outhouse
Atheistically
yes it is a fraud
-
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!
Did Moses in fact exist?
- Thread starter Rainbow Mage
- Start date
yes it is a fraud
dmgdnooc
Active Member
Well outhouse, I am disinclined to take this further.
Frankly it appears that no matter what facts I bring to the table you won't accept them.
And all my reasoning is met with - no, no way, never, nothing - you are absolute in your conviction so I will leave you with it.
　
nooc
Frankly it appears that no matter what facts I bring to the table you won't accept them.
And all my reasoning is met with - no, no way, never, nothing - you are absolute in your conviction so I will leave you with it.
　
nooc
outhouse
Atheistically
dont take my word for it
Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
cast in a literary style of elegant flashbacks told by Moses
Many biblical scholars are prepared to admit that there may be a historical core beneath the Exodus and Sinai traditions, even if the biblical narrative dramatizes by portraying as a single event what was more likely a gradual process of migration and conquest.
the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated
you have only brought a opinion and I have showed you your facts do not apply. You do have a good sense of history of that time period minus a few important details.
Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
cast in a literary style of elegant flashbacks told by Moses
Many biblical scholars are prepared to admit that there may be a historical core beneath the Exodus and Sinai traditions, even if the biblical narrative dramatizes by portraying as a single event what was more likely a gradual process of migration and conquest.
the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated
you have only brought a opinion and I have showed you your facts do not apply. You do have a good sense of history of that time period minus a few important details.
dmgdnooc
Active Member
outhouse
The J text is mostly dated to around 950bc, some scholars, a minority, hold it to be an expansion of a Mosaic core document from much earlier, some also argue for a later date.
　
The date of 950 bc is derived from linguistic and political clues in the text and - though both Friedman (who I have read) and Finkelstein (who I have not read) offer arguments for a later date - 950bc remains, to my knowledge, the generally accepted dating for J.
Although I am working largely from memory my views are not threatened by the wiki article you reference, it clearly relies heavily on Finkelstein's minority opinion and does not address the questions that I have asked,
Which leads me to suppose that is also the reason that you have not answered my questions.
Now the fact remains that Moses, and elements of the Exodus, are features of J.
　
The competing, or complementary, E text, dated a little later than J, is said to have been produced under the authority of the Mu****e family and promotes Israel over Judah, Moses over Aaron, and reflects the political situation of around 850bc.
It is clear that both texts draw from a common pre-existing and long established traditional, and even perhaps a documentary, base.
　
outhouse you want it both ways, to have your cake and eat it too; for on the one hand you say that the events are mythical fables, and on the other you say that the figure of Moses in these events can not be substantiated.
I have offered some substance.
Fact is that neither the historicity of Moses, nor the fabulous nature you ascribe, will be decided by a lone and clearly deficient wiki.
And your position is not enhanced by assuming an adamantine position well to the left of the most radical revisionist scholarship.
The J text is mostly dated to around 950bc, some scholars, a minority, hold it to be an expansion of a Mosaic core document from much earlier, some also argue for a later date.
　
The date of 950 bc is derived from linguistic and political clues in the text and - though both Friedman (who I have read) and Finkelstein (who I have not read) offer arguments for a later date - 950bc remains, to my knowledge, the generally accepted dating for J.
Although I am working largely from memory my views are not threatened by the wiki article you reference, it clearly relies heavily on Finkelstein's minority opinion and does not address the questions that I have asked,
Which leads me to suppose that is also the reason that you have not answered my questions.
Now the fact remains that Moses, and elements of the Exodus, are features of J.
　
The competing, or complementary, E text, dated a little later than J, is said to have been produced under the authority of the Mu****e family and promotes Israel over Judah, Moses over Aaron, and reflects the political situation of around 850bc.
It is clear that both texts draw from a common pre-existing and long established traditional, and even perhaps a documentary, base.
　
outhouse you want it both ways, to have your cake and eat it too; for on the one hand you say that the events are mythical fables, and on the other you say that the figure of Moses in these events can not be substantiated.
I have offered some substance.
Fact is that neither the historicity of Moses, nor the fabulous nature you ascribe, will be decided by a lone and clearly deficient wiki.
And your position is not enhanced by assuming an adamantine position well to the left of the most radical revisionist scholarship.
outhouse
Atheistically
I round it off to 1000BC for both J and E and edited together in 722BC ish
I follow the middle of the road, I dont care one way or another. Im neutral in this debate
I dont like wiki knowing how easily it can be edited by jackalopes with a agenda, nor is it my only source. A basic college student would fail himself using just wiki
none of what you stated refuted my previous post, because it really cannot be refuted.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Not only that Outhouse, but wiki gives precedence in editing to people of that religion. Meaning if a person is a Christian, they can edit the wiki pages about Moses, and make his existence look as literal as they like.
outhouse
Atheistically
your editing is not like the creation of the bible, its not mob rule.
if it doesnt pass it will be rejected without published backing of said statement
Wait, you pretty much believe that Moses didn't exist and you are still a Christian? But according to Christianity, ALL the stories in the bible are true. Me and my talking snake both agree that you cannot be a christian unless you believe in EVERYTHING that is in the bible. I mean come on, the bible is Gods word right? The almighty infallible god cant be wrong can he?
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I've met many Christians who don't suscribe to the narrow-minded view you're putting forth here. Most are of the mainline Protestant affiliation.
No one sees a problem with that though? Religion is narrow minded. it always has been. Just because an individual Christian doesn't believe a certain story or certain "law" doesn't change what Christianity as a whole thinks. If you are not going to believe what your religion tells you, whats the point of being part of that religion?
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Well the only problem here in this case is that I'd argue Christianity was never meant to go in the direction of taking it's scriptures literally. If you look at more traditional forms of Christianity that have been around longer, like Anglicanism for example, you see very little Bible literalism, and lots of emphasis on using reason.
Bible literalism and sola scriptura are inventions of so-called "Reformed Theology".
Oh, I am sure there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of lost, and known Christianities. Once again though, what is the point then? If there has to be different inner sects within a religion because everyone believes in different things, whats the point of religion/conformity? There are also people out there that are "multi" religion, which in all honesty, is hypocritical in its self.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Well the reason Franklin said that was in reaction to people who think God can give them everything. Franklin was a Deist, he didn't believe in a personal god who cared about people.