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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Well, why not?" Yes! That's it! The Very Best Method of exegeting ancient texts Ever! The Why Not? Method. Except for the fact that A) King David never wrote anything, and B) the bible isn't a real good source for actual historic information.
David didn't write the Psalms.
that doesn't address the multivalency issue.
I don't think you read what I wrote. Or else you didn't understand what I wrote.
That's fine for you, but in my case, largely due to my science background, we tend to be skeptics. It's not that I'm saying or implying scripture is wrong but more that I personally need more objective confirmation before I accept something as being true.
Sorjourner you say that king David never wrote the psalms. I guess you have your reasons for that. But what of witness testimony? Have you taken that into consideration when you do. I’ll just give one example. You have a statement made by Jesus himself who says clearly that king David is the author of the Psalms. We do find this in Matthew 22:42-45 apon our Lords discussion with the Pharisees.( 42 Saying , what think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him, the son of David. 43 He saith unto them, HOW THEN DOTH DAVID in spirit call him Lord SAYING 44 the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make your enemies thy footstool.45 IF DAVID THEN CALL HIM LORD how is he his son) Sojourner the Psalm Jesus is quoting from about King David being the writer is Psalm 110:1. I’m sure that Jesus not be wrong. Who are we to believe you think?.
Métis i fully understand with your science background that’s how yourself many do choose to evaluate.
Everything in Gods time they do say
Matthew said that Jesus said. There's no evidence to show that Matthew was giving us a true quote, and no evidence to show that David wrote the Psalms. Some of them are attributed to him -- but not all.
Sojourner so what of Saint Lukes writings in Acts chapter 2. For he does attribute the Psalms to King David as well. Acts: 2:25 ( for David speaketh concerning him I foresaw the Lord always before my face for he is on my right hand that I should not be moved ) which is referring to Psalm 16:8-11. And again Psalms 110:1 is also quoted further up the chapter at Acts 2:34-35 ( For David is not ascended into the heavens but HE SAiTH HIMSELF, the Lord said unto my Lord sit thou on my right hand 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool ) Sojourner Is Saint Luke misquoting Saint Peter when he refers to King David as the author of the Psalms as well ?
That's the tradition -- just as it's the tradition that apostles all wrote the Gospels. Just as it's the tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Tradition does not always equal historic fact.
Sojourner you do realise that Moses lays claim to the Pentateuch Exodus 17:14 And the Lord said to Moses. Write this for a memorial in the book. Exodus 24:3-4 (And Moses came and told the people the word of the Lord 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord ) Numbers 33:1-2 ( These are the journeys of the children of Israel 2 And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys ) Deuteronomy 31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests ) Sojourn the Pentateuch seems to be littered with Moses writing many things. But of course you are correct in one matter. That there is something that Moses did not write. His obituary Deuteronomy 34. That was probably written by His successor Joshua or some scribe of high standing as with Joshua’s obituary. I’m assuming with the tradition you mentioned. That your including Matthew, Mark , Luke and John as not being the authors of our 4 Gospels as well.. So what of your Christian Faith if so many of the bibles authorship be incorrect and the bible itself is found to be untrue. Than why would anyone choose to take it seriously and believe. More so with the early church as they seemed to have firmly believed on the historical account especially with the 4 gospel authors.
Of course. It's a story. Moses is a fictional character.
The original manuscripts of the Gospel are not autographed. That was a later tradition. You know, my faith, as well as the Faith of the Church are not founded upon the bible, or especially its "correctness." Faith is founded upon the truths we have come to realize by living our lives in harmony with beauty, wisdom, love, forgiveness, mercy, compassion.
Mark -- the earliest Gospel -- was not written until after 70 CE. That's over 30 years after Jesus. Luke-Acts wasn't written until around 90 CE. John later than that. I don't see how the "early church" could possibly have "firmly believed on the historical account of the 4 Gospel authors."
You do say it’s a mere story that Moses is a fictional character. Sojourner Some funny. I’m sure that Pharaoh did wish the same. Maybe like awakening from a bad dream to find the fiend Moses quickly vanishing into the misty gloom of the night never to be dreamt of nor seen again. As to the original manuscripts Sojourner we do not have. But we do have in the copies, And we do see some evidence that there was some form of verification with the scriptures such as with the letters of the apostle Paul who sometimes used oral dictation with having a scribe who wrote the manuscript out. Such as in Romans 16:22 ( I Tertius, who wrote this epistle salute you in the Lord ) Or in the apostles own hand as in 1st Corinthians 16:21 ( the salutation of me Paul with my own hand ) Sojourner as to the dates you mentioned with many of the New Testament writings. Well it’s becoming a rather problematic issue with what many of the textual critics are telling us. It’s verging on whether they are actually seeking to uphold the bible or trying to pursue It’s demise. Ok you mention Mark,Luke Acts and John all being over the 70AD mark by many decades. Well let’s evaluate that and see if this is true if we look at the gospel of Mark in 8:27 we come across a city called Caesarea Philippi we also find this city mentioned in the gospel of Matthew at 16:13-20. Sojourner the reason why I mention this is because Caesarea Philippi ceased to exist by that name in AD 61. Its name was changed by Agrippa the 2nd to Neronias in honour of Emperor Nero which means neither Mark or Matthew could not have been written in the post 70AD era that you mentioned. Another reason why those dates can’t be accepted for New Testament writings is the telling absence of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD not once throughout the entire New Testament is that noted. It’s only mentioned in prophecy prior to it’s destruction. If it were written in post 70AD we’d expect to find much mention of it but we don’t. We also have the discovery In Israel of papyrus sealed up in Qumran cave 7 from 1955 which when finally deciphered with better technology by papyrologist Dr Jose O’Callaghan in 1972 it was revealed that they were fragments of the gospel of Mark, 1st Timothy, James, Romans, 2nd Peter and the book of Acts. So we are once again confronted with pre 70AD data here as well anywhere as far back to 40AD. So the truth of the matter is well known and well attested to within the witness era of 30 AD -70 AD and of course there are many more examples . And to what of our faith we do know that all true faith does come from God himself. Faith does express itself in many ways as seen with the many that you have mentioned already. Such as love, wisdom, mercy, compassion and harmony. But at the time we still simply can’t choose to leave the bible out of that equation when it comes to the matter of faith. For faith certainly does come by hearing and by the reading of the word of God as well. That is a well established fact by the multitude of Christian witness and testimony throughout the entirety of the history of our bible.
I said that Moses is most likely a fictional character and that the stories about him are just that: stories.
Sorry. I'm going with prevailing scholarship on this issue.
No one's suggesting that we do that. But I do suggest that the texts be read through a critical and unbiased lens.
1 You say in the reply 130 ( Of course it’s a story. Moses IS A fictional character ) But now you say ( Moses IS MOST LIKELY a fictional character and that the stories about him are just that ) Sojourner one can only read what is before us. If that is what you now believe, than we do understand you better. 2 your going with the prevailing scholarship on this one. Ok well best of luck with that.
No, there's a lot more we can do. We can read below what's "in front of us." We can seek to find out more about the background, time of writing, authorship, circumstances of writing, intended audiences, etc. We can engage in literary, redaction, historical, and anthropological criticism. We can try to get past the lens of our own perspective and biases. Obviously, you're not doing that.
You're going with poorly-understood circumstances of writing on this one. Good luck with that.
Sojourner that be ever so naughty of you taking some of Prims words out of mid sentence to use in a entirely different context ( Sojourner one can only read what is before us ) Do refer back to post 134 to what I was referring too. Did remind me very much of the mad hatter scripture chopping Marcion at work. You not be related related by any chance : ) As to everything else you mentioned . ( background, time of writing, authorship, circumstances of writing, intended audience’s, literary, historical and anthropological criticism) that’s all well and good. As to the lens of our perspective and bias we do all have. But when it comes to the word of God. I tend to evaluate things this way. The problem begins with me and my understanding and not so much with the bible. Thank you Sojourn And yes I think I shall continue on that poorly understood path that you did mention.
.
.
