05-08-2006, 12:44 PM
Ben
<b>my name isnt Ben. my moniker is Ben_Ami.</b>
you may have noticed that even then Jews do not have a proper sense of history.
<b>they in fact do.
</b>
They believe in mythological tales of the "exodus" which is completely unscientific to say the least,
<b>
well its a fact that the jews were indeed in egypt. egyptian records can verify that. but the real story may not have unfolded like the spiced up story of the exodus i agree. but then most ancient stories and legends are spiced up and inflated versions of the real events.</b>
and of delusional ideas as god talking to a messenger to wipe out egypt etc.
<b>
well moses claimed that god spoke to him. the claim may be fake, but the time when the said claim took place is clearly recorded.</b>
This has been promoted and believed in as 'history' itself.
<b>well the myth of the burning bush was considered a fact - and its date recorded. so where as their history may be half fiction, the dates of those fictious events are nevertheless well recorded.</b>
The whole of old testament is mythology.
<b>nope. its tribal history if anything. passed off in places as delivered by god/yahweh, and does have its fair share of mythology (even the flood myth - of which just about every civilization has its own version, is plagiarised from the Gilgamesh), but it records the exact time of various tribes and the order of its progenitors. you just cant say the Ot isn historical - they have even furnished the date when, they believe, the world was created. so its historical out and out. true or not is another question.</b>
Where is the sense of history in the Jews,
<b>
there ^^^</b>
or even christians for that matter?
<b>
most of the events post christ are well recorded and in order.</b>
Each gospel gives you a different 'version' of this so-called 'history'.
<b>cos each gospel was written by a different person. and because most of the stories attributed to jesus arnt true at all but arbitally attributed to jesus by one or the other gospel. we should not even expect a chronologically correct account of what never actually happened, (ie. since most of the jesus based legeneds are fake), but in so far as the events that indeed took place, they are quite accurate (for eg, the arrival of the 3 magi is clearly marked in time by the allusion to the star).</b>
What the Indians had was quite a clear cut idea of documenting the 'what' part rather than the 'when' part.
<b>
history demands a correct assignment to the "whens" for every "what" that took place.</b>
But if you look closer at the Ramayana or the Mahabharatha, you will still find that time and location was clearly documented.
<b>yes. we lack correct, uncluttered (by religion or spirituality) history of the vedic and pre vedic times. the only accurate markers the vedas have are astronomical, which too have often used in a "symbolism" kind of way (read koenraad elst's "astronomical interpretation of Rg ved", where he mentions allusions to a "swiftly moving hunter [ie. moon] moving through its prey [ie. constellations]. now thats hardly clearcut, if moon is described as a hunter and constellations as prey. such descriptions are left open to intrepretations and thats whats happened)</b>
Valmiki time and again mentions which constellation or phase of the moon it was at every onset of an important event.
<b>yes. but ramayan is not pre-vedic.</b>
Also, Indians had meticulously documented the arguments and counter-arguments between a purvapakshi and siddhanthi when it came to Buddhist/Vaidika schools.
<b>
same. post vedic.</b>
The Upanishads were such documentations of the 'conferences' such as in the Brihadaranyaka upanishad. There is no dating of these events with respect to Jesus' birth. But it definitely can be found out when an event happened if there are astrological/astronomical references in the text.
<b>yes true. the problem is not that there werent astronomical references. even the Rg Ved had lots of them. the problem is that those references are often riddled with strange legends of (for ex) hunters and prey. notice how the star that appeared when the 3 magi came to palestine was described as a star and not some "plant that bore a fruit" or in some other allegorical way. the OP was right about our habit of surrounding everything in religious mythology and spirituality.</b>
<b>my name isnt Ben. my moniker is Ben_Ami.</b>
you may have noticed that even then Jews do not have a proper sense of history.
<b>they in fact do.
</b>
They believe in mythological tales of the "exodus" which is completely unscientific to say the least,
<b>
well its a fact that the jews were indeed in egypt. egyptian records can verify that. but the real story may not have unfolded like the spiced up story of the exodus i agree. but then most ancient stories and legends are spiced up and inflated versions of the real events.</b>
and of delusional ideas as god talking to a messenger to wipe out egypt etc.
<b>
well moses claimed that god spoke to him. the claim may be fake, but the time when the said claim took place is clearly recorded.</b>
This has been promoted and believed in as 'history' itself.
<b>well the myth of the burning bush was considered a fact - and its date recorded. so where as their history may be half fiction, the dates of those fictious events are nevertheless well recorded.</b>
The whole of old testament is mythology.
<b>nope. its tribal history if anything. passed off in places as delivered by god/yahweh, and does have its fair share of mythology (even the flood myth - of which just about every civilization has its own version, is plagiarised from the Gilgamesh), but it records the exact time of various tribes and the order of its progenitors. you just cant say the Ot isn historical - they have even furnished the date when, they believe, the world was created. so its historical out and out. true or not is another question.</b>
Where is the sense of history in the Jews,
<b>
there ^^^</b>
or even christians for that matter?
<b>
most of the events post christ are well recorded and in order.</b>
Each gospel gives you a different 'version' of this so-called 'history'.
<b>cos each gospel was written by a different person. and because most of the stories attributed to jesus arnt true at all but arbitally attributed to jesus by one or the other gospel. we should not even expect a chronologically correct account of what never actually happened, (ie. since most of the jesus based legeneds are fake), but in so far as the events that indeed took place, they are quite accurate (for eg, the arrival of the 3 magi is clearly marked in time by the allusion to the star).</b>
What the Indians had was quite a clear cut idea of documenting the 'what' part rather than the 'when' part.
<b>
history demands a correct assignment to the "whens" for every "what" that took place.</b>
But if you look closer at the Ramayana or the Mahabharatha, you will still find that time and location was clearly documented.
<b>yes. we lack correct, uncluttered (by religion or spirituality) history of the vedic and pre vedic times. the only accurate markers the vedas have are astronomical, which too have often used in a "symbolism" kind of way (read koenraad elst's "astronomical interpretation of Rg ved", where he mentions allusions to a "swiftly moving hunter [ie. moon] moving through its prey [ie. constellations]. now thats hardly clearcut, if moon is described as a hunter and constellations as prey. such descriptions are left open to intrepretations and thats whats happened)</b>
Valmiki time and again mentions which constellation or phase of the moon it was at every onset of an important event.
<b>yes. but ramayan is not pre-vedic.</b>
Also, Indians had meticulously documented the arguments and counter-arguments between a purvapakshi and siddhanthi when it came to Buddhist/Vaidika schools.
<b>
same. post vedic.</b>
The Upanishads were such documentations of the 'conferences' such as in the Brihadaranyaka upanishad. There is no dating of these events with respect to Jesus' birth. But it definitely can be found out when an event happened if there are astrological/astronomical references in the text.
<b>yes true. the problem is not that there werent astronomical references. even the Rg Ved had lots of them. the problem is that those references are often riddled with strange legends of (for ex) hunters and prey. notice how the star that appeared when the 3 magi came to palestine was described as a star and not some "plant that bore a fruit" or in some other allegorical way. the OP was right about our habit of surrounding everything in religious mythology and spirituality.</b>