Whether you like the book or hate the book if you want to see where your opposition is where the Bible is concerned you should read this book by Kevin Alan Brook, historian. It has 83 reviews on Amazon.com. Posted here is a single positive review.

It is this kind of information that will dismantle the entire system of Abrahamic religions who are now at odds with each other and causing havoc, war and genocide in this world.



"The Invention of the Jewish People"

About a fifth of this book shows how Biblical criticism and archaeological discoveries have undermined the reliability of the Hebrew Bible as history. Archaeology, among other things, has played havoc with the chronology of the Bible, especially in connection with the invasion of Canaan, nor has it found any evidence that would support the story of the Exodus or the splendour of Solomon's kingdom.

But the main subject of the book is the denial that there is such a thing as the Jewish People, descended from the inhabitants of Biblical Palestine from which they have been scattered, and that they are a nation which has now returned to the land of its ancestors. This undermines one of the principal arguments with which the State of Israel legitimizes itself. (There are, of course, other arguments which Sand does not discuss in any depth.)

He says that the Jews began to see themselves as an ethnic people, rather than as a religious community, in the 19th century. (In a 40 page long and massively theoretical opening chapter, Sand explains why for him the word `people' implies ethnicity - hence the provocative title of his book. Others might well say that what has for centuries kept the Jewish `people' together was not their ethnicity but their religion, and even secular Jews belong to that people because their ancestors were religious Jews.) He traces the claim of the Jews to be a nation from the 1880s - when scholars like Heinrich Graetz described the work of Julius Wellhausen, the father of modern Biblical Criticism, as anti-Jewish - to those who present the Biblical account as the foundation charter of the State of Israel, where it is the staple of the state educational system.

If I were not sure of what the answer isn't, I would have no need to ask the question.



I agree. Its called individual perspective.

so WITH FAITH in the intergrity and reliabilty of ones sources things CAN be proven absolutely and universally??? by universally i assume you mean "universally accepted" by everyone.

run on sentence compounded with an incomplete thought, my fault

Without personal experience, nothing can be absolutely proven.

Without faith in the integrity and reliability of ones sources, we have no 'proof' of anything without personal experience.

That will never happen as there are people that will discard real physical facts as coverup in a conspiracy.

There are some that will argue 2+2=4

I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to place my FAITH in the integrity of an ancient culture that used a concept of God to support their male-chauvinism against their own daughters and wives.

No, I see no reason to waste my FAITH on such ignorance.

ID be surprised if anyone in these threads didnt 'get that' about you,,,,lol

Why does anyone invest their FAITH in such ignorance?

That's what I don't understand.

Once they recognize that it is indeed a matter of FAITH and not proven, then why even bother believing it?

Why waste your FAITH supporting something so demeaning?

perhaps the same reason one might 'bother' wasting their time trying to figure out other peoples faith,,,,

so WITH faith in the sources, we DO HAVE proof? not trying to be a smartass. just trying to understand your meaning.

subjective proof that becomes objective when enough SUBJECTS Agree to it,,,,but still not absolute proof,, no

i'd never discard real physical facts. of course we just might disagree what a "real physical fact" actually is but if you think you can give me an example of what you consider is a real physical fact about god i'll take a look.

Determining what is or is not a "fact" boils down to the individual. Unless you want to throw out your own authority and simply accept the authority of others.

It is information, [all information] that has to be looked at. Forget the devil in the tiny emotional details. Evaluate the flow of information and you will see and feel the flow of the human consciousness. Yes most of it is garbage, but a good over-all rational and logical look at the whole will net the truth.

So lets start with the Bible. Where is the proof that Abraham or any of those people including Jesus even existed? If there was real proof, the Bible would be a history book instead dependent on "faith."

I have seen and heard so much crap and lies that I have become un-trusting of any so-called "authority" or "official story" of history or of the "news."

So since "Jewishness" and the state of Israel thrives on the idea that they are "God's chosen people" and with that, they have convinced the people of the world that they deserve to return to their homeland or the "promised land" I ask for proof and a complete investigation of the true lineage of the Jewish people.

I ask for indisputable proof of the existence of Abraham and all the characters having to do with that story including Jesus.

I believe the Bible is pure fiction and plagiarism. It has been discredited many times by many different people. Anyone who tries to insist that it is true history, I say bring forth your indisputable proof.

So in search for the truth of the tribal wars going on in this world today, I say to all Abrahamic religions, bring forth solid proof and stop puffing up about your "faith."

I am not asking anyone to prove or disprove the existence of a God. I want you to prove without any reasonable doubt that the information you base your beliefs on (the Bible) about Israel's right to have a so-called "Promised land" and the lineage of the Jewish people is true.

The only way to do that is to research without prejudice. First prove or disprove that Abraham, existed. Prove that Jesus, Mary, etc. actually existed.

I don't think you have a leg to stand on there. But you can start by learning the true lineage of the self styled Jewish nation of Israel.

Its not that you have a stand on an issue, its that you have a stand that appears irrational and bigoted to others, which is also very much in line with what has recently been a very visible dogma (amongst some) of your religion. Most of the time, when this is the case, there is a causal relationship - so its not surprising people might jump to the wrong conclusion.



Okay, its my fault for bringing it up; I'm hoping this tangent doesn't lead this thread off topic.

May you always feel blessed by the power that holds your faith.

Perhaps when we speak of acceptance and tolerance each of us has a different understanding of what acceptance and tolerance is. Msharmony, for example, gave her understanding of the terms and they are quite different than my own.

I had a feeling this was so, which is why I posed some questions about the words.

What do you think MyLife?

How would you define toerance and acceptance?

When would tolerance be more beneficial than acceptance or vis-a-vis?

In what cases would tolerance and acceptance be expected to have a reciprocal exchange?

I have absolutely no problem with people who want to believe in Christianity for themselves. That's perfectly fine with me. I respect that as being a valid way to show a desire to honor God and Life.

All I ask from the Christians is to give me the same respect. If I choose to worship God through a different spiritual picture, just acknowledge that my way is just as valid. I'm making a sincere effort to honor God and Life.

They don't need to actually believe like me. They can believe that my views of God are utterly absurd. That's fine with me. All I ask is that they respect that, for me, it's a valid way to worship God and Life.

Then we could all get alone, and in theory we could even worship side-by-side. Although in practice that would be highly impractical since our spiritual rituals are quite different and would not meld together very well in a single ceremony.

But the point is that we should both recognize that we are both doing our very best to worship "God" and Life. And that should be sufficient.

I personally don't even hold it against atheists for not believing in a God at all. As far as I'm concerned even that stance is an HONEST stance to take with an invisible God. At least the atheists are being HONEST with God by saying to God, "Hey, if you can't respect me well enough to show yourself, then why should I bother placing my faith in you?"

That's a valid point. Even as a spiritual person I sometimes feel that way about God. And to pretend that I don't would be DISHONEST.

Why should I be DISHONEST even with God?

Surely if here is a benevolent God it would want us to be HONEST with it at all times.

What kind of a God would expect people to be pretentious just out of fear that they might upset the God if they were honest with it?

If I can't be honest with God, then what value does honesty even have?

I honestly feel that the Hebrew picture of God is utterly absurd and totally without merit.

For me to pretend otherwise would be DISHONEST and pretentious.

It seems to me that God Herself would probably appreciate my honesty, but the Christians would have God hate me for being honest with Him.

And yes, I prefer to think of God in the feminine. Perhaps this is is only to spite the ancient Hebrews and their male-chauvinism.

I realize that the true spirit of God is totally genderless and not even physical at all. in truth, when I think of God in the deepest most spiritual way I think of God as an entity that is so abstract I can't even put it into language. And I love that God.

When I use a personified image to commune with God I typically use female archetypes. But not always. Jesus is even included in my spiritual pantheon. But he's usually hanging out with Buddha, Confucius and Lao Tzu, all of whom are in my spiritual pantheon.

I actually have a huge spiritual pantheon that contains many personified spirits. All of whom I view as actual facets of the ultimate cosmic consciousness that we call "God".

So whilst my spiritual pantheon may seem like a polytheism to the untrained observer, it's actually monotheism. One God.

Not that this is important. It's just the way that it is. That's all.

But no, I don't renounce Christians. I just don't buy into Christianity.

I pass no judgments on the followers of the religion. I'm sure they all mean well. I just reject the religion itself.

And they can do the same for me. Reject my religion FOR THEM, but recognize that it's right FOR ME.

Pass no judgments on my relationship with "GOD".

That's all I ask.

You can disbelieve in my actual religion all you want. I don't care if you think it's crazy and absurd. That's totally irrelevant to me.

Just don't tell me that I'm rejecting God, because that is a JUDGMENT passed directly on my spiritual relationship with God.

You respect my "religion" in this way, and I'll respect your "religion" in the same way.

I don't need to believe in your religion, and you don't need to believe in mine.

From my point of view that is 'acceptance' and 'tolerance'.

I was talking about this statement:



If someone does not want to believe in the topic in question no matter what it is... they will not accept anything as "proof."

This applies to politics just as much as faith.

When was the last time you heard anyone stop and actually say, "You have a point. You just proved me wrong. I will have to rethink this with this new evidence."

There was this thing called world war two where this leader of a country thought it would be a good idea to kill all the Jews. That is enough in itself.