Exodus Decoded program

Yanny:

Let’s be honest here, the volcanic eruption is documented and there are Egyptian texts describing the exodus of the jews.  Though, no where does anyone say how many left.

Yes, a volcanic eruption is documented at a certain time in history. It’s not like Egypt isn’t right next to a major fault line. One such eruption happens to coincide with the rough time period where we guess that the legendary exodus took place.

In terms of that time period - it’s a guess. It may very well be right, but its an educated guess. The show makes the mistake of using words like “fact” and “proof” for conjecture.

Dont believe that program.  For many years now the isrealies have been trying to prove that they alone should be allowed to live in isreal by digging up artifacts and when they find them they dont let anyone who isnt jewish check them out.  They find something say its real and then have a jewish archeologist from usa or france or someone check it out and say yep thats real, while no-one else gets to test it. What crap.  History channel was taken over 3 years ago by a person who hated all the cool military shows and was spitefull of christianity while seeming to love judaism. (liberal?)  Every report or new show is so so biased. (Anyone watch the crusader special a while ago)  Ever since 96 in 6th grade i loved the history channel but now it makes me want to vomit.  Dont get me wrong there is still stuff i like on the channel but wow how its changed. Someone figured out that hey the history channel is unbiased and has shows that inform people.  Lets take it over and put in biased stuff that will inform people what we want them to think.  Just another outlet for liberal brain-washing that goes under the radar.  Liberalism is everywhere now, you have to actively SEARCH for conservative views, funny cause liberals still cant win elections.  Oh and by the way i wouldnt be surprised if that exodus program was half bullshiiiiite.  Even when they say irrefutalbe or its a fact dont immediatley believe what they say.  The way they prove things can always be half truths so you cant stick them with lying.

@Yanny:

Yes, a volcanic eruption is documented at a certain time in history. It’s not like Egypt isn’t right next to a major fault line. One such eruption happens to coincide with the rough time period where we guess that the legendary exodus took place.

In terms of that time period - it’s a guess. It may very well be right, but its an educated guess. The show makes the mistake of using words like “fact” and “proof” for conjecture.

Yea, they are guessing that the eruption happened because most historians agree one did at about that time, given other archeological evidence.  If they did the exodus - which is documented in both Egyptian, Minoan and Jewish histories - and assuming the plagues happened in the order and severity documented in the Bible, then the only logical conclusion is that they happened at 1500 BC when the volcano went.

I fail to see how that’s any more biased then, say, evolution!  You take a few facts and extrapolate the rest.  So did Cameron.

And Bungaloaf, the muslims have been trying to disprove the fact that Israel existed in that region.  That’s why they won’t let anyone dig for judio/christian artifacts in the area.  After all, any proof that the Jews might have actually lived there, as the entire world knows they DID, lends claims to their right to exist as a nation, and Muslims cannot handle that…they’ve been on record (their military/political leaders) stating they want to kill all the Jews of the world.

When I see the leader of Lebanon kiss the Isralite leader on the lips in public, I’ll believe they are actually looking for a peaceful situation to the multiple situations they ahve over there.  As they say:  “your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear a word you say.”

thats a liberal jew ploy that you eat right up.  I saw them say that on the damn documentary in the 15 minutes that i wathced it.  The muslims know the jews lived there, everyone does.  The liberal jew will tell you that the muslims want to deny the fact that jews lived there.  Preposterous right. But they say that even though the muslims do know that the jews were there.  The muslims are really afriad of what i talked about earlier, jewish archeologists who either forge something (you have to remember 3 years ago when the archeologists in isreal "found a tablet that said james brother of jesus.  the liberal press was all over it saying this could be proof of jesus having a family. The vatican went nuts and said they wanted to see it but were denied.  This lasted for a while with the jewish archeologists saying it was fact until it was tested by a non jewish expert who claimed it to be a very very good forgery.)      so they might forge something or put a find out of context, say its a fact, and burn the muslims as anti-semites if they try to deny it or even better get mad about it.  Thats the muslims real fear.  If a archeologist “finds” something and then has a friend or fellow isreali or fellow hebrew back it up as fact and try to get it into the annals of history as fact.  Then it becomes real hard to disprove because people will write off your claim as being made by a blowhard.

I fail to see how a tablet saying “brother of christ” is a controversy.  The Bible specifically states taht Jesus had brothers and sisters.    I don’t even think the powers of heaven could pull of a miracle of a straight man married to a woman in that day and age that never has sex with his wife.  That’s even harder to believe then the story we all evolved from amino acids!

@Jennifer:

I fail to see how a tablet saying “brother of christ” is a controversy.  The Bible specifically states taht Jesus had brothers and sisters.    I don’t even think the powers of heaven could pull of a miracle of a straight man married to a woman in that day and age that never has sex with his wife.

That goes along with the CORRECT definition of “virgin” from that time period, which unfortunatly also destroys the concept of the Immaculate Conception.  But hey, who is concerned with facts, right?

Immaculate conception just means Mary never knew a man’s touch before Jesus was conceived.  It never said she stayed a virgin for the rest of her life.

This is my biggest problem with the Catholics.  They still view her as a virgin when the Bible specifically states on a few occassions that Jesus had brothers and sisters.  Although, it has been brought to my attention that many Catholics believe that Mary herself was “virginal” because she was free from sin when Jesus was conceived in the womb.

However, I hold to the more traditional method and feel she was a virgin because she had never had sex with a man and I see no contradiction, even if Jesus had brothers and sisters, which he obviously did because they are mentioned in the Bible.

Actually, the definition of virgin from that time period is a woman who is her own person.  It came into widespread use in the last part of the first millenium BCE.

It was not until the middle of the first millenium CE that it came to be “never having had sex”, and the Catholic Church played the leading roll in the re-defining of the word.

You should also note that there is a specific ecclesiastical definition of virgin which means an unmarried or religious woman… and Mary certainly fits THAT definition, even if Joseph was getting all he wanted.

Or it could just mean she was a Virgo…  :mrgreen:

we’ve talked about this befoe.  Brothers and sisters could mean friends, followers, or cousins.  It doesnt immediatley mean direct brothers or sisters.  Anyone else get me here.  You dont have to take it in the literal and the bible doesnt explain more.  If jesus DID have real direct brothers or sisters i think we would of heard about them more.

Except that making Jesus into a “real” person, Yeshuah of Nazareth, serves to downplay the concept of him as some super-human son-of-God entity.

Afterall, if he had siblings, if his mother actually had gasp sex, then all of the sudden, you have to deal with the concept that perhaps Yeshuah was just a really great philosopher.

And 2000 years of massive funding and 1500 years of exclusive control over publication and education by the Catholic Church certainly would have stamped any such reality based hypocrisy out centuries ago.

Not so, Switch.

Jesus was born of a virgin, but his brothers and sisters were not born of a virgin.  The record of brothers and sisters does not in any way effect his divinity any more then discovering that light is both energy and a particle effect the ability of the sun to give us light and warmth.

It is just more information, is all.

OK, Yeshuah was born of a Virgin.

So, is Mary a Virgo; her own woman; perhaps not actually married to Joseph at the time; or did biology turn a 180 and a woman gave birth with no intercourse?  Or maybe Yehsuah was a “spit baby” (look it up, not appropriate to define on a this forum).

I am more inclined to believe that the “immaculate conception” was something that was added to the myth of Yeshuah after the fact in order to provide a means for the Church to keep women subservient.

But then again, I am a non-Christian cynic who places about as much faith in the honesty and integrity of the Council of Nicea as I do in the Bush Admin, and perhaps even less than you place in SCOTUS.

virgins meant virgins back then switch. The egyptians ancient greeks all were obsessed with virgin priestess’…  MAny priests had to abstain from sex for a certain time before performing a certain ritual.  The oracle at delphi had to be a virgin her whole life.  In ancient times many civilizations had this understanding that virgins or virginity was someone good and holy.

Delphi is where the meaning of “her own woman” comes from.  The women remained unmarried, thus “virgins”, but they did engage in intercourse.

No one in this thread has been using the term “Immaculate Conception” correctly (at least according to the official Catholic doctrine) …

The term Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of MARY, not of Jesus. It states that Mary was born without original sin. It was made into an official Catholic dogma on December 8, 1854. Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus!

switch, so so wrong.  I’m a history major and they teach that yes they are virgins because of no sex.  Enough of the liberalism trying to demote what virginity is.  Its not what you want it to be.  Keep trying for all i care.  Delphi, no sex, had to be clean, sex made one not pure enough.  Everyone had their reasons for virgins, and i dont mean their strong women who act independently, i mean women who abstain from sex, cause everyone knew the chics got a hymen and they were mystified by it.

are you sure avin? second are you catholic.

Yea, Avin’s right.  In the CATHOLIC version of the faith Mary was the only person after Adam and Eve to be born without original sin.  Thus she was a “virgin” to sin.  Of course, the Bible clearly states that no human is free from sin, all have sinned and all are sinners.  So I really don’t see the whole point to that line of reasoning.

I, and many MANY of the world’s religious sects, believe that Jesus was created by the egg of woman and the seed of God.  Thus, he was God incarnate or God in the Flesh.