. totally, but it sure isn't a progressive evil liberal socialist country like MURKA). Why do you take their assertion of the reason they're not allowed to grub with real archaeologists on such blind faith? They assert that skepticism is bad; along with this is the implicit and even explicit assertion that blind belief is better. NO. Real archaeologists are skeptical. We want reasons, facts, support, evidence. But the Caldwells don't have that, so they fall back on the standard evangelical distrust of objective facts.

 

The unavoidable conclusion I have based on the letter you reprinted: They're flat-out telling you they are not reliable at all and are not only hostile to real archaeology but distrustful of established procedure. So why do you want this to be true so badly that you're willing to suspend all skepticism and rational thinking?

 

And WTF does it matter if there was a "real" Mount Sinai? There's a real Mount Olympus, too. Doesn't mean any of the Greek myths I love and cherish so much are "real" in the sense of being objective facts.

 

You don't need Christianity to know to love your neighbor or do good deeds or show charity to those who need it. But pseudo-scientists like the Caldwells wouldn't be able to sell books about their fake discoveries without it.

[Akheia]

BlackCat, this also was something that makes me sad:

 

I don't want to accept that there is no point to our existence and that my hopes, loves etc are merely a result of combinations of molecules.

 

You are falling prey to the Christian false dilemma that either there's "someone out there" GIVING you your purpose and a point to life, or there's no purpose to any of it at all.

 

Of course there's a point to existence. Of course there's a purpose.

 

It's just not one that is handed down to you from on high by a sky fairy.

 

Oh, that'd be so easy, wouldn't it? That'd be so convenient and simple, if we could say that yes, yes indeed, there is someone out there handing out our Life Assignments and giving significance to our puny little lives. I'm watching a series on Netflix now called "How the Universe Works" and holy shit there is some big, crazy, downright huge stuff in our universe. How nice it'd be to think that tiny little humans have some cosmic purpose in the middle of all that mind-bending glorious nature.

 

 

The reality is both more awe-inspiring and more grueling than any imaginary handed-down purpose could ever be:

 

We make our purpose. We make our lives matter. We give our lives their point. We make it happen. We give it shape and form. We hand ourselves our own life assignments. We are the guru at the top of the mountain telling our seeking selves what we should do next.

 

How many times did you get told or think in prayer that you'd found out God's will for your life? And how many times did that turn out to be true? God "meant" me to get married to my Evil Ex. God "meant" us to go live the rest of our lives in Japan and get filthy ludicrously rich teaching English (HA!). God "meant" us to start this ministry. God "meant" us to go into business in a particular field. All of these "meanings" were confirmed by pastors and men of God; they were accompanied by visions of success and profit and souls won. The reality turned out to be false every time. Evil Ex turned out to be abusive and crazy. We landed in Japan a month after a typhoon destroyed their economy and took the demand totally out of the ESL market. The ministry floundered despite our best efforts. The business went bust. Either I consistently was wrong about just what God's "purpose" for me was, or God's purpose was for me to fail, be hurt and terrorized, go bankrupt, and become a social pariah.

 

I've got no reason to believe that any other deity or religious system would be different. I'm a pagan, yes, but I don't think there needs to be a "purpose" handed down to you. If there is, there certainly isn't any consistent or reliable way to figure out what that purpose might be, so it's worse than useless that there is one at all.

 

How much more life-affirming it is to know that my purpose is not handed down from on high!

 

Question everything.

[pratt]

if god is depicted as in the 1st five books and the events are true,,,,

 

god killing the first borns of eygpy, commiting grenocides just for a promise, what a sicko god,,,,

 

if it was not egypt but saudi, how much of the book is true n which is ntrue

[Joshpantera]

Refutation of the Caldwell's, again: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/Is-Mount-Sinai-in-Saudi-Arabia.aspx

 

The natural rock spring, the neolithic period cattle drawings that pre-date the supposed Exodus, and the marble pillars that post-date the supposed Exodus, come together to show how this is just as errant as the first attempts to claim historicity for Joshua's conquest, which all fell flat after the sites were dated properly. It's all in the links I provided earlier and once again above.

 

We'd have to first find credible evidence for the Jew's even being enslaved in Egypt before any credible evidence for the Exodus could ever hope of being established. The sites the Caldwell's raise have no tie to wandering Jews from Egypt, actually quite the contrary with sites dating to diverse historical periods both before and after the supposed time of the Exodus.

 

This is like seeing the face of Jesus in a piece of toast, in all honesty. A cloud that looks like this or that. The Caldwell's are using creative imagination to try and force fit these findings into the Exodus myth. The deeper you search the more obvious that will become....

[Ravenstar]

Historicity...

 

Jericho

 

Tyre

 

The list where the Bible is wrong historically is long. When you look up the actual archaeology and then read the OT it becomes apparent that the Hebrews were really good at self-justification and propaganda. The Bible paints them to be major players in the ancient Middle East but extra-biblical sources (and there are a LOT of them) barely mention them - at least not to the extent we might think. Of course there is some historicity in the OT, they couldn't get everything wrong as the oral traditions do come out of that time period... The larger cultures such as Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, etc... left us reams of writings.. Tablets, Stele, papyri, etc.. they wrote on everything, about everything...  and though there is evidence of interactions with the Hebrews they were never on the level of these other cultures. (It may be interesting to note there is some scholarship which equates the Hyksos with the Hebrews). And wouldn't the effect on Egypt have made SOME impression... some story about how their gods were upset to explain the plagues? There is nothing in the Egyptian records that even suggests this.(That I know of)

 

It is unfortunate that the Bible numbers the 'slaves' from Egypt to about 2-3 million... it would be easier to justify the story if the numbers were smaller - but that's a whole lot of people (women and children too) to move, without evidence, through these lands. You would think they would have left something along the trail. The garbage alone would have been incredible. Broken pottery? camps? livestock? How do you feed that much livestock and people? Magic is the only answer.

 

Archaeology is not a discipline that can give 'proof' like say, chemistry, though. Maybe we will find out more... but so far the evidence says no... it is highly unlikely it ever happened.

 

an aside: I find it very interesting that the early site of Gobleki Tepe, in Turkey, which seems to be a temple and is about 12,000 year old (neolithic period), doesn't seem to have any connection with Hebrew beliefs... it far predates them. What does that say about the bible and it's claim of being an accurate account of humanities beginnings?

 

There IS meaning to life, even without a 'god'. If anything it makes life more precious, at least it does to me.

[BlackCat]

Thank you guys for the continued interest and help in this matter.  A lot of good points have been made and so I'll go over them in the next week or two.  There's much merry making to be done in the next week or two and so I'll probably not have much time til the new year.  Big hug to you Margee.

 

Joshpantera- I've had a look through that link and will email Penny Caldwell in the new year regarding the points made in it.  Thank you for providing it. 

 

Wishing you all a peaceful and happy holiday season. 

[Joshpantera]

You too Blackcat, merry Christmas!!!

[Ravenstar]

Happy Holidays!

[falemon]

The Jesus mentioned in the scripture couldn't possibly have thought those past events to be literally true, lest he'd be committing false prophesy in his eyes since he knows there is no God to be a Son of. Therefore I say that either Jesus existed with the sole intention of making things up, or he was made up

[bornagainathiest]

The Jesus mentioned in the scripture couldn't possibly have thought those past events to be literally true, lest he'd be committing false prophesy in his eyes since he knows there is no God to be a Son of. Therefore I say that either Jesus existed with the sole intention of making things up, or he was made up

 

The Jesus in scripture knows there is no God - making him an Atheist? 

 

This 'atheist' Jesus thinks he'd be committing false prophecy against a non-existent God?

 

Which is why he couldn't have possibly thought that Genesis was literally true?

 

Because to think that would be to commit false prophecy against a non-existent God?

 

 

 

Sorry?

 

BAA.

[falemon]

This 'atheist' Jesus thinks he'd be committing false prophecy against a non-existent God?

I certainly could have written it more clearer. Ignore the "knows there's no God to be a Son of", though I think my trail of thought was that to make the claim of being the Son of God requires serious delusions or someone who really doesn't believe in God because that's just not the sort of thing you think by mistake. It was either that or a sort of private joke to myself that the Son of God would know all that God knows, such as the fact that God does not exist (a paradox) All assuming Jesus did exist and the Bible is a true account of him (which it couldn't have been because of the miracles).

 

And if Jesus existed, was clinically sane and made the claims to be the Son of God he couldn't have possibly believed the literal Genesis account if the Bible, otherwise he would knowingly be falsely prophesying. The written account is either fictionalised, distorted or just plain exaggerated and gives no insight into how the Genesis account was interpreted by the Jews.

 

Maybe the main point is, the NT is nothing to go by by any means. It is text better taken as fiction that may be based on some events in the real world, but might not be.

[Akheia]

Wait, is this where we make diagrams with straws?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

It is unfortunate that the Bible numbers the 'slaves' from Egypt to about 2-3 million... it would be easier to justify the story if the numbers were smaller - but that's a whole lot of people (women and children too) to move, without evidence, through these lands. You would think they would have left something along the trail. The garbage alone would have been incredible. Broken pottery? camps? livestock? How do you feed that much livestock and people? Magic is the only answer.

 

 

I've always wondered about the number of livestock.  In the desert with little or no rainfall, would the dung of the animals be preserved by some means over millenia?  Also, did the animals eat manna from heaven, and if not, then what?

[falemon]

I've always wondered about the number of livestock.  In the desert with little or no rainfall, would the dung of the animals be preserved by some means over millenia?  Also, did the animals eat manna from heaven, and if not, then what?

Not to mention the amount of bodies they would have to bury over the 40 year period, something that even the most skeptical never mention Given the average life expectancy was so low at the time of Rameses II just about everyone over the age of 5 would have died Now the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of that says a lot.

[Joshpantera]

That's a good point. Where are all the bodies? 

 

But the biggest problem to this whole fiasco is first establishing the Israelites in Egypt living as slaves at any point in history whatsoever. Then if that were ever established, then where's all the bodies along the way in the desert? And where's the reports from all of the Egyptian outposts from the region reporting these run away slaves? Then why does the conquest of Canaan not add up to one sweeping campaign in the supposed time of Joshua but rather different cities falling at different times well outside the scope of such campaign by Joshua. 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDDs8HgOZ4o

[stryper]

 

I've always wondered about the number of livestock.  In the desert with little or no rainfall, would the dung of the animals be preserved by some means over millenia?  Also, did the animals eat manna from heaven, and if not, then what?

Not to mention the amount of bodies they would have to bury over the 40 year period, something that even the most skeptical never mention Given the average life expectancy was so low at the time of Rameses II just about everyone over the age of 5 would have died Now the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of that says a lot.

 

 

 

Everyone over the age of 5 does die.  

[Akheia]

The easiest way to read the OT is to take it as a nation-building narrative, a deliberate building of cultural mythology. I see the same revisionist history-making happening right here in the good ol' US of A with this craziness with "the USA was founded as a Christian nation" bullshit the fundies spew. Their ploy would have worked, too, except for the internet and its damned dog. The Hebrews didn't have access to the information we do today, and had far less scientific knowledge than we do about even basic stuff like plate tectonics and medicine; it makes sense that they would fall for the propaganda efforts, while in the US, there are enough sensible people that the revisionists are having a way tougher time selling their snake oil.

 

But to read any of it as actual history is problematic in the extreme, and as BAA's said, it brings with it problems that its adherents hadn't even thought about. The Caldwells are doing what they're doing to try to legitimize their version of their religion. If what they found disproved their religion, they sure as hell wouldn't be pushing it like they are. "The OT is REALSIES" = "Jesus Christ and Christianity are totally REALSIES" to them. But even if the OT retold valid history, it would not validate their religion. "Jericho fell at such-and-this year" doesn't translate to "so therefore Yahweh is real." And that's what the Caldwells are using this fake history to try to establish.

 

I'd be way more impressed if the Caldwells actually got formal education in archaeological techniques and revisited their erroneous findings later, but apparently that's too much trouble. No, no, they'll just charge in all INDIANA JONES on that shit. Education is for pussies. LOOK, A STELE, Y'ALL!

[bornagainathiest]

 

This 'atheist' Jesus thinks he'd be committing false prophecy against a non-existent God?

I certainly could have written it more clearer. Ignore the "knows there's no God to be a Son of", though I think my trail of thought was that to make the claim of being the Son of God requires serious delusions or someone who really doesn't believe in God because that's just not the sort of thing you think by mistake. It was either that or a sort of private joke to myself that the Son of God would know all that God knows, such as the fact that God does not exist (a paradox) All assuming Jesus did exist and the Bible is a true account of him (which it couldn't have been because of the miracles).

 

And if Jesus existed, was clinically sane and made the claims to be the Son of God he couldn't have possibly believed the literal Genesis account if the Bible, otherwise he would knowingly be falsely prophesying. The written account is either fictionalised, distorted or just plain exaggerated and gives no insight into how the Genesis account was interpreted by the Jews.

 

Maybe the main point is, the NT is nothing to go by by any means. It is text better taken as fiction that may be based on some events in the real world, but might not be.

 

 

Dear Falemon,

 

With all due respect and courtesy, can I ask you a big favor?

 

Please try and put yourself in BlackCat's shoes for a moment.

 

If you go back to BlackCat's opening post, you'll see that she's struggling to let go of her former, Bible-based beliefs and that she's asked Margee and the rest of us for help in evaluating the claims made by the Caldwells.  Then, if you read what she says in message # 21, you can see that she's troubled and trying to resolve issues about what scripture says.  She admits to being locked in a struggle between her head and her heart in # 23.  In the same post she talks about how certain Bible passages should be interpreted and how she still feels the urgent need for there to be a God who will 'fix' everything in the end.  Please also read Margee's words to BlackCat.  In doing so you'll see that Margee is offering exactly what BlackCat needs at this dificult time - empathy and common experience.

 

Now, each and every one of us Ex-Christians has our own unique experience of how we came to doubt the Bible, how we came to doubt in God's existence and ultimately how we came to de-convert from the Christian faith.  However, there are certain common patterns of thought, feeling and experience (in the slow, painful process of deconversion) that seem to recur.  When I first read BlackCat's opening message, I saw some of these patterns and I felt that I could relate to them and therefore be of some help to her.  That's why I replied to her.

 

Ok, now for the difficult part. (gulp!   )

 

Falemon,

Of course you are free to express your opinions and thoughts in this forum.  I also happen to agree with your idea that the NT contains made-up (fictional) content and we should therefore be careful in how we interpret it re: the book of Genesis.  So I'm not saying you're wrong, ok?  However, imho, such an approach ('it's all fiction') is of limited help to BlackCat.  From experience I've seen that it's more helpful to work thru these Bible-related issues and to demonstrate their flaws and inconsistencies, on a point-by-point basis.  Which is what I've been trying to do. 

 

So, once again, let me say that I'm not saying you're wrong.  Nor am I saying or hinting that you should shut up and/or quit this thread.  No, sir!  I don't have any authority to do that - nor would I do it.  What I am getting at is the idea that, in certain situations, certain opinions and thoughts are less helpful than others.  Yes, you may well disagree with with my interpretations, my conclusions and my approach, but I'm asking you politely and respectfully to hold back in these disagreements and think of the prime reason this thread exists...

 

...BlackCat's mental and emotional wellbeing.

 

She's asked for help and if you can put yourself in her shoes, can you see that a sweeping statement like, 'the whole of the NT is fiction, therefore Jesus wouldn't have believed X, Y or Z' isn't really that helpful to her?  It may well be true. The whole of the NT may well be fiction.  But just telling her that won't help her much, will it?  She's confused and hurting and needs a careful mix of gentle reassurance, cast-iron facts and a measured approach to the Bible's many claims.

 

This is where Margee's, Josh's, Akheia's and (hopefully) my words come into play.  We've seen troubled and confused people asking for help before now and we've answered their calls.  We've some experience in these matters.  We try to relate and understand and empathize and to treat their questions with tolerance and respect.

 

Now, having just written these things, please understand that I'm not trying to imply anything negative or uncaring about you, your comments or how you've written them, ok?  Nor am I making an unfavorable comparison between you and us, alright?  It's just that this thread isn't simply a dispassionate and coolly-intellectual discussion of Biblical interpretation.  It's more than that.  It's first and foremost about BlackCat.  It's about seeing that she gets the help and support she needs.

 

Therefore, one of the things that needs doing is to look at what the Bible says from a p.o.v. that we might not actually hold to.  This is what I've been trying to do with my 'Jesus-actually-believed-Genesis-literally' line of reasoning.  I'm not claiming that this is absolutely, 100% true.  But what I am doing is trying to work thru the logic of this idea and to explore the consequences of this notion - for BlackCat's sake.

 

So Falemon, can you please cut me the slack to do this?  If I try and make my case in this thread (for BlackCat's benefit) can you please give the space to do so?  I'm asking as a friend, with all due respect and courtesy, ok?  I'm sure that you've a great deal to contribute here and to this whole forum in general and I reckon that we're stronger with you, than without you.  It's my urgent wish that you receive this message in the open and honest spirit it was intended.  If I written anything here that confuses, irks or unsettles you, please don't take offense and please don't hesitate to get back to me.  I'm happy to explain or clarify any point that I've made.

 

Many thanks,

 

BAA.

[falemon]

@BAA: no worries, I didn't fully study the contents of this thread in its entirety when responding, and given the sensitivity of this thread which I did not acknowledge I can see that my comments were well out of place. I will be more thoughtful. At the present time I do not have much to add, but will read through more closely and will respond if necessary.

 

One issue I do have, which I think should be considered is in evaluating the book solely against the book or previously written books rather than with reality in itself. Though regarding Mark 10:6, one of the scriptures commonly used to suggest Jesus' literal interpretation I made this observation:

 

Mark 10:6

archēs - from the beginning

ktiseōs - of creation (or the formation)

epoiēsen - God made [them male]

 

This does not ultimately suggest the beginning of all time and in fact makes no direct reference to any particular time or even place. It could refer to the any creature of the Earth, so from examining the Greek text I'm not convinced that that statement is as specific as is often made out.

 

Now it would be important at this point to consult someone educated in Greek to confirm the full meaning of the word, for example I know that in Hebrew, phrases such as "I am" really mean, "I exist (always)".

 

Ktiseos is used all throughout the NT as a noun referring to the actual created beings, not the act of creation. So it seems that that scripture doesn't even refer to the creation of all time but the beginning of man. That in itself does not necessarily contradict the Genesis, but it also does not necessarily support the Genesis account as literal. If you examine the http://biblesuite.com/greek/strongs_2937.htm'>biblical uses of Ktiseos you will see that it is more often used as a noun and would better be translated as creature, which is done many times in the KJV translation.

[Akheia]

What I love about this forum really is that there is a good mix of people and viewpoints here. We've all walked this road, or are walking it even now. I value what Falemon's brought to the table as much as I value what BAA has, or Margee... we all have different ways of looking at what the bare facts reveal and fitting them into the tapestry of our experience and acquired wisdom. But one thing we don't disagree on is the bare facts themselves. Is there any proof whatsoever of these events? No. Not a shred. Only amateur hucksters would say otherwise--oh, like the Caldwells. It's hardly surprising that they're asking their adoring fans to give them money "for their research" -- it's worth asking why they're not getting funding--or, really, even at least endorsement--from reputable science outfits like universities and scientific groups. No, they're focusing on the Faux News crowd. If they want money from the Religious Right, it's a surefire bet that they're making sure their projects will appeal to them and their pre-set goals of "proving" Christianity true.

Back in that thread about Jesus' historicity, Antlerman brought up something very important which has stuck with me and which I'll paraphrase (though probably nowhere near as gracefully as he made the original point): the bare facts disproving at every single turn the Jewish enslavement, the Exodus, the rising and falls of the various Biblical cities mentioned, the Genesis account, the Fall, the supposed Virgin Birth, the life and death of Jesus himself, all of it, doesn't prove or disprove the existence of Yahweh or any other deity really. It does, however, go far (in my opinion anyway) toward invalidating the religions that arose around that deity. If they can't get history right, especially since their religions' claims center around historical events like the Fall of Man, I have some major issues with what else they've gotten wrong. The only way that Christianity survives if it is understood in the most metaphorical of terms--if there is no literal heaven or hell, no literal Fall of Man needing a redemption event, and no real deity dispensing miracles and holy wrath, then I'm free to disregard its literal demands upon me, and Christianity can take a long literal walk off a short pier. There are lots of other religions that are just as metaphorical that don't make me into a second citizen or hold me personally responsible for something someone did 10,000 years ago.

 

It's important though to at least get those bare historical facts on the table. In an era where spin is everything and the Religious Right's made even the skeptical distrust training and accreditation if that training and accreditation conflicts with their agenda, just getting the bare facts out in the open can be a struggle.

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for your informative and sensitive reply Falemon. 

 

I appreciate what you say and your also input on Mark 10:6.  As it happens, I can't respond more fully right now, but will do tomorrow or asap, ok?

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

[falemon]

@Akheia: Neil Tyson makes an important point about approaching life and particularly our beliefs with a scientific mind. It is far too easy to believe things because you've always believed it, and perhaps you've forgotten where and how that idea entered into your mind. To believe something and not know how it entered your mind is a pretty scary thought.

 

@BAA: That's cool

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again Falemon.

 

I've take some time to look at your Mark 10:6 and 'Ktiseos' information.  Thanks for that.  I agree, that a fully literal interpretation of Genesis is not merited and is unworkable.  However, please note that in the context of BlackCat's appeal, I'm not actually following a completely literal line of argument re: jesus and Genesis.  Please let me clarify the difference.

 

Christian Fundamentalists hold to the following;

*  Genesis is the literal truth and the true history of the origin of the universe, all life, human life and sin.

*  Adam and Eve were real people, as was Noah, Abraham and everyone else mentioned in Genesis.

*  God and Satan are real and interacted with humans exactly as the book of Genesis describes.

*   Noah's flood was exactly as described and only 8 people, in all the world, survived it.

*   And so on...

 

Now, I'm not agreeing with or holding to the above, to any degree.  However, the idea I'm presenting to BlackCat in this thread is this.

 

A familiar Christian argument about Jesus is that he was either mad, bad or God.  I'm suggesting that he was neither God, nor bad, but... mad.  Not a wild-eyed, raving lunatic, but someone absolutely and totally convinced of his own divinity.  Now, I see that you mention the issue of Jesus' sanity in message # 36 and I agree with you, Falemon.  Nobody in their right mind would openly use God's name, for fear of being stoned.  Worse, nobody when being asked to identify themselves would use God's name to do so.  Blasphemy!  Abomination!  Idolatry! 

 

So, can I back my assertion up with anything?  The honest answer is, of course, No. 

But I would suggest that there is a recurring pattern in aberrant human psychology that deserves looking at and comparing to what the Gospels say about Jesus.  Also, there seem to recurring patterns in certain intensely-religious cultures that express themselves in the form a totally-committed (pun intended!  ) leader who creates a personality cult around themselves.

 

Please go to Wikipedia are look up the following pages...

 

List of Jewish Messiah Claimants

List of Buddha Claimants

List of Mahdi Claimants

List of People Claimed to be Jesus

 

Other psychological factors that recur in these 'divine' madmen are a perfect knowledge of holy scripture, perfect recall of said scripture and an effortless ability to re-interpret scripture in new and revolutionary ways.  If you look at those Wiki pages, you'll also see that these 'holy' madmen often clashed with contemporary authority figures, be they religious or secular.  They often advocated radical social change and often paid the price for their attempts to overthrow the status quo, even if their methods were peaceful.  They could also motivate their followers to devote themselves to a cause or a belief, turning these ordinary people into extra-ordinary disciples (and possibly martyrs) of the faith.

 

The Bible and the historian Jospehus mention a certain Theudas, who seems to fit the pattern... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas

 

So you see Falemon, my argument as to who Jesus was, can be summed up like this.

 

He was just such a totally-deluded, but highly-intelligent and persuasive cult figure.  He wasn't the Son of God, but he truly believed that he was.  He wasn't the Messiah, but he was certain that he was.  He persuaded his followers that he was these things because he was able to tap into their psychological needs and desires for such a person. Just as Jim Jones and David Koresh's charismatic hold on their followers 'empowered' them to lay down their lives for him, so it was with Jesus. From that seed, the cult of Christ grew and outlasted him.  Those following in his wake embellished his story with supernatural exploits and they also force-fitted him into the Old Testament by reshaping Judaism to fit the man.  The rest, as they say, is history.

 

This argument is the basis of my discussions with BlackCat.  This is why I've tried to integrate Jesus with Genesis.  I'm not actually saying that Jesus was before Abraham, nor am I saying that he really did see Satan fall from heaven.  What I am saying is that either he genuinely believed these things about himself or that these are embellishments, added to him by his followers.  In both cases, Jesus isn't God and neither is Genesis literally true.  Therefore, the Caldwell' claims carry no weight and hold no water.  The very God these claims are made about does not exist.  By joining Jesus at the hip with Genesis and by showing that Genesis is clearly not history, I'm hoping to show that Jesus cannot be God and the Bible is not history.

 

If BlackCat can see what I'm driving at, I'm hoping that this will help her in her struggle. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BlackCat]

Bornagainatheist, I'd just like to say I really appreciate your comments in message # 43.   Thank you.     This process of deconversion (if that is what is happening to me??) is proving more painful than liberating, and there is that temptation to avoid things that hurt, and go back to 'faith based' reasonings, which offer hope and not dispair.  About 5 years ago, when I felt quite strong in my faith, I thought it would be interesting to go on an atheist forum to discuss with atheists, why they didn't believe in God (yes, if I'm honest, I'm sure I hoped to persuade one at least, that there was a God).   The nastiness, sarcasm, distain and intellectual pride that was poured on me almost immediately, served to reinforce my beliefs- how could such horrible people be right?  Your approach (and many others here) is to kindly and patiently whittle away at points, and I can't stress enough how vitally important it is, to be patient and kind, as the subjects we are discussing and deconstructing (possibly) in the process, are accompanyied by a million emotions  and hopes that have built up around these 'stories' from, in my case, a very young age.  For me to consider that Jesus was a deluded man is like being told that my parents aren't really my parents- they lied to me all my life, and my real parents abandoned me- that's how painful this process is to me, and I know that you understand this.

 

I do see what you're 'driving at'.     I'd forgotten about the talking serpent, 'fall', flood etc, and had homed in on the more down to earth wanderings of ancient Israelites through a region not usually considered for the wandering (maybe that's where the missing skeletons are??), and having considered the 'evidence' provided by the Caldwells, the exodus seemed plausible as a historical event.  I do accept though, that there is a big problem with the zero mention of these events in the Egyptian accounts (thanks to those guys who pointed this out).  The rest of the Bible crumbles, if the Exodus is undermined.  I'm still hoping Genesis can be rescued some how:

 

e.g maybe much of it is symbolic, the fall is a crude way of understanding death (sin is 'sickness' and so we need 'healing' which is usually called 'saving' (even scientists have shown that cells have a clock that kicks in and leads to the cell dying- if you could keep the clock going, then maybe you could keep the cell from dying??)

Maybe the flood was local and exaggerated. 

 

I think you can see how my reasoning is taking me.   

 

I'm going to email Penny in the New Year, regarding the points made in an article that Joshpantera brought to my attention.  I've come this far on the Caldwell's journey, and so I want to get to the truth of what their findings actually mean.  Having watched their story on the link in the OP, and read their book, I don't believe they are 'amateur hucksters'.  I believe they are sincere in their beliefs and endeavours, and yes, they may be badly mistaken.  There's no doubting they have discovered important archaelogical objects, and the ones that are of interest to me, are the stone carvings of the minorah, which Penny discusses in the film at 1.25 to 1.28 so only 3 minutes to watch.  If these carvings can be proved to be as old as the Caldwells's claim, then this surely 'prove' that ancient Israelites did wander in a desert region thousands of years ago and so the Exodus account is then somewhat plausible, although this doesn't prove their God is real etc. but it's interesting nevertheless. 

 

.

[BlackCat]

Joshpantera- thank you for the two film links.  I've got some free time now and so will watch them now.