Historical Records of the Bible and Jesus.

Calling them Solomon's Gate's is wrong without some inscription or marking to verify they were made for Solomon, without that they could have been made for anybody. It is just wishful thinking to say they were made for Solomon.

Dr Michael Magee writes:

"David's Tower in Jerusalem is not David's but Herod's, and David's Citadel in Jerusalem is not David's but Moslem, built by the Mamelukes and the Ottomons, though many devout religious tourists do not realize, or, will not hear, any of it."

From here:

1. http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0150David.php

And: "The tenth century empire of David and Solomon did not exist because there was no Israel at all before the ninth century. Omri was the real founder of the state of Israel and the Omride dynasty (884-842 BC), as the Assyrian records and the Mesha stele say. This was Israel's first kingdom."

From here:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0140UnitedMonarchy.php

Donald Redford, an author and leading authority on the era, writes in frustration at the absence of anything to verify the biblical stories:

"Such topics as the foreign policy of David and Solomon, Solomon's trade in horses or his marriage to Pharaoh's daughter must remain themes for midrash and fictional treatment."

From here:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0160Solomon.php

with many thanks to Segestan

rebutted above.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi all,

Someone whose reading comprehension is so bad they cannot get a simple name correct.

Someone who cannot tell which Don Juan I mean, even when I include (Carlos Castaneda) to make it clear.

Someone who simply ignores the evidence which shows he is wrong.

Yes, entirely fictional characters who were passed off as historical.
Exactly what YOU claimed did NOT exist.

Thus proving you wrong.
You just IGNORED them!

We can all see you are simply unable to address the facts, because you are pathologically incapable of admitting error.

WTF?
Do you even remember what we are arguing?
It appears not.

Adam and Eve did NOT exist - but they WERE passed of as historical for centuries.

Proving you wrong.
Again.


Iasion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hiya,

Really?
I look forward to seeing this "proof".
(I'll ignore the fact that science does NOT do "proof", and consider this to mean "clear and certain evidence".)

Really?
I look forward to seeing this "affirmed".

Really?

So,
40 years ago, a faithful believer made some CLAIMS.
No "proof" there.

So,
these claims did not stand up up so scrutiny.

Here is the meat :
"argue that these findings conclusively prove that they found at Tel Rehov signs of an urban society from the 10th century BCE"

So,
this "proof" for Solomon merely turns out to be a evidence for
"an urban society from the 10th century BCE".

No evidence for Solomon, no evidence for anything to do with the Bible at all. Just an urban society.

What is the connection with Solomon ?
This : "which were attributed in the past to the United Monarchy".

Yet the article is headed
"Scholars excavate PROOF of Kings David and SOLOMON"

when the reality is :
"Scholars find evidence for 10th century urban society".

Once again - all this reveals is occupation in 12th/11th centuries - something we KNOW is true.

But then the article turns to almost to preaching "the digs revealed several strata from the time of the Book of Judges". As if they are EVIDENCE for the time of judges.

This article from the popular press is nothing more than apologetics.

There is NO evidence this site is related to anything Biblical. But to a believer, it MUST be.

It fits.
That's it.
No evidence of any connection, but to a believer, it fits, so it is evidence.

So the historical records of a historical figure are accurate historically. So what? There is no connection to Solomon here.

Proof?
Solomon's gate?
Really?

Does archeology in general agree with these CLAIMS, EmptyForce?

Have you checked the claims in this popular article with modern mainstream archeology?


Iasion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well now your just looking to insult me.

I got your name wrong because i just scan you posts. Sure you may impress a few people here (3 or 4) but i never found you all that compelling. You may also have your own little messianic complex but that is not my problem.

i really had very little interest because i learned about that around the third grade. Carlos Castaneda...give me a break. Tell me how what he wrote about has anything to do with this. Your just shooting blanks.

I see, aside from your insults, that you STILL have not come up with one name to corroborate what you are saying, to show a precedence. I am very sure of the things i say here, not because of animosity, which is your motivation, but just because it is logical. There is no reason to make people up and it would not convince anyone anyway.

You are doing the same exact thing by focusing on one subject and building a story (religion) around that it. This is what conspiracy makers do. I could care less about someones religious beliefs. I look at things subjectively and from the viewpoint of an Agnostic. Never worshiped in churches or temples and never read a holy book. Not that there is anything wrong with that for other people because if you dont bother anyone than it is none of my business.

 

Greetings,

Let's recap -

John99 said this :
"One thing to consider is that no historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person."

Of course it's not possible for a figure that WAS actually historical to have been "made up", so this statement has to be interpreted to mean :

"One thing to consider is that no [purported] historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person."

Yet two of us listed several such figures.

What is wrong with you?
Have you forgotten what YOUR claim is already ?

Carlos Castaneda "made up" a [purported] historical figure that he "passed of as as actual person".

Clear and present evidence that disproves your claim. You just keep pretending otherwise. No-one is fooled.

Liar.
I listed SEVERAL, you have even mentioned one such in THIS post.
Yet you lie that I have listed none !

There are many reasons to make people up.

There are many persons that HAVE been made up, that have been passed off as real people, such as :

Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, David etc.
John Frum (cargo cult)
Molly Pitcher (civil war)
Don Juan (from Carlos Castaneda)
William Tell
Ebion (mythical founder of the Ebionites)
Odysseus, Hercules, Ajax
Krishna
Zoroaster
Hermes

John99 will no doubt just continue to ignore all these examples that prove him wrong.

Quite sad really.


Iasion

 

Iason,

You start your post with "Greetings" and a few lines later this:

You lieing sack of shit.

Nice. Showing your true colors now.

I said pick ONE historical figure that was believed to be an actual person and has been PROVEN NOT to be an actual person.

Not disputed from folklore or some obscure person written about in a book that may or may not be made up. I can go through a Charles Dickens novel and say any character was based on a real person. Not the same thing.

The reason they are not the same is because the level is not the same. The followers, the believers etc. this is what i am looking for. You tell me "molly malone from the folk song in 1822 was not real" what would you like for me to tell you?

And?....

Religions that are\were based on an actual person, a figurehead WERE\ARE based on actual people. Even today we see this. What is so hard to understand? And why is this so hard to accept?

Has nothing to do with weather these people are actual prophets or anything like that. Just common sense, if you cannot handle this then let me know and i will not respond to you anymore.

How can i possibly tell you that Adam and Eve were real or fake? I am sure you think you can though.

 

If you cannot do this then be big enough to admit it. I dont appreciate the name calling.

 

Then don't be such a ?(you choose), formulate a reasoned argument, instead of trying to change the goalpost.
You have been proven wrong accept it.

 

Hiya,

Yup,
And I provided several.
Now you appear to be playing a silly game where several is not one, making ME wrong.

How pathetic.

Ah, so now after being proved wrong, you make up some bullshit reasons to change the argument.

How dishonest.

Scientology has many many believers.
Does that make Xenu real?
Don Juan?
John Frum?
All have/had followers and believers.

And it proves your claim false.
There is a new religion forming around the teachings of Don Juan - believers, followers etc.

Such as the Goddess Demeter?
Or Dionysus?
Or Bacchus?
Or Don Juan?
Or Adam and Eve?
Or Xenu?
Or Mithras?
Or Luke Skywalker?

Or are you playing word games, so you can withdraw to claiming all actual persons are actual persons? You keep mangling your sentences.

Wow.
You cannot tell whether Adam and Eve were historical or not?
How sad for humanity I feel right now :-(


Iasion

 

I see that it proves a settlement existed with resemblece to that of king solomons, it does not directly say anywhere or have inscribed his name to claim ownership of the kingdom. The gates match up with the script but again its not proof of solomon as the ruler.

I am checking all the claims, The mainstream have not concluded that it is king solomons kingdon, there needs to be more evidence that actualy puts his name to it.

Have either of you found anyting else out about this particular kingdom, that you have not mentioned or debated?.


peace.

 

Could you guys keep the bickering to a minimum level pleaee, or add some humour to it atleast if you have to verbaly slap each other like little girls, and keep the debate moving.



peace.

 

Hiya,

So, the article's title was an outright lie.
Your claim that there is evidence for Solomon is false.

Like I said.


Iasion

 

So you will keep believing.
Ignoring the facts.

Solomon's kingdom?
It didn't exist.


Iasion

 

I believe it could be king solomons kingdom, I don't know.

How do you know for sure?.



peace.