Atheists Not Burdened by Proof

[columbus]

Moses has no historicity at all as written he is purely a mythological character.

Israelites were never in Egypt, and there was no exodus

I realize that you are convinced of this. I'm not.
Replace "purely" with mostly and I would be more in agreement. The likelihood that many of the characters in scripture were based on real people seems more plausible than your assertions.

Tom

 

[outhouse]

I realize that you are convinced of this. I'm not.
Replace "purely" with mostly and I would be more in agreement. The likelihood that many of the characters in scripture were based on real people seems more plausible than your assertions.

Tom

Not if you do your homework.

The exodus not happening is as factual as history gets.


Israelites formed from displaced Canaanite after 1200 BC that slowly filled the highlands by 1000 BC the first and best historical character we know is actually David and he only has a possible historical core, and as written it is mythology.

Moses there is no doubt about his character being 100% fabricated. There is a possibility for a historical core, but as written, nope he has no historicity at all.

They trace moses to unknown authors from the 5th and 7th century



Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to the Deuteronomist source


That means an exodus of the scale described in the Torah would have been impossible.[32]



While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

 

[columbus]

Moses there is no doubt about his character being 100% fabricated. There is a possibility for a historical core,

OK, you don't see the contradiction in what you just wrote. Oh well.
Tom

 

[outhouse]

OK, you don't see the contradiction in what you just wrote. Oh well.
Tom

But the possibility is only a way to leave it open. But it could factually never change the mythology into reality

A literary creation as written he is 100% mythology


The "possible" historical core, would not come close to matching one single sentence in all of the biblical mythology.

, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

Factually, he did not exist as written, and no historical core can change any aspect of that

Is that more clear?

 

[columbus]

But the possibility is only a way to leave it open. But it could factually never change the mythology into reality

A literary creation as written he is 100% mythology


The "possible" historical core, would not come close to matching one single sentence in all of the biblical mythology.




Factually, he did not exist as written, and no historical core can change any aspect of that

Is that more clear?

Like what I said a few posts ago? "Replace purely with mostly".
I'm sure that Exodus and the legend of Moses are mostly fiction written to justify behavior that the Israelites had already done. Doesn't mean all of it's fiction. It's your absoluteness that makes me consider you wrong.

Tom

 

[outhouse]

Like what I said a few posts ago? "Replace purely with mostly".
I'm sure that Exodus and the legend of Moses are mostly fiction written to justify behavior that the Israelites had already done. Doesn't mean all of it's fiction. It's your absoluteness that makes me consider you wrong.

Tom

It is all fiction.

A historical core would not change the fictitious accounts portrayed

The exodus is fiction

The red sea crossing fiction

Every aspect is not historical in any way.

 

[outhouse]

justify behavior that the Israelites had already done.

NO

They were building a rhetorical unified monotheistic identity for multi cultural people, by means of pseudo history. :tribal:

 

[columbus]

NO

They were building a rhetorical unified monotheistic identity for multi cultural people, by means of pseudo history. :tribal:

That doesn't mean they didn't build it around the story of a criminal who lured his Canaanite kin out of the security of Egypt and into the desert.
Looks to me like that's exactly what they did.

Tom

 

[outhouse]

That doesn't mean they didn't build it around the story of a criminal who lured his Canaanite kin out of the security of Egypt and into the desert.
Looks to me like that's exactly what they did.

Tom

Nope.

Nothing at all indicates this.


This below is seen as fact and not up for debate.

They were building a rhetorical unified monotheistic identity for multi cultural polytheistic people, by means of pseudo history.

Moses was rhetorical fiction to persuade the many Polytheist in the many different cultures that made up these people to have a sense of history and pride in monotheism.


What you fail to understand [maybe] is that there were different traditions in different cultures, and ALL Of them had been wiped out a few times before this mythology even surfaced. Israelites did not know their own identity.

This is late mythology brought on by the government forcing monotheism on the people.

It Is not early mythology. It Is monotheistic mythology.

 

[Desert Snake]

Dodge noted.

There was no dodge there, I literally did not understand what you wrote, it seemed like a riddle. The fact remains that everyone is a 'believer', you may choose to believe in different things than I do, doesn't change that fact.

 

[Bunyip]

Hang on!

Of course it is perfectly logical to reject a claim that is not supported by sufficient evidence. There is no burden whatsoever to disprove what is unproven. That is a perfectly valid reason to reject something.