• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians be honest with yourselves. (Christians only)

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
I disagree, as we have come quite a long way in regards to morality, human rights, the rights of children, the rights of women, the rights of minorities, ridiculing pedophilia, acceptance of differences, etc.
Ridiculing pedophilia? ...Well, anyway, we have come a long way in certain aspects of morality, but we still have at least the totality of human evils now as at any other time on earth. Something else we have are very subjective and changeable societal viewpoints on what's moral and what isn't. They are not always in line with God's moral standards, whether we get them past our own consciences or not. For example, "Thou shalt do no murder" does not stop us from dismembering babies in the womb as long as we redefine it as "reproductive health care."

But, just out of curiosity, why do you think that they "certainly had a greater knowledge and understanding than we have" in the "subject matter they were dealing with"?
Moses, Ezekiel and other prophets of the Old Testament received knowledge and understanding directly from God with the intent that they share it with others. Would God have let them get it wrong? And Jesus commanded the apostles to "go and teach all nations." He said "Whoever hears you hears me," They received the authority of God himself to teach what he gave them. As Jesus explained, his Father's authority was given to him, and he was giving that authority to them (not only for teaching, but other things as well). Not to go on and on with the validity and authority of every author of every book of the Bible; I'm sure you get my point. Who could know better than they did what they were talking about?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Ridiculing pedophilia? ...Well, anyway, we have come a long way in certain aspects of morality, but we still have at least the totality of human evils now as at any other time on earth. Something else we have are very subjective and changeable societal viewpoints on what's moral and what isn't. They are not always in line with God's moral standards, whether we get them past our own consciences or not. For example, "Thou shalt do no murder" does not stop us from dismembering babies in the womb as long as we redefine it as "reproductive health care."


Moses, Ezekiel and other prophets of the Old Testament received knowledge and understanding directly from God with the intent that they share it with others. Would God have let them get it wrong? And Jesus commanded the apostles to "go and teach all nations." He said "Whoever hears you hears me," They received the authority of God himself to teach what he gave them. As Jesus explained, his Father's authority was given to him, and he was giving that authority to them (not only for teaching, but other things as well). Not to go on and on with the validity and authority of every author of every book of the Bible; I'm sure you get my point. Who could know better than they did what they were talking about?
Murder is a legal term. It means "unlawful killing". Abortion is legally protected in the United States and, thus, abortion cannot be accurately defined as "murder". It does not say "thou shall not kill". But, this is a straw man, as abortions happened back then as well, and in much less humane ways.

The remainder of your point rely's on God not letting the various authors of the Bible "get it wrong". So, why, out of 32 gospels, only 4 "got it right"? Why was there a necessity for a council to get together to decide which gospels were authentic and which weren't? Why did God allow some to be wrong, but others not? Your logic doesn't line up with the history of the Bible.
 

Johnlove

Active Member
Murder is a legal term. It means "unlawful killing". Abortion is legally protected in the United States and, thus, abortion cannot be accurately defined as "murder". It does not say "thou shall not kill". But, this is a straw man, as abortions happened back then as well, and in much less humane ways.

The remainder of your point rely's on God not letting the various authors of the Bible "get it wrong". So, why, out of 32 gospels, only 4 "got it right"? Why was there a necessity for a council to get together to decide which gospels were authentic and which weren't? Why did God allow some to be wrong, but others not? Your logic doesn't line up with the history of the Bible.
Do you know why the Holy Spirit did not include some letters of the disciples of Jesus Christ, in to God’s written Word?


Do you know that those letters/writings contained error?


Does your human logic/intellect, compare with God’s? Can you understand the spiritual being? Do you believe God is limited as humans are limited?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Do you know why the Holy Spirit did not include some letters of the disciples of Jesus Christ, in to God’s written Word?


Do you know that those letters/writings contained error?


Does your human logic/intellect, compare with God’s? Can you understand the spiritual being? Do you believe God is limited as humans are limited?
The Holy Spirit did not make the decision to keep or discard certain Gospels. That decision was made by the Church Hierarchy in the Roman Empire (at that time Christianity was the official religion) and was based on many factors. The below article actually provides a pretty good explanation of what was considered.

The Story Of The Storytellers - The Emergence Of The Four Gospel Canon | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS
Who decided exactly what got in and what was left out? What was excluded? What was suppressed?


It's hard to say.... We do have a document called the Muratorian Canon ... which tells us that one of the criteria for deciding whether a book is scripture or not is whether it can be read in the church. Now, this seems to be rather a circular argument, because you probably don't read it in the church unless you think it's scripture, but there seems to be something about suitability for public reading during worship, that's one criterion. The churchmen who argued about these points of what's in and what's out... [also] wanted to say if we know a book was supposedly written by an Apostle or by a follower of an Apostle, this gave it some authenticity. This was an attempt to say, "We're as close back with eyewitness reporting as we can be."

FROM MANY GOSPELS TO FOUR

The diversity of Christianity is certainly closely related to the proliferation of gospels. Even the gospels which we have in the canon of the New Testament are not of one mind, but really represent very different religious positions and very different images of Jesus. You go beyond this, we have the Gospel of Thomas, which again is a very different image of Jesus as the revealer of the divine truth about the ultimate human self than we find in Mark, or in Matthew. We have numerous fragments of other gospels, which sometimes we only know they existed, but cannot really say what they [said].

So the question of establishing some authority in terms of gospels, which gospels should be read and which should not be read, was discussed in the second century, especially after Marcion. Marcion lived in the first half of the second century. He was a wealthy ship owner and ship merchant. He came from northern Turkey... to Rome and he gave the Roman Church a lot of money, and they welcomed him with open arms. But he felt that the original Christian gospel was no longer preserved, and he thought that only the apostle Paul had the true gospel. And he set out to find this true gospel, and he took the Gospel of Luke and purified it from whatever he thought was Jewish and said, "This should be the scripture for the church, and this should be the only scripture for the church." And the Roman church became very suspicious of his manipulations with the Gospel of Mark. It is reported that they gave the money back to him and said, "Thank you very much, but we don't want you and your gospel...."

But the church really had to think at that point, what should they do with the many gospels on hand. And with new editions of the gospels which were coming out all the time. Right after Marcion, we have evidence from Rome that some other people sat down and wrote a new harmony of the gospels of Matthew and Mark and Luke, melding them together into one gospel. Now in that situation we have apparently a recourse to the original function of gospel narrative which is the narrative of Jesus' suffering and death as the story that accompanies the celebration of the central Christian ritual, the Eucharist. And that meant that only gospels who have a passion narrative can be included. The Gospel of Thomas does not have a passion narrative. And it was never discussed for possible inclusion. It is characteristic that all gospels of the canon have a passion narrative because the central Christian ritual, that's the Eucharist, cannot live without that story. And it is out of that movement that the four gospel canon arises. And it comes, interestingly enough, as a canon that preserves diversity, within limits.... There is no claim that this canon represents four gospels that are all saying the same thing. It is rather an attempt to bring together as many Christian communities that were bound to a particular gospel into one major church. And this was essentially accomplished through the four gospel canon.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Do you know why the Holy Spirit did not include some letters of the disciples of Jesus Christ, in to God’s written Word?


Do you know that those letters/writings contained error?


Does your human logic/intellect, compare with God’s? Can you understand the spiritual being? Do you believe God is limited as humans are limited?
I would assume that God's intellect is far superior to mine. But, again, God did not write the Gospels, imperfect and unknown men did. And, I can safely assume that my intellect is at least on par with theirs.

I do believe that God is limited, by his own choosing. When he gave us free-will, he gave us freedom. At that point he was unable to see our destiny.
 

Johnlove

Active Member
The Holy Spirit did not make the decision to keep or discard certain Gospels. That decision was made by the Church Hierarchy in the Roman Empire (at that time Christianity was the official religion) and was based on many factors. The below article actually provides a pretty good explanation of what was considered.

The Story Of The Storytellers - The Emergence Of The Four Gospel Canon | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS
Who decided exactly what got in and what was left out? What was excluded? What was suppressed?


It's hard to say.... We do have a document called the Muratorian Canon ... which tells us that one of the criteria for deciding whether a book is scripture or not is whether it can be read in the church. Now, this seems to be rather a circular argument, because you probably don't read it in the church unless you think it's scripture, but there seems to be something about suitability for public reading during worship, that's one criterion. The churchmen who argued about these points of what's in and what's out... [also] wanted to say if we know a book was supposedly written by an Apostle or by a follower of an Apostle, this gave it some authenticity. This was an attempt to say, "We're as close back with eyewitness reporting as we can be."

FROM MANY GOSPELS TO FOUR

The diversity of Christianity is certainly closely related to the proliferation of gospels. Even the gospels which we have in the canon of the New Testament are not of one mind, but really represent very different religious positions and very different images of Jesus. You go beyond this, we have the Gospel of Thomas, which again is a very different image of Jesus as the revealer of the divine truth about the ultimate human self than we find in Mark, or in Matthew. We have numerous fragments of other gospels, which sometimes we only know they existed, but cannot really say what they [said].

So the question of establishing some authority in terms of gospels, which gospels should be read and which should not be read, was discussed in the second century, especially after Marcion. Marcion lived in the first half of the second century. He was a wealthy ship owner and ship merchant. He came from northern Turkey... to Rome and he gave the Roman Church a lot of money, and they welcomed him with open arms. But he felt that the original Christian gospel was no longer preserved, and he thought that only the apostle Paul had the true gospel. And he set out to find this true gospel, and he took the Gospel of Luke and purified it from whatever he thought was Jewish and said, "This should be the scripture for the church, and this should be the only scripture for the church." And the Roman church became very suspicious of his manipulations with the Gospel of Mark. It is reported that they gave the money back to him and said, "Thank you very much, but we don't want you and your gospel...."

But the church really had to think at that point, what should they do with the many gospels on hand. And with new editions of the gospels which were coming out all the time. Right after Marcion, we have evidence from Rome that some other people sat down and wrote a new harmony of the gospels of Matthew and Mark and Luke, melding them together into one gospel. Now in that situation we have apparently a recourse to the original function of gospel narrative which is the narrative of Jesus' suffering and death as the story that accompanies the celebration of the central Christian ritual, the Eucharist. And that meant that only gospels who have a passion narrative can be included. The Gospel of Thomas does not have a passion narrative. And it was never discussed for possible inclusion. It is characteristic that all gospels of the canon have a passion narrative because the central Christian ritual, that's the Eucharist, cannot live without that story. And it is out of that movement that the four gospel canon arises. And it comes, interestingly enough, as a canon that preserves diversity, within limits.... There is no claim that this canon represents four gospels that are all saying the same thing. It is rather an attempt to bring together as many Christian communities that were bound to a particular gospel into one major church. And this was essentially accomplished through the four gospel canon.
And you know that it was not the Holy Spirit that led the people who assembled the bible?


After some of the Church leaders stopped following the Holy Spirit, God needed to give them something to guide them. So he had people assemble the written Word.


The written Word is an insufficient way of communicating, and that has been proven to be true by the Churches down fall.


One can never come to know God by reading the written Word of God. Only God can bring one to know him.


(1 Corinthians 2:10-16) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God.---------“
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
And you know that it was not the Holy Spirit that led the people who assembled the bible?


After some of the Church leaders stopped following the Holy Spirit, God needed to give them something to guide them. So he had people assemble the written Word.


The written Word is an insufficient way of communicating, and that has been proven to be true by the Churches down fall.


One can never come to know God by reading the written Word of God. Only God can bring one to know him.


(1 Corinthians 2:10-16) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God.---------“
I don't claim to know anything about the Holy Spirit or how the Holy Spirit has interjected itself into human life. I am stating everything that we actually do know about how the Gospels were chosen. The rest is merely belief, not fact. You are, of course, welcome to believe that the Holy Spirit played a part, but it is unreasonable to assume that others accept this as anything more than your subjective opinion.
 

Johnlove

Active Member
I would assume that God's intellect is far superior to mine. But, again, God did not write the Gospels, imperfect and unknown men did. And, I can safely assume that my intellect is at least on par with theirs.

I do believe that God is limited, by his own choosing. When he gave us free-will, he gave us freedom. At that point he was unable to see our destiny.
A Spiritual Christian is one who has the mind of Christ, and is always guided by Jesus/Holy Spirit.


(1 Corinthians 2:15-16) “A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything and his own value in not to be judged by other men. As scripture says;’ who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?’ But we are those who have the mind of Christ.”


A Spiritual Christian has given his or her life to Jesus, and then it is God’s Will that is being done in such a person.


We pray the Lord’s Prayer, and we ask for God’s Will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven. God’s Will is for us to always obey him. God gives those who are his children the grace to always obey him.


Not many people want to always do God’s Will.
 

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
Murder is a legal term. It means "unlawful killing". Abortion is legally protected in the United States and, thus, abortion cannot be accurately defined as "murder".
So your argument is basically that Federal law supersedes God's law because the way we define murder for ourselves invalidates the Creator's intent.

Why was there a necessity for a council to get together to decide which gospels were authentic and which weren't?
Well for example, anyone can write a "gospel," whether inspired or not. There are "gospels" and other books that were written hundreds of years after the death of the authors to whom they were attributed. I'd say that a council of bishops guided by the Holy Spirit was more qualified than anyone else on earth to evaluate it all and establish the Canon of Scripture. They were direct successors of the apostles, working with the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ Himself. He said the Holy Spirit would guide them and that "What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."
 
Last edited:

12jtartar

Active Member
Premium Member
A spiritual person is being taught and led by God. God created all things, and he is not ignorant of how it was made.


If science was a factor in what the prophets/Apostles taught, you can be sure that the Holy Spirit made it so what was said was from a very informed mind.



(1 John 2: 27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; the anointing he gave teaches you everything: you are anointed with truth, not with a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

Johnlove,
I love your insight.
There is just one point I want to mention, in case people have not thought about this.
Adam was created in 4026BC. This is according to Bible Chronology, and secular historians. This is based on the date 539BC, the date that Babylon was conquered. From this date, called a pivotal date, you can follow the years from there in the Holy Scriptures, all the way back to Adam's creation, mostly in Genesis and Chronicles.
This means that man has been on earth almost 6040 years.
Today, it is calculated that ordinary people use about 3% of their brain power. Adam was perfect, when created, and used 100% of his brain this means that, on average, man has lost about 17% of his brain power every 1,000 years.
2,000 years ago men used about 34 % f their brain power. Who then would you say was the smarter, the ones who use 3% or the ones who used 34%??
Any time people think that they did not know what they were talking about, is forgiven today, because his 3% has let him down. The first century Christians were far smarter than we are, and Paul was even smarter than most then.
Instead of trying to find something wrong with their writings, we should, instead, search throughout the scriptures to try our best to understand exactly what they were telling us, for these are God's words, 1Pet 1:25, 2Pet 1:21,22, 2Tim 3:16,17.
 

Johnlove

Active Member
Johnlove,
I love your insight.
There is just one point I want to mention, in case people have not thought about this.
Adam was created in 4026BC. This is according to Bible Chronology, and secular historians. This is based on the date 539BC, the date that Babylon was conquered. From this date, called a pivotal date, you can follow the years from there in the Holy Scriptures, all the way back to Adam's creation, mostly in Genesis and Chronicles.
This means that man has been on earth almost 6040 years.
Today, it is calculated that ordinary people use about 3% of their brain power. Adam was perfect, when created, and used 100% of his brain this means that, on average, man has lost about 17% of his brain power every 1,000 years.
2,000 years ago men used about 34 % f their brain power. Who then would you say was the smarter, the ones who use 3% or the ones who used 34%??
Any time people think that they did not know what they were talking about, is forgiven today, because his 3% has let him down. The first century Christians were far smarter than we are, and Paul was even smarter than most then.
Instead of trying to find something wrong with their writings, we should, instead, search throughout the scriptures to try our best to understand exactly what they were telling us, for these are God's words, 1Pet 1:25, 2Pet 1:21,22, 2Tim 3:16,17.
How intelligent a person is does not have anything to do with his or her coming to know God.


A Christian is given the Holy Spirit to teach him or her. The Holy Spirit will give one all the understanding he or she need, no matter how low, or high his or her IQ.


(1 John 2: 27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; the anointing he gave teaches you everything: you are anointed with truth, not with a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

(1 Corinthians 2:10-13) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God”


Paul told us that only God can teach us to come to know God.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
How intelligent a person is does not have anything to do with his or her coming to know God.


A Christian is given the Holy Spirit to teach him or her. The Holy Spirit will give one all the understanding he or she need, no matter how low, or high his or her IQ.


(1 John 2: 27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; the anointing he gave teaches you everything: you are anointed with truth, not with a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

(1 Corinthians 2:10-13) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God”


Paul told us that only God can teach us to come to know God.

Hi John. I notice that no one has actually addressed your OP. I think you bring up good points. We do need to start being honest with ourselves. We can't live average lives as Christians and then claim that because we believe in the "right God", we will automatically be saved.
 

Johnlove

Active Member
Hi John. I notice that no one has actually addressed your OP. I think you bring up good points. We do need to start being honest with ourselves. We can't live average lives as Christians and then claim that because we believe in the "right God", we will automatically be saved.
You are so right, Jesus told us what one has to do to come to heaven with him. By the way that is not the same as one being saved. Saved does not always mean one will enter the kingdom of God.


(Matthew 7:21) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
How intelligent a person is does not have anything to do with his or her coming to know God.


A Christian is given the Holy Spirit to teach him or her. The Holy Spirit will give one all the understanding he or she need, no matter how low, or high his or her IQ.


(1 John 2: 27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; the anointing he gave teaches you everything: you are anointed with truth, not with a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

(1 Corinthians 2:10-13) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God”


Paul told us that only God can teach us to come to know God.

Hi John. I notice that no one has actually addressed your OP. I think you bring up good points. We do need to start being honest with ourselves. We can't live average lives as Christians and then claim that because we believe in the "right God", we will automatically be saved.
You are so right, Jesus told us what one has to do to come to heaven with him. By the way that is not the same as one being saved. Saved does not always mean one will enter the kingdom of God.


(Matthew 7:21) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”

What do you understand by the term saved?
 

Johnlove

Active Member
Hi John. I notice that no one has actually addressed your OP. I think you bring up good points. We do need to start being honest with ourselves. We can't live average lives as Christians and then claim that because we believe in the "right God", we will automatically be saved.


What do you understand by the term saved?
I understand that saved only means one will not go to Hell.


I know from God that there is a place of punishment that is not Hell. Hell is controlled by Satan.


God came to save people from going to Hell, and take people away from Satan.


But God does not allow sinners into Heaven either.


(1 Corinthians 6:9-19) “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanders and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.”
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
I understand that saved only means one will not go to Hell.


I know from God that there is a place of punishment that is not Hell. Hell is controlled by Satan.


God came to save people from going to Hell, and take people away from Satan.


But God does not allow sinners into Heaven either.


(1 Corinthians 6:9-19) “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanders and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.”

I hear you. Actually I agree with you. I also believe the are more places than just heaven and hell. But I believe whatever isn't controlled by Satan is controlled by God. So which ever kingdom is not the kingdom of the devil is the kingdom of God. But Jesus said "In my Father's house there are many mansions". Hence I say I believe God has a place prepared for all types of people. But in the place where God himself resides only those who have been cleansed from every sin can enter.

Now about the word saved. I suppose one can understand it in a couple of ways. One can understand it as being saved from the devil. In this case many will be saved. You can understand it as being saved from physical death. In this sense everyone will be saved. Or you can understand it as being saved from sin. In this sense only those who enter into the presence of God are saved.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Johnlove,
I love your insight.
There is just one point I want to mention, in case people have not thought about this.
Adam was created in 4026BC. This is according to Bible Chronology, and secular historians. This is based on the date 539BC, the date that Babylon was conquered. From this date, called a pivotal date, you can follow the years from there in the Holy Scriptures, all the way back to Adam's creation, mostly in Genesis and Chronicles.
This means that man has been on earth almost 6040 years.
Today, it is calculated that ordinary people use about 3% of their brain power. Adam was perfect, when created, and used 100% of his brain this means that, on average, man has lost about 17% of his brain power every 1,000 years.
2,000 years ago men used about 34 % f their brain power. Who then would you say was the smarter, the ones who use 3% or the ones who used 34%??
Any time people think that they did not know what they were talking about, is forgiven today, because his 3% has let him down. The first century Christians were far smarter than we are, and Paul was even smarter than most then.
Instead of trying to find something wrong with their writings, we should, instead, search throughout the scriptures to try our best to understand exactly what they were telling us, for these are God's words, 1Pet 1:25, 2Pet 1:21,22, 2Tim 3:16,17.
I beg you to actually look at the scientific evidence discovered in regards to modern evolution theory and astronomy, as there is absolute 100% proof that human beings existed long before the date you claim. If you are going to use the Bible as a historical chronology, please at least double check that you are interpreting it correctly taking into account modern discoveries. I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking scares the crap our of me. All due respect.

If anything is going to make God mad enough to strike at us or condemn us to destruction, it is thinking like this that completely ignores God's greatest gifts to us ... reason and love.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So Moses, who wrote the first five books of the Bible, would have been among the incredibly ignorant, imperfect men, right? Even after 40 days of one-on-one instruction from God? Would you also rate Saint John as being incredibly ignorant? He's another one of my favorites, and I always thought he was pretty sharp.
Moses didn't write the first five books of the bible. Moses was likely a literary character and not a historic figure.
 
Top