Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did Abraham ever really exist?

page: 23
54
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

texastig

bug: christianity came along 300 years after the murder of Christ


That is not true. We've got New Testament papyri dated earlier than 300 AD.
Then you have Paul the Apostles epistle of 1 Corinthians dated around 25 AD.


Actually the earliest date for Corinthians is between 53 and 57 CE while Paul is alleged to have spent 3 years in Epheseus and its a letter addressed to the Greek church inCorinth. There couldn't have been a Greek church in 25 CE prior to the crucifixion and proselytization by the apostles following the events that allegedly followed the ressurection. No matter how you interpret the NT I think it's safe to say that the Christian churches we have today hear little if any resemblance to the pre Nicea catechism. What Constantine did was codify the churches a new mechanism if control for the masses. It was a picas took more than a conversion of the heart.




posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Peter

I don’t understand why you say that the book of Deuteronomy was written in King Josiah’s reign. Could you give me reason for this? 2nd Kings 22:8 and 2nd Chronicles 34:15 both say that Torah was found by Josiah’s priest and not mentioned that a portion of Torah was written during his reign. I understand Freedman’s theory that Deuteronomy was authored by others than Moses but isn't this conjecture?

Moses was 120 years old and this book of Deuteronomy is the last of his work just before his death. At this age it is believed that Moses did have a scribe or many scribes and that his hand did not actually scribe the book. Just as Apostle John wrote the Revelations given to him by Jesus, the work is titled “The Revelation Of St.John”. It is also postulated that a scribe added his opinions in this work after Moses died. That is not uncommon even into the days of the Apostles.

Peter, you are correct in much of what you advocate as a secularist. I cannot argue those facts but it seems as though the discussion has morphed from theology to secularism and we both well know that the two will never agree.

The Torah does exist today as the Torah. We will never prove that it exists today as it did when it was created. We both know that also. Oral and written Torah are both Torah and I cannot prove that also.

The secular world dictates physical proof and not theology. I have been trying to mix the two and it cannot be done to the satisfaction of the secular world. I admit that and that is my lesson in discussions with the atheistic world.

If I cannot prove Torah existed in 1313 BCE then I could never prove Abraham ever existed in the year 2000 BCE. That was the original question of this discussion. One cannot admit to a theological character such as Abraham without secular proof and that does not exist in your world. Also if I cannot prove Abraham in 2000 BCE then I cannot prove Nimrod or Terach or any other character of the ancient scriptures. I then cannot prove that the world was of one language at any given time. By this same rule I cannot prove that Jesus or any of the biblical characters ever existed. Actually I cannot prove that a language existed beyond what is shown to this science.

You have asked me for my proof and I admit that I cannot offer proof in a theological format. Otherwise it would not be theology but would be fact. According to my acceptance there was a Rabbi named Rabbi Yaakov Culi who wrote “The Torah Anthology” in 1739 CE. That has been most all of my source along with The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia. Proof? I have no proof that this man ever lived. I accept his literature on faith. This work is in many volumes and is known as Torah Anthology by ME’AM LO’EZ. I studied Genesis volume 1.

The written and oral Torah was given in the year 2448 after creation which is 1312 BCE. The written Torah was not to be memorized while the oral Torah was to be memorized. At the end of forty years in the Exodus (desert), Moses wrote thirteen Torah Scrolls. Twelve of the scrolls were given to the twelve scribes while the thirteenth scroll was given to the Levites to place in the Ark of the Covenant. Moses taught Joshua the oral Torah who in turn taught this to the members of the Great Assembly. There was no written record of the vowel or accents. This continued from 1272 BCE (40 years after the Exodus) to 161 CE-180 CE. It was in this era of 161 CE-180 CE of the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aureleis, that oral Torah was written. Rabbi Yehuda the Prince decided that it must be written in order to be preserved. This redaction became known as the Mishnah.

This Mishnah was completed in 3949 after creation (189 CE) which was 120 years after the destruction of the second temple. Soon after this Rabbi Chiya wrote the book Tosefta and Rabbis Hoshaya and Bar Kapra wrote Bareita. Rabbi Yochanan then redacted the Jerusalem Talmud. All of this was to confirm and explain the Mishnah. It was also that Rabbi Hoshaya compiled the Midrash Rabbah on the book of Genesis, while many other Rabbi’s wrote numerous commentaries explaining oral Torah as well as written Torah. It was then that the Babylonian Talmud (Gemarah) was compiled by Rav Ashi. This work is the compilation of all of the previous work into order for understanding.

The reason I gave you this spiel was to show you that all of this is considered Torah but then again is not the original Written Torah of 1312 or 1313. Yes, oral Torah was written near after King Josiah but according to tradition, the written Torah of Moses was never re written. as the Hebrew Torah. It is true that it was translated into the Greek language but Tradition dictates that it would be unheard of and never to be tolerated to change one character of original Torah. According to tradition the Torah of Moses has never been redacted and was completed as it stands today from 1313 BCE.

`I did misspeak on the Dead Sea Scrolls dates and I apologize for that. You are correct in your challenging me on that issue. I do not understand my own understanding in that respect

There are about 6000 languages known to exist today. Asking many linguists, I have read that most will not agree one with the other in that there is a mother tongue and where this tongue developed. I have yet to hear from your secular world any confirmation of this question. One insists that about 50,000 years ago the Africans were the first to vocalize while another will say that the Mesopotamian cultures were the first to vocalize. Books upon books are written by various linguists and after the smoke has cleared we have suppositions and distant dates that are accepted by the secular world as being science. But then a biblical linguist come to light with the very same credentials and is buried with criticism from the secular world.

Naturally if 50,000 BCE is accepted as a fact then what is a mere 2000 BCE in referencing Abraham? The accepted science of today dictates 50,000 BCE is believable and is published as fact in your secular world while in all reality it cannot be any more observed than my theology. What I am saying is this. Linguists as well as all other sciences have facts with added theological attachments. Then the entire structure is accepted as fact whereas it is not. That is what all of us are being taught. Mix a little fact with a little theory and put it into a book and sell it to the people. That is what I have observed in this forum of “Did Abraham Really Exist”. The answer to the OP is that it cannot be proven to the satisfaction of this secular culture. Thanks peter for being a gentleman.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


That is one of the most honest and forthright posts I have ever seen on this forum. Just thought I'd give a kudos on that front.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Seede
 


That is one of the most honest and forthright posts I have ever seen on this forum. Just thought I'd give a kudos on that front.



I comepletly agree.

@Seede-
Thank you for taking the time to put that all out there in print. We may disagree on a few key points but I certainly respect your opinion as well as the tenacity with which you defend it. Thanks for being a willing participant and giving me the opportunity to put my thoughts out there as well. May your weekend be blessed.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

Most racial ancestors are at least half mythical: see Romulus and Remus, Theseus and, of course, Adam.

I don't know whether Abraham existed or not, but the idea that Mesopotamians originally came from India has solid scientific support: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Only thing is, they appear to have arrived a bit early for Vedic concepts of divinity to have established themselves.

Still, we also know that trade links existed between Mesopotamia, India and the Middle East as far back as the second millennium BC if not earlier, so it's not beyond belief that the Abraham legend is a distorted version of a story that originally came from India.



posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

Well said.

I had a close friend, an artist and political activist who was murdered by a government hit squad in my country (this happenned over twenty years ago, under a different government from the one we have now). My friend was a public figure before his death and became a political martyr and national hero afterwards. Much has been written about him as a result, mostly by people who never knew him in life. I've read a fair amount of this writing, and it always seems to me that they are writing about somebody completely different from the man I'd known since childhood.

A man called Abraham may have existed, but if he did, I don't suppose he was anything like the man of that name who is such a big star in the Bible and the Q'uran.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

Agreed.

A friend of mine went to a funeral one time of her mother's boyfriend. My friend's mother had predeceased this person and my friend was attending the funeral as a social obligation. She was telling me about the funeral afterward and said she was shocked by the glowing eulogy that the deceased had received, plus other statements of praise and affection for this person.

She said, "That's not the person I knew, the one who used to beat up my mother and throw her around the room."

I had a similar shock not long ago when I went to my own mother's funeral and learned that I had grown up in a "perfect nuclear family".

Here's the scoop folks, "All we are is dust in the wind."




posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
So if Abraham didn't exist .... and/or the folklore stories about him aren't true and/or are unreliable, then I guess the big Muslim holy-day of Eid al-Adha is based on nothing
They celebrate Abraham being willing to murder his kid on the order of God?
1 - That probably never happened.
2 - If it did happen ... that's pretty screwed up. IMHO



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

mideast
Abraham rebuilt Kaba

There is no evidence to support that notion. That is obviously a story made up by Muhammad and the early Muslim leadership so that they could invent credibility with the uneducated peasants for their fabricated stories.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


One of these days you're going to have to really let us know what you think of Islam, FF.




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
This was just sent to me via U2U and I just have to post it here.

For those who think that the Hebrews could tell the story about Abraham for 1500 years before writing it down, and get it right .... think again. This is about 'Exodus' ... but it fits just as well with Abraham. It has to do with collective memory and interjection of emotion and belief. It has to do with the fact that archeological facts do not fit with the Old Testament stories. It's 32 minutes. VERY GOOD information.

Basically ... people told and retold the story the way they wanted it to be ... not the way it was.
It can't be banked on to be accurate at all.

Biblical Archaeology



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Basically ... people told and retold the story the way they wanted it to be ... not the way it was.
It can't be banked on to be accurate at all.

Quite!
Excellent vid. Thanks for sharing.
Memory is deceptive.

Well worth watching, so people understand better how it happens/happened.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Hi guys,

I just thought I'd throw a wrench in the discussion.

I happen to be a christian... but a strange one for sure. (If you really need to know, you can read my other posts - and I have plenty!).

I'm not sure I know why I should care whether Abraham existed or didn't.... So what if he didn't exist?

It's really a moot point, because, short of having been there, I personally, am not going to examine all the evidence to the nth degree to prove to myself in absolution that he did/didn't exist. The story requires the belief that such a man existed. Is it so impossible that such a man existed? Call him JehovaDan if you'd like - why is archeology so sure that Jehovadan didn't exist? Is it because they know everything about everything already? Why do they keep investigating anything, if they are so sure?

In fact God in and of himself is a non-scientific explanation for things we cannot explain. What are you people sniffing around? How can you prove the existence/inexistence of God by experimentation? By admission he/she/it is not something you can point to to say there "it" is. How could "it" be out of your reach if you could ever point and say "that is it". We discovered it's fossils in the early 18th century.

If you are a Christian/Jew/Muslim, you have more than just the entirely plausible story of Abraham to go on... In fact, it's archeological proof is not an impediment to believing to begin with.... though it is certainly nice to believe that such a man in fact existed. There is so much that the OP argues about Abraham, as if the rest of the book doesn't matter in so many, many other ways.

Read my posts, if you are truly curious about "God" and what I think - I simply don't have all century to repost these things or even the links - they can be easily had on ATS, and you can rest assured see a great philosophy worthy of a Christian's understanding.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: winnar
Cant even prove jesus existed and that was half as long ago.


This thread would be better if it was "Did Abraham Lincoln exist?" You cannot prove that Abraham Lincoln existed other than what was written down in your books. How do you know that he was even real?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: iosolomon
This thread would be better if it was "Did Abraham Lincoln exist?" You cannot prove that Abraham Lincoln existed other than what was written down in your books. How do you know that he was even real?

Abraham Lincoln existed. It is VERY clear that he did.
Abraham ... not so much. No proof at all. Only folklore from 4500 years ago.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I do believe he lived. It's really hard to get hard evidence with people this ancient but I really do believe he lived. It's too bad that he spawned the three religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In this case, the world would have been a better place without him.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Abraham Lincoln existed. It is VERY clear that he did.
Abraham ... not so much. No proof at all. Only folklore from 4500 years ago.



But you missed my point, what constitutes as proof? Does proof count that your government says it is so? Have you ever met someone who has said, "My great-grandparents met Abraham Lincoln first-hand?" And even if you did, how would you know that they were not making it up? It really is not clear at all that Abraham Lincoln existed, other than what is in our books, and our faith in the government. And that is the same parallel with Abraham. The only proof that is available is what is in our books and our faith (in this case) in religion.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: iosolomon
what constitutes as proof.

We have Lincolns body. We have the bodies of his children. We have the bodies of his grandchildren. Abraham Lincoln Family Tree . His grandson died in 1985. We have Lincolns DNA on his coat from the night he was murdered. We have his DNA on the pillow that his head rested on in the Peterson House as he died. We have the DNA from his children and grandchildren. We have eyewitness accounts of hundreds of thousands of people who saw him, worked with him, and who saw him at his funeral. We have photographs. We have signed documents. We have legal papers that he worked on in Washington DC.

The Lincoln chain of evidence is intact and solid.

Abraham ... there is nothing.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

We have Lincolns body. We have the bodies of his children. We have the bodies of his grandchildren. Abraham Lincoln Family Tree . His grandson died in 1985. We have Lincolns DNA on his coat from the night he was murdered. We have his DNA on the pillow that his head rested on in the Peterson House as he died. We have the DNA from his children and grandchildren. We have eyewitness accounts of hundreds of thousands of people who saw him, worked with him, and who saw him at his funeral. We have photographs. We have signed documents. We have legal papers that he worked on in Washington DC.

The Lincoln chain of evidence is intact and solid.

Abraham ... there is nothing.


I am sure that you said a variation of this hundreds of time in this thread. I still say, you do not know if there is an Abraham Lincoln conspiracy going on. How do you know all of that is authentic? DNA? How do you know it's authentic? Someone just says, who wears a white labcoat, "this is Lincoln's DNA." How do you know that it really is? You don't know. You have no more proof that Abraham Lincoln existed than you do that Abraham existed. All it is is a matter of faith. Some chose to put their faith in the Bible, and others, in the government. Who is right, and who is wrong, and how do we know the nature of anything? This is, of course, a basic epistemological dilemma, but the point is, there is no proof that even you exist. Do you exist? You cannot answer that, so how can someone answer, "Did Abraham exist?" They can't. I mean, it's a cool thread to explore and all, but I'm just saying, you have unrealistic standards



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: iosolomon
I am sure that you said a variation of this hundreds of time in this thread. I still say, you do not know if there is an Abraham Lincoln conspiracy going on.


Then supply evidence that there is. You can't prove a negative, you can only show evidence for what is there or was there.


How do you know all of that is authentic? DNA? How do you know it's authentic? Someone just says, who wears a white labcoat, "this is Lincoln's DNA." How do you know that it really is? You don't know.


The data is peer reviewed and while I haven't looked for Lincoln's, I wouldn't be shocked to find the information stored at the Human Genome Project. Neither the HGP nor the labs checking the data are government affiliated.
I haven't looked yet but the data for comparison may even be available online through the HGP. Not much time right now but ill check on that in a little bit.



You have no more proof that Abraham Lincoln existed than you do that Abraham existed.


I'd dare say a century and a half of historical records and eyewitness accounts in favor of the existence of Lincoln vs. nothing but a mention in the OT/Torah/Talmud in favor of Abraham, patriarch of 3 major world religions is pretty easy math to work with.


All it is is a matter of faith. Some chose to put their faith in the Bible, and others, in the government.


What exactly does the government have to do with history, historical research or DNA samples? All of those exist independently of government.


Who is right, and who is wrong, and how do we know the nature of anything? This is, of course, a basic epistemological dilemma, but the point is, there is no proof that even you exist. Do you exist? You cannot answer that, so how can someone answer, "Did Abraham exist?" They can't. I mean, it's a cool thread to explore and all, but I'm just saying, you have unrealistic standards


You're trying to turn a question of historicity into one of a philosophical nature, two very different schools of thought and practice. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate the approach but when you're talking about things that we have standards regarding the record keeping that do not solely rely on the government the argument looses so,e flavor. Being a historian is not the sole providence of government employees. The vast majority of historians and researchers work independently or for an educational institution.

For example, aside from looking in the mirror, how do I know I exist? Documentation. From my birth certificate to my SS card to my college transcripts to my DD-214 and on to photos there is a great deal of evidence that testifies to my existence. While its true that most documentation of my existence stems from governments whether local, state or federal, there are countless more bits of evidence that I am here. Photos and videos with friends, people wh have seen me perform with my band, promoters and management ive worked with, YouTube videos.

Essentially what I'm getting at is that others aren't utilizing unrealistic standards because you're trying to apply philosophical standards to a system of research comprised of different standards and you can't do that.






top topics



 
54
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join