gilgamesh; is he mythical or historical king of uruk?
413796
Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia
1160033
Gabriel is Hebrew, so if he was Pagan, he was pre-Jewish Hebrew, which means they probably have a legitimate claim to him. The idea of Gabriel though, God's messenger, the Hand of God, that sort of concept is pretty universal. Lots of Pagan religions have that concept but it's not original to anybody.
277669
No logical or historical evidences at all u will find against his prophecy.. because he is a true prophet...\n\nActually, i wanna answer the question without the word "not".. also by logic...\n\nMuhammad was an illiterate man (He couldn't read or write).. Allah sent Gabriel the angel to him to recite the Qur'an for him.. He saved the Qur'an in his mind.. he recited it for people.. people saved it in thier minds.. then they wrote it.. later, actually after 1400 years or more.. people discovers some facts in it.. some equations.. and some scientific facts...\n\nThe facts and the scientific facts are somehow hard to understand.. but the word repetitions in it are very strange and splendid.. visit this page please to read some:\nhttp://www.miraclesofthequran.com/mathematical_01.html\n\nafter u read it the logic says immediately how can a man compose such a book only in his mind (consider it a normal book) although he is illiterate....\n\nfor the up to date discovered miracles in Qur'an visit this site:\nhttp://www.miraclesofthequran.com
1173558
Gilgamesh is the oldest written story ever found. Most scholars believe it was written in stone at least 1500 years before Genesis. Obviously there was a great flood since many cultures have written about it (was probably a massive tsunami). I always find it amusing when people say the Genesis account is the true one and Gilgamesh is the counterfeit (the older is suddenly the counterfeit when it suites them, hehe). It’s interesting that Gilgamesh is in stone (Moses was known for breaking tablets). Many of the OT stories and ideas were borrowed from the Sumarians, and others.
973354
I don't know if he was a historical figure or not.  Not convincing evidence *for* in my opinion.\n\nViews on tribalism?  Well, I can see why tribalism was important 2000 years ago, but I don't think a bronze age religion and its values should be imposed in the 21st century.
28157
No. The whole thing is a myth. Not even an original one. they just copied off of earlier civilizations myths.
977847
He is not sadistic. He is mythological.
607833
The making of a golden calf has to be understood in its ancient context.  In the ancient Near Eastern religions, the gods had thrones, or "vehicles" which were often depicted as animals.  Sometimes, the deity would be depicted on the animal, and at other times, only the animal was depicted, so as to make the worshipper aware of the unimaginable and esoteric God that "rode" the vehicle, or "sat" on the throne.  So an empty animal or throne was only a pointer to the God that was supposed to imaginarily sit or ride on it.  \n\nSo, it is very possible that what the people were doing was merely worshipping YHWH, but doing so by making the calf as a throne/vehicle for Him, and then imagining their un-depictable deity atop the calf.  This is not only an academic interpretation, but early Jewish sources also say that the sin of the golden calf was NOT that the people worshipped another God besides YHWH, but that they made the mistake of trying to depict him in some way.\n\nNotice that in the Jerusalem Temple, there is this exact same idea, and it was APPROVED.  There in the Holy of Holies, was a throne made in the likeness of a sphinx-type creature, with cherubs above it.  Why was it ok to have a sphinx for a throne/vehicle for God, but not a golden calf for one?\n\nIt is very possible that the answer is politics.  Jerusalem was the cult-center for Judah, the southern portion of Israel when Israel was divided.  The Northern Kingdom also had cult centers - one in the south and one in the North, and at each of the centers, was a golden calf in the holy of holies, depicting that throne/vehicle for God.  When Israel was defeated, the people from the Northern Kingdom had to assimilate their worship ways with those of the South.  Therefore, the Northern deity, El, became identified as the same God as YHWH.  But the priests of Jerusalem did not want anyone bringing sacrifices to any other place other than Jerusalem.  In an attempt to condemn the worship centers of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, they wrote this story of the golden calf into Exodus.  This gives their ruling against golden calves an ancient authority.\n\nIt also makes it seem totally ridiculous what the northerners did.  I mean, afterall, they were TOLD not to make golden calves at the exodus, right?!  And yet they turned around and did it anyway!?\nThe story is a metaphor.  It is a metaphor for condemning the worship practices of Northern Israel.\n\nIt is not historical.
1162249
Well, I have studied mythology from a lot of various religions and the story of a great flood seems to be the one mythological story that is universal (the characters are always different and sometimes they don't build a boat, they climb a certain mountain or hill as instructed by the divine with all the creatures, but it is always basically the same story).\n\nScholars say that the oldest version of the story, atleast that is recorded, would be the one told in Hinduism about a man named Manu who finds a fish in a stream while bathing there. It is little and the fish asks Manu to take it home for safety to help it. So Manu does and the fish continues to outgrow its home and is transfered from one container to the next before finally being so large that Manu finally takes the fish to the ocean to set it free (not sure why the fish went from being a fresh water fish to a salt water fish, but it's a mythological story so let's just accept the story for what it is). Anyways, the fish thanks Manu and then tells Manu that there is going to be a great flood because waters from the North are coming and the ocean is going to rise because the waters of the North along with the rains will cause there levels to rise higher than normal. He advises Manu to gather up two of each animal and two of every seed (plants are included in the Hindu version) and to put them on a boat. Manu builds the boat and does as he is asked and just as the fish predicted, the waters start to rise. Well after a month of the ocean rising, the waters start to recede. The fish returns, but this time with a horn on its head. He calls out to Manu to tie a rope to the horn on the fish and so Manu does. The fish then toes the boat to the top of a nearby mountain and tells Manu to let everything go (the mountain in the story is not specified). Manu, having realized that the fish is God (the aspect of Vishnu) offers praise to God and is grateful for the help. (It is important to remember that in this story God is not punishing mankind or nature, but instead that the flooding is caused by natural things. the waters of the north are thought to refer to the ice melting and this along with the rains, implying that it is the normal cycle of rains, is what made the waters rise. Thus in this story God is preserving all life not punishing it. It's important to remember that Hindus believe that life reincarnates so more than two of the animals and seeds; male and female; would have been sufficient just to repopulate that type of creature and the others that may have perished would have been reincarnated. A bit different than the later versions, the Biblical version, where the flood is a punishment from God and only two of every animal are also spared; apparently even the animals were being bad??). This story is in one of the oldest Puranas of Hinduism (the only books older are the Vedas and the Upanishads). \n\nNow, many scholars believe there may be older versions of the story. However, being a practicing Hindu there is one aspect I can't help but overlook and that is that when Hinduism tells a mythological story then it isn't to be believed that the things actually happened just as the story is telling you. In fact, most Hindu mythological stories have a deeper meaning to them. The symbolism of the story represents aspects of our inner self and all the various symbolism is describing things about ourself and the processes we go through on our spiritual journey. That said, the flood may have in fact never happened and that the flood may be a symbolic tool used in the story (along with Manu, the fish and all the containers...because the story makes a point to describe all the containers which seems excedingly boring to read actually and sort of over makes the case that the fish is getting bigger). \n\nFrom Hindu India, the story then changed when it entered Zoroastrian Persia (Zoroaster is actually mentioned in the Hindu Vedas as a teacher that later it say
993682
There was no such person as Yeshua ben Nazareb.  It is a fictional being, invented by committee 1700 years ago, a retelling of other "saviours" from other religions.  I'll borrow my own words from another posting:\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahd8J7EE5iH6xqL_.MlWehLsy6IX?qid=1006060402294\n----------------------------------------\nThe word "christ" is a corruption of the ancient Greek word "christos", or saviour, and that word is itself a corruption of the Hindu god Krishna.\n\nThere have been more than a dozen "saviours" predating christian mythology, most of them borrowing from each other. You'll also notice that their years of origin go east (oldest) to west (newest), following the "Silk Road" from China between 600 BCE (2600 years ago) until 200 CE.\n\nKrishna\nBuddha\nOsiris \nMithras\nDionysus\nHeracles\n\nAmong many others. Most were born shortly after the winter solstice (Dec. 22), most were born to virgins screwed by a "god", and most "suffered" before they "died" and "went to heaven". \n\nIt's the same stupid fairy tale, regurgitated and retold with local bits added on as it went place to place.\n----------------------------------------\n\nHere's question you won't have an answer for: If you jeebus was such a troublemaker in the land of Palestine, why do the Roman's written records of their occupation make no mention of such a person nor do the dozens of writers from that time, whose words we still have today (eg. Pliny the Elder), not make any mention of such a person?\n\nNobody talked about "jeebus" because "jeebus" wasn't there.  No such person ever existed.
184275
The possible historicity of the Arthur of legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought believes Arthur to have lived sometime in the late 5th century to early 6th century, to have been of Romano-British origin, and to have fought against the pagan Saxons. His power base was probably in either Wales, Cornwall, or the west of what would become England. However, controversy over the centre of his power and the extent and kind of power he wielded continues to this day.\n\nSome members of this school, most notably Geoffrey Ashe and Leon Fleuriot, have argued for identifying Arthur with a certain Riothamus, "King of the Brettones," who was active during the reign of the Roman Emperor, Anthemius. Unfortunately, Riothamus is a shadowy figure of whom we know little, and scholars are not certain whether the "Brettones" he led were Britons or Bretons.\n\nOther members of this school have argued for identifying Arthur with Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Romano-British war leader who won important battles against the Anglo-Saxons probably including the Battle of Mons Badonicus.\n\nOther writers suggest that King Arthur should be identified as one Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman dux of the 2nd century, whose military exploits in Britain may have been remembered for centuries afterwards. This is linked to a theory by C. Scott Littleton and Linda Malcor suggesting a Sarmatian Arthur, which was the basis of the film King Arthur. The obscurity surrounding Artorius makes this identification unlikely, as there seems to be little reason for him to have become a major legendary figure. This figure also seems to be early, given early mentions of Arthur fighting the Saxons.\n\nGraham Phillips and Martin Keatman argued in "King Arthur The True Story" that Arthur's name might not be derived from a Latin original such as Artorius, as normally suspected, but could have been a nom de guerre used by the leader who fought against the Saxons. The first component would be "arth" meaning bear, and the second component a repetition in Latin, "ursus", making the original name "Arthursus". To support this argument they refer to mentions by Gildas of "the Bear". They felt that he would must have been one of the Votadini of Gwynedd. They feel Arthur may have been Owain Ddantgwyn, King of Rhôs.\n\nJohn Darrah and Arthur Cummins propose an Early Bronze Age Arthur, circa 2300 BC. They argue that pulling a sword from a stone and an anvil is a metaphor for making a sword from ore and hammering it into shape on an anvil. Many would agree that at least some elements in the Arthurian story are older than the times in which he is felt to have been alive.\n\nAnother theory proposes that the real Arthur was Artur Mac Aidan, a war leader of the Scots and Britons. By this theory, Artur was predominantly active in the region between the Roman walls—the Gododdin. Artur was never "king" per se, but rather the son of the Scottish king Aidan Mac Gabran, who ruled from about 574 AD. As claims this website ([1]), Artur led a loose coalition of the Christian Celts against their pagan invaders—effectively holding them off for about one hundred more years. However, his generation also included other people named Artur or some variant of the name, suggesting that it was first popularized by another—namely, our Arthur. In modern times, Mac Aidan's name is spelled Artuir.\n\nThe late historian John Morris made the alleged reign of Arthur at the turn of the 5th century the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland under the rubric The Age of Arthur: A History of the British Isles from 350–650' (1974), even though he found little to say of a historic Arthur, save as an example of the idea of kingship, one among such contemporaries as Vortigen and Cunedda, Hengest and Coel.\n\nAnother school of thought believes that Arthur had no historical existence, expl
433318
Troy is a good answer and certainly a famous one, but I'm going to go with Gordion, capital city of ancient Turkey but now no more. I wonder whether it had anything to do with the famous "Gordion Knot?" It was fun looking this up. Thanks for the question!
233455
... Something about triangles, right?\n\nThey had an empire, I think...  or was it just a kingdom?  Or do they elect a president... Mubarak?  Does that sound familiar?  Were they muslims or pagans???  There was this guy Tut and he had a mummy...  Steve Martin says he was born in Arizona but he got a home in Babylonia and was a boy king and had more money than Midas...  I'm not sure if all of that is correct.  Midas had a lot of money.  There's also something... maybe... about a huge dam and reservior on the Nile... or up the Nile... something like that.  Egypt fought Israel after the God of Israel dumped a bunch of plagues on them, but that was after Egypt apparently enslaved a bunch of jews to build some fancy cemetaries.  Maybe the jews are still pissed off about that.  There was Cleopatra, who was aparently the first Ms. Universe and apparently she dug rich Italian guys.  Then there are those hieroglyphics... it would be more fun to make pictures of words than write phonetically, but I guess it makes it easier to learn the language if it's phonetic.  SO they made the Rosetta stone so they could talk to other people.  REM says "Egypt was troubled by the horrible asp.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah."  MAybe they hired an exterminator because that was past-tense...  They had some big library on the coast...  but it wasn't a public library?  But then somebody screwed it all up.  They failed to correct Alexander's delusion that he was a god.  I guess you'll do anything to get creepy thugs like that off your back though and he DID march way off to India next, so I guess it worked for a while.\n\nBasically, they did a bunch of stuff.  Built a few wonders of the world.  You know, not much.
976578
Reminds me of that bit in Catch 22.\n\nAnyway, I don't believe in a God of History; one whose supposed exploits are charted in writings from the past. There is no way I can face a divinity who sits from the distant yesterday and claims that enough has been done, or who has dangled false hopes over our future. Life is not that simple. The God that I would believe in would exist in the here and now, and would be defined through such an existence rather than through the broken remains of our ancestors.
327622
This was there pegan god. People from the past worship different gods and most of these gods are eccentric of animals. Like the sphinx in where it is the combination of a man's head and body of lion with wings of a bird.
946627
Would you believe Genghis Khan
596
King Arthur really existed, but when you read the story, you will see it`s a legend, so some parts changed. The point is he really existed.