Interesting show coming up on PBS:


Also, here's an interesting review from a genuine Biblical scholar on the book, Who Was Jesus, Fingerprints of the Christ, written by fellow conspiracist thinker, D.M. Murdock, aka "Acharya S":

I will be looking forward to this program. A few years ago I talked to Acharya S about doing an interview here. She almost did, but became too busy.

If this is true about Abraham this effects several religions if anyone wants to take the Bible literally. It also effects the lineage of Jesus. I would assume it would also effect the Bahai's since they work with several religions. I wonder how the Muslims will react to this.

It looks as though the "Promised Land" will have to be considered a place within ourselves.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Many of those items such as...


...were brought up in her first book The Christ Conspiracy. Needless to say, it has been a lightning rod for those you busy themselves with the debate over historicity.

-TC

The question of historicity is a good one...

You could ask what is the historicity of say Nebuchadnessar, Cyrus the Great or Pharoah Necho or Alexander..? all of whom appear in the Bible (at least Alexander was probably mentioned as well as his Selucid successors in the Deuterocanonical .. Well no one will probably contest them because they were also archeological and other historical material about them...

That Abraham may not be mentioned outside the Bible and the Qur'an may pose a problem for some... but recall that most people are also unmentioned in history except perhaps some trade people who left their transactions in cuneiform but the average sheep hearder and hunter gatherer will not be mentioned.

Would we say though that a figure or personage that is acknowledged by say ancient people is significant because they traced their ancestry to Him and acknowledge a Covenant that God was supposed to have been made Him.

For someone who acknowledges that the Bible is inspired and that the Qur'an was revealed it would seem that the need for historicial validity is not very great.

The Bible has a historical perspective you could say more than maybe some religions that may view time as cyclical... Read some of the Jataka tales about the previous incarnations of Guatama Buddha and you will see society is basically static and the same.. references to kingdoms and so on are mostly not historical or relate to any meaningful historical context... Not so the Bible, the Qur'an and the Baha'i Writings...

Where there's been a long and continuous pattern of acknowledged succession over a millenia is it significant or should some view prevail that since a personage lacks what they consider to be some credentials they are not to be considered?

-Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

I think there's a difference between having a religious past and claiming authority through historicity. Abraham wasn't "a nobody", he petitioned Babylon to lead the Israelites out supposedly. Whether some event like this should survive in an archeological record is one question, but it really strikes me as odd when people try to play these figures off dually, "they weren't that famous, but they were famous enough to be remembered for centuries." Nobody tries to do this with Romulus and Remus, few try and make a case for the Gilgamesh era, or the "First Time" of the Egyptians. We feel fairly comfortable in calling those "people" myths, yet raise our hackles over Abraham, Samson, David and Solomon.

Isn't it interesting that in the Buddhist tradition you mentioned, the lack of serious historicity led to a culture whose spiritual leaders pushed the envelope of mystical practice and insight that they come down to us in full traditions in how to attain such, but where historicity is at least expected, if not demanded, we're still more interested in the stories than in what spiritual truth they might try to teach?

Listing famous people in a work of fiction does not make the work non-fiction. People make up stories to explain their situation and give a sense of identity, actual history can often get in the way of that. I think we would be better off if we could come to a point in our lives where we regard these fantastic figures more like King Arthur than like King Tut.

-TC

Of course the stories can contain spiritual truths.... if we look into them I think ... but truly remarkable and if you will miraculous is the fact that the Bible as an influence has survived down through the ages through a relative minority and is still a living "Book" while the Book of the Dead of the ancient Egyptians has not.

-Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

I think we can attribute other things to its survival, namely that the religion of the soon to be Holy Roman Empire needed it to link to Christianity to establish some sort of ancient-ness. Without that, and the belief that the Jews had to be preserved to witness their "failing", the OT may have faded out of relevance after the Roman conquest and diaspora of the Jews. The Egyptian religion may go back four or five thousand years, and its overall run is longer than the good book. Aspects of it may have still been strong if not for the Christian conquest. If it were not for the importance the Christians placed on the Scriptures, its quite likely Judaism would have gone the way of Zoroastrianism.

-TC