mwc Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Fascinating, mwc. An argument from silence: when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 68 CE, they did not capture the ark of the covenant. The memorial on the Arch of Titus, which depicts the victorious Roman soldiers, shows them carrying as plunder a gigantic menorah, but no ark that I can see. http://www.google.co...29,r:1,s:0,i:77 What do you mean? I'm assuming you're saying you're arguing from silence here. The ark, according to the bible, would have been carried off long, long before the Romans got there. Again, without looking up the story, as I recall, it should have been carried off when the temple got sacked and destroyed the first time around. So ask the Babylonians. There's no reason to expect any ark to survive for hundreds of years even if it were inside the temple (it would have to had been remade a number of times as the wood would have not held up much like the recopying of scrolls and just up-keep on objects in general over time). The only way it could survive otherwise is "magic" and this is an unlikely option. The Egyptian objects were plentiful and only handfuls of them survive. Imagine a single object over hundreds of years. I would think the odds are against it especially if only one day each year is allotted for "up-keep" (blood being tossed at it and some incense...I think that's it). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Fascinating, mwc. An argument from silence: when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 68 CE, they did not capture the ark of the covenant. The memorial on the Arch of Titus, which depicts the victorious Roman soldiers, shows them carrying as plunder a gigantic menorah, but no ark that I can see. http://www.google.co...29,r:1,s:0,i:77 Again, without looking up the story, as I recall, it should have been carried off when the temple got sacked and destroyed the first time around. So ask the Babylonians. Yes, that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 The problem with the gospels they are written long after the fact (if there was a fact to begin with) We use Occam's Razor here. A simple action that would have put all matters to bed would have been an appearance to the accusers and Sanhedrin council and religious leaders of the day. That never happened. Likewise with the Ark of the covenant, where is it? That would be ample proof of a god interaction with the people. Ergo it never existed in the first place. All of the claims in the bible lack artefacts so they invented the shroud and other shit which has been proven to be false. Even with these artefacts, I would still show this god the middle finger. just a quick note on the Ark. It's even older then Jesus. And it was a physical object. So most likely it rotted away, was stolen and melted down, or otherwise destroyed in an inglorious fashion. In all these cases, the scribes and rabbis of the time would be unlikely to want to admit that this happened...so it became "lost". So they plead incompetence as oppose to saying it wasn't all powerful. OR, it never existed. When I think about this particular ark I tend to think about Egyptian barque's. Like this one: Photo Saulo Alvarado Mateos. That is the boat (an "ark") that carried a god. Note the figures at either end that aren't, but we could compare to, angels with outstretched wings. The two large poles. These barques don't have covers like the biblical ark but instead if the boat is removed and the whole structure is condensed to the naos (the middle box-like structure where the god was kept) then the similarities are very strong. It take very little imagination for the biblical ark to simply be just another custom barque of history. The story has the ark being stolen but with the god having a permanent home in the larger naos (the holy of holies) it no longer needed the portable ark and it would not need to have to have it returned or replaced. Apparently the need to "mobilize" YHWH fell out of fashion. He stopped going before the armies (like in Joshua). I don't recall any festivals where they paraded him around the city (or cities). These are things an ark (barque) would be for. But you risk "losing" your god if he's in his mobile home and taken away. The bible reports this happening once as I recall (I'm not going to look it up). So once in the temple he's there for good. Easily defensible. And people can come to him (even though only the high priest may actually enter his naos). And since this god is invisible (ie. no images/idols) there's no way for an invader to pack him up and steal him even if they penetrate all the defenses. mwc Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Barque/Ark post Thanks. I actually didn't know that the Egyptians had those. The evidence just keeps piling up that the Hebrews stole everything from surrounding civilizations. On a complete tanget, the hebrews don't show up as a nation in the Civilization series. Babylon does. Egypt does. Rome, Greece and Persia. But not the Hebrews. Guess in the scheme of things they just weren't that important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micksherlock Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Barque/Ark post Thanks. I actually didn't know that the Egyptians had those. The evidence just keeps piling up that the Hebrews stole everything from surrounding civilizations. On a complete tanget, the hebrews don't show up as a nation in the Civilization series. Babylon does. Egypt does. Rome, Greece and Persia. But not the Hebrews. Guess in the scheme of things they just weren't that important. Barque/Ark post Thanks. I actually didn't know that the Egyptians had those. The evidence just keeps piling up that the Hebrews stole everything from surrounding civilizations. On a complete tanget, the hebrews don't show up as a nation in the Civilization series. Babylon does. Egypt does. Rome, Greece and Persia. But not the Hebrews. Guess in the scheme of things they just weren't that important. It makes sense when you think about it. Egypt and Mesopotamia were the most influencial cultural empires, along with the later Persian and Hellenistic cultures. The Levant (Israel/Palestine) is located in the center of the trade routes between the first two mentioned empires. In my book, I go into many of the similarities between Egyptian religious practices and Hebrew ones, as well as the Mesopotamian ones. You can pretty much account for all of Judaism within these two religious empires, as well as Persian duality, which underscores the battle between god and the devil. Another interesting point of research is philology. When you look into the sanscrit root of the words, Devil and Divine, you see that they share the same root word, Deva, or Diva. This just goes to show that one person's god, as another's devil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 When you look into the sanscrit root of the words, Devil and Divine, you see that they share the same root word, Deva, or Diva. This just goes to show that one person's god, as another's devil! Interesting. In Greek, though, the word that we translate as devil is diabolos, which means "accuser." The Spanish, French and Italian come from the Latinized version of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micksherlock Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 When you look into the sanscrit root of the words, Devil and Divine, you see that they share the same root word, Deva, or Diva. This just goes to show that one person's god, as another's devil! Interesting. In Greek, though, the word that we translate as devil is diabolos, which means "accuser." The Spanish, French and Italian come from the Latinized version of that. I guess because the Greek was influenced by the Hebrew, which has the same meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts