The history of the Jews point to God existing. Jews exist.

[Asana Bodhitharta]

The Children of Israel(The Jews) are a remnant of the 12 tribes of Israel. They were slaves in Egypt for 400 years until Moses was led by God to go free them.Does anyone deny this historical fact?The Jews have kept the Passover as a reminder for thousands of years.Did the Jewish people just make that up?Even the persecution and the evil that has been done to the Jews is written in the Bible.We know for a fact about the Holocaustsome revisionist want you to believe that didn't happen either.Do you believe it happened?If you don't believe in God you cannot believe in Jewish history.

[Chris OConnor]

[Federika22]

How is it "historical fact" that Moses was led by God to do anything?

[Saint Gasoline]

It may be a historical fact that the Jews were once slaves, because we have evidence of this, but much of the Bible is historically baseless, such as any and all of the historical acts of "God", the various crushing victories by the Israelites that supposedly occurred, and the aimless wandering. There is simply no evidence to think these things happened, and in fact there is even evidence to the contrary.Let me give you an example of why historical records do not prove God's existence. Let's say I give an historical account of, say, Richard Dawkin's life. I use many factual historical truths in my account, but occassionally I say things like, "He saw God in his bedroom" or "God blew down his house". Now the mere fact that much of the history of my account checks out doesn't mean it is all true. If I can't find any evidence of these acts by God, then I have little reason to believe them.Unfortunaely, the Bible is nothing like this example. Very few of its historical records are accurate, and when they are accurate it is only by a very slight margin and filled with exagerrations.

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Quote:It may be a historical fact that the Jews were once slaves, because we have evidence of this, but much of the Bible is historically baseless, such as any and all of the historical acts of "God", the various crushing victories by the Israelites that supposedly occurred, and the aimless wandering. There is simply no evidence to think these things happened, and in fact there is even evidence to the contrary.The first five books of the Bible are Historical and The celebration of Passover is in memory of the time when the angel of death passed over their children and killed the first born of their enemies. Are you saying that the Passover is false and that the Jewish people have lied about their history?That is a bold assertion one which I'm sure you will do us the favor and back up.

[Frank 013]

AsanaThere is simply no historical evidence of any event even remotely similar to the plagues of Egypt, the events that inspired Passover or the exodus. The Bible is not historical in any definition of the word. Dates are wrong there is conflicting information, there are cities listed that did not exist at the time described, and of course no major event has ever been confirmed by other historical records.In fact we really don't even know that Moses ever really lived at all, he could simply have been made up for the sake of the story.If these events did happen there would be some evidence of it, mass graves, writings, tomb inscriptions, soil samples, and records of events from both Egyptian and other record keepers. But there is nothing to support such a claim. In fact much of what has been discovered from that era discredits those claims, like the fact that Ramse's first born out lived him. Later

[Asana Bodhitharta]

If you read the Bible you will see that many nations and tribes were obliterated to the point of a footnote in history.The land of Egypt is pivotal and the fact that the Jews remain as a people today surely merits their own history be acknowledged.Will you also argue that millions upon millions of Black people in america were not tortured and killed. Will you say that there were no lynchings because there are no rope marks or ropes left hanging from trees.Quote:AsanaThere is simply no historical evidence of any event even remotely similar to the plagues of Egypt, the events that inspired Passover or the exodus. When the Europeans brought disease to the Indians of this continent, tell me did that happen? There are no mass graves that have been found.It is really almost insane to think that out of 66 books that were written not as fictional stories but were written as non-fictional stories that you discredit every book.Not only do you discredit the non-fictional work but you back that up by saying their tradition is based upon a fictional account.Can you prove that Socrates ever lived? No! But you except the account of Socrates as non-fictional as that is how his information is presented.

[MadArchitect]

Asana Bodhitharta: The Children of Israel (The Jews) are a remnant of the 12 tribes of Israel. They were slaves in Egypt for 400 years until Moses was led by God to go free them.Does anyone deny this historical fact?Actually, it's been regarded as less than definite by Biblical scholars and historians. The existence of Moses as a discreet individual is questionable, though not altogether impossible or even implausible. And it's not entirely certain that the 12 Tribes was a designation of an earlier period or the name given by later Israelites to describe a less-than-definite group of predecessors, much the same way that we Americans talk about our Forefathers.So while I'm not denying that the claims made in the Abrahamic books are possible, perhaps even probably, I don't know that I have good epistemic grounds for treating them as undeniable fact.The Jews have kept the Passover as a reminder for thousands of years.Did the Jewish people just make that up?They might have. We've seen evidence in other cultures of the spontaneous declaration of religious rituals. There are documented instances -- in Japan, Rome, Greece, China, even Christendom -- of the instantiation of rituals by public declaration.What's interesting to me is that, in just about everyone of those examples, the fact that the ritual institution was established "artificially", so to speak, did nothing for those who established those traditions to discredit the rituals. So while I don't think your point about Passover does anything to really support your argument for theism, nor does it threaten to discredit religion as its practiced.If you don't believe in God you cannot believe in Jewish history.That depends, I suppose, on whose version of Jewish history you're judging. Personally, I don't think the historical books of the Bible were written as history in the sense that we, good students of Thucydides that we are, typically use that term. They were polemical, and they presented events in whatever light was most useful for their political or cultural end.Saint Gasoline: Let me give you an example of why historical records do not prove God's existence.I hardly think an example is necessary. Historical records aren't "proof" of anything in themselves, so we should hardly expect them to serve as proof of something so difficult to demonstrate as the existence of God.Asana Bodhitharta: Are you saying that the Passover is false and that the Jewish people have lied about their history?Are you saying that we should take any and all historical documents at face value, and submit to their authority? Would you claim that the Japanese lied when they claimed that the basis for their Emperor's authority was official dispensation from a goddess, and that Shinto rituals are false? What criteria do you use to differentiate between the ritual and historical claims of Japanese Shinto and Hebrew Judaism? Frank 013: The Bible is not historical in any definition of the word.I disagree with that as well. They are historical in much the same manner that other books of the period were historical. The modern tradition of history only started with "The Peloponnesian War". Prior to that, it was the normal course of business to take mythology, folklore and legend as part of history.More than that, the Bible is still useful in historical research as a primary source, and has immense value as a record of the social and cultural influences that shaped the Israelite religion. It happens to be a great deal more accurate in its depiction of later events -- particularly the Babylonian Exile. That's due mostly to the fact that the sections which describe the Exile were mostly contemporaneous documents, while the sections which describe the "pre-history" of Judaism were likely assembled from oral traditions which were themselves likely a blend of legend and cultural memory.If these events did happen there would be some evidence of it, mass graves, writings, tomb inscriptions, soil samples, and records of events from both Egyptian and other record keepers.Actually, prior to settling down in Israel and Judea, the Hebrews weren't likely to leave many cultural marks for anthropologists to find. That's because they were a primarily a nomadic people, and they're cultural artifacts were built for portability rather than cross-generational durability. Nomads generally don't leave much in the way of grave sites or monuments. The point at which they start to transition from nomadism to urban agrarianism is the point at which they become a blip on the archaeological radar, and that's long past most of the events depicted in the Exodus narrative.Asana Bodhitharta: ...the fact that the Jews remain as a people today surely merits their own history be acknowledged.You may have that relationship inverted. The fact that a particular history was, and continues to be, acknowledge is more likely the reason that the Jews remain as a people. The perception of a shared history served as the rallying point, as the basis for a national identification, just as it has with so many other ethnic and national groups (ie. Russians, Germans, the Slavic peoples, etc.).It is really almost insane to think that out of 66 books that were written not as fictional stories but were written as non-fictional stories that you discredit every book.Actually, research by Biblical scholars would tend to indicate that at least a handful of the books of the Bible were written as literary fiction -- Ruth, for example, and Job. Other parts were probably based on folklore. The Bible is made up of a number of literary genres, and the distinction between genres isn't always clearly defined.

[Frank 013]

AsanaQuote:The land of Egypt is pivotal and the fact that the Jews remain as a people today surely merits their own history be acknowledged.All history should be acknowledged, but let's look at the real history and leave out the myth.Quote:Will you also argue that millions upon millions of Black people in America were not tortured and killed? Will you say that there were no lynching because there are no rope marks or ropes left hanging from trees.I don't know about millions and millions but the atrocities you speak of are historical because these events have been recorded by multiple sources at the time of their happening. Quote:When the Europeans brought disease to the Indians of this continent, tell me did that happen? There are no mass graves that have been found.Again the events recorded by multiple sources. Quote:It is really almost insane to think that out of 66 books that were written not as fictional stories but were written as non-fictional stories that you discredit every book.Why, do you think that the ancient Greeks thought their gods were simply fiction? No the Greeks wrote about and worshiped their gods just as you do to yours but their works are now labeled Mythology, as should yours. Even if the intent was to create a truthful account it failed horribly, leaving only fiction or if you prefer, myth.What is really insane is to believe something without evidence.Quote:Not only do you discredit the non-fictional work but you back that up by saying their tradition is based upon a fictional account.I do not discredit anything Historical accounts do. Quote:Can you prove that Socrates ever lived? No! But you accept the account of Socrates as non-fictional as that is how his information is presented.First of all there are several important differences between Socrates and Moses. First of all we have accounts of Socrates from his own writings and from his student Plato.Much of Socrates' life was recorded while he was still alive, by people who were there, first hand witnesses.Lastly there is no mention of Socrates parting sea's, turning rods into snakes or communing with gods. The outrageousness of the Moses claim makes it more suspect so it requires more evidence to support it. Unfortunately there is none to begin with. Later

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Quote:The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates is best known today through his appearance in the Dialogues of Plato. Socrates left no writings behind him.There is no evidence of Socrates ever living. If you accept the life of Socrates based on the Dialogues of plato then by that logic you should accept the life of Jesus by the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.BTW, Do you believe that Mohammad existed?