Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[Greatest I am]

I completely agree but not with the examples. My example would be Homer's work. He pokes fun at parts of Greek culture in subtle ways all while uphold other values. Odysseus, Penelope and the suitors. Polytheism versus monotheism as part of a national identity in the Bible. The demonization of rebels which formed the North Kingdom while ignoring the justification for rebellion People often reduce a narrative to the basic cliches or modern cliches.

I disagree with your examples due to the idea that one is correct and one is incorrect. My view would be that both views are accepted as correct to the cultural and religious identification of the time frame. It is when one puts forward such theological narrative as true for all, a universal.

I agree. Changing the focus from wisdom to dumb obedience was the Christian intent and that has proven profitable to it. That was its cultural and religious identification at that time frame.

That is when the Christian misogynous streak came out.

Regards
DL

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

I agree. Changing the focus from wisdom to dumb obedience was the Christian intent and that has proven profitable to it. That was its cultural and religious identification at that time frame.

That is when the Christian misogynous streak came out.

Regards
DL

Stop polluting the thread.

 

[Greatest I am]

In as much as even Jews have different views, I would say that your statement is hardly verifiable. Your word alone isn't quite convincing either

Have you not noticed that Jews do not have an Original sin concept?

"Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants".

The Original Meaning Of Original Sin « The Dish

Regards
DL

 

[outhouse]

After 1500 BC there were no more Jews as slaves in Egypt, because it was around this time period the Hyksos were expelled.

You could not even comprehend his reply.

He stated Semitic people, they are not always Jews.

 

[outhouse]

I've mentioned King David and thus, debunks your conjecture.

Ridiculous, if you think it does.

As written he did not exist. Just because a David may have existed, that does not dictate the biblical portrayals have any accuracy.

You fail repeatedly here.

 

[outhouse]

You're dismissed

You do not get to dictate anything here.

Liar or, perhaps, you not reading. The post is clear: "Ahab, Xerxes I, Joseph, David are just a few of several examples.

Perhaps your not reading, provide credible sources.

You have not shown anyone of these characters to have biblical historicity as written, as accurate to before 1000 BC

David is right at that time, and he has no historicity as written. He may have a historical core, but it does not help prove biblical accuracy, it only proves the opposite.

 

[outhouse]

MOSES

100% theological written in mythological rhetorical prose.

The problem is no one with credibility is debating the Israelites Canaanite heritage that started after 1200 BC. What is up for debate is who else joined these Semitic people who slowly evolved into Israelites.

We do not see Israelites with any self identity until after 1000 BC. And at this time they used the Canaanite alphabet, pottery, mythology, and deities.


This is the important part of the debate.

To understand the origin of Moses, one needs to understand the culture that wrote about Moses. NOT the REAL ethnogenesis of Israelites, that Israelites did not even know, because they had been wiped out so many times, that had no clue of their own origins.

Israelites were not some orthodox culture of like minded people. During this time they never were. They were multi cultural people with many different beliefs all based on Canaanite deities, El, Asherah, Baal and Yahweh. And possibly even a sun god early on as a minority polytheistic figure.

One needs to understand monotheism in Israelite cultures, and how monotheism was born during the reign of King Josiah, and then understand his monotheistic reforms after 622BC when the mythology surrounding Moses was finished.


In other words, Moses is a theological product that contained mythology by people who wrote 600 years after their formation from displaced Canaanite cultures after the bronze age collapse.

The book Exodus, is a theological piece.

 

[outhouse]

Yes Alhamdulilah he existed historically.

Nothing you can provide evidence for.

But thanks for providing more biased apologetic opinion.

 

[Kenny]

Have you not noticed that Jews do not have an Original sin concept?

"Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants".

The Original Meaning Of Original Sin « The Dish

Regards
DL

As I said, it would depend on who you are talking to whether Jewish or Christian. As a believer, I don't preach Original Sin (which has too many misconceptions) but rather the ability to be joined in union with God as Adam had before he decided to be independent of God. As an ambassador, I simply announce that God's righteousness is a gift and you can have it too.

Which, as I think about it, when did I mention "Original sin"? Or was that something that was taught you?

 

[gnostic]

To the OP:

Highly doubtful.

 

[Kenny]

David is right at that time, and he has no historicity as written. He may have a historical core, but it does not help prove biblical accuracy, it only proves the opposite.

That is quite a claim, especially since you have not provided any evidence to support your claim.

Archaeology is a painstakingly slow process for anything that old. However, as digs continue, discoveries confirm what is written and supports its historicity.

Related to the Hittites
The historicity and cultural customs of the Patriarchs have also been corroborated in clay tablets uncovered in the cities of Nuzi, Mari and Bogazkoy. Archaeological discoveries in these three cities have confirmed the existence of the Hittites. These findings also revealed an example of an ancient king with an incredible concentration of wealth. Prior to this discovery, skeptics doubted such ancient affluence was possible and considered the story of Solomon to be greatly exaggerated. This discovery provided an example of such a situation, however. Solomon’s prosperity is now considered to be entirely feasible.

Related to Sargon
The historicity of the Assyrian king, Sargon (recorded in Isaiah 20:1) has also been confirmed, in spite of the fact his name was not seen in any non-Biblical record. Archeology again proved the Biblical account to be true when Sargon’s palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. More importantly, the event mentioned in Isaiah 20, Sargon’s capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls, confirming the history recorded in Old Testament Scripture. Fragments of a stela (an inscribed stone pillar) were also found at Ashdod. This stela was originally carved to memorialize the victory of Sargon.

Related to Belshazzar
Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was another historic king doubted by critics. Belshazzar is named in Daniel 5, but according to the non-Biblical historic record, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. Tablets have been discovered, however, describing Belshazzar as Nabonidus’ son and documenting his service as coregent in Babylon. If this is the case, Belshazzar would have been able to appoint Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” for reading the handwriting on the wall (as recorded in Daniel 5:16). This would have been the highest available position for Daniel. Here, once again, we see the historicity of the Biblical record has been confirmed by archaeology.

- See more at: A Brief Sample of Old Testament Archaeological Corroboration | Cold Case Christianity

As digs continue, it actually gives more and more validity to what was written.

 

[outhouse]

Related to the Hittites

Related to Sargon

Related to Belshazzar

Has nothing to do with David's lack of historicity.

That is quite a claim, especially since you have not provided any evidence to support your claim.

Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein and his colleagues are stirring
controversy with contentions that many biblical stories never

If Finkelstein is ready to concede the existence of David and Solomon, albeit as kinks of a small, marginal entity, when it comes to the exodus from Egypt he is absolute in his opinion. "There is no evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt, not the slightest, not the least bit of evidence. There are no clues, either archaeological or historical, to prove that the Israelites built monuments in Egypt

The Bible Unearthed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. Archaeology instead shows that in the time of Solomon, the northern kingdom of Israel was quite small, too poor to be able to pay for a vast army, and with too little bureaucracy to be able to administer a kingdom, certainly not an empire;[26] it only emerged later, around the beginning of the 9th century BCE, in the time of Omri

There is little to suggest that Jerusalem, called by the Bible David's capital, was "perhaps not more than a typical hill country village" during the time of David and of Solomon


the biblical writers deliberately invented the empire, power, and wealth, of Saul, David, and Solomon, by appropriating the deeds and achievements of the Omrides

 

[Kenny]

Has nothing to do with David's lack of historicity.



Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein and his colleagues are stirring
controversy with contentions that many biblical stories never

If Finkelstein is ready to concede the existence of David and Solomon, albeit as kinks of a small, marginal entity, when it comes to the exodus from Egypt he is absolute in his opinion. "There is no evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt, not the slightest, not the least bit of evidence. There are no clues, either archaeological or historical, to prove that the Israelites built monuments in Egypt

The Bible Unearthed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. Archaeology instead shows that in the time of Solomon, the northern kingdom of Israel was quite small, too poor to be able to pay for a vast army, and with too little bureaucracy to be able to administer a kingdom, certainly not an empire;[26] it only emerged later, around the beginning of the 9th century BCE, in the time of Omri

There is little to suggest that Jerusalem, called by the Bible David's capital, was "perhaps not more than a typical hill country village" during the time of David and of Solomon


the biblical writers deliberately invented the empire, power, and wealth, of Saul, David, and Solomon, by appropriating the deeds and achievements of the Omrides

The problem with your position is that you forget that science is always correcting itself.

First they said that King David never existed, now they concede that he did exist
Then hey said he had only a small reign until they found an outpost that indicated it was a lot bigger than what they thought.
Your position that biblical writers deliberately invented the empire when the historicity of older documents continue to be proven right, hardly supports your position.

For you to say that the capital wasn't more than a typical hill country when the walls that are being discovered decrees immenseness is a contradiction in terms.

Again, time continues to give credence to what was written. Opinions are a dime a dozen.

Finkelstein is just one person who has a position that is contradicted by others. It is the nature of the beast of opinions.

 

[outhouse]

First they said that King David never existed, now they concede that he did exist

They did not say that, that is false. they did however say there was no evidence for his existence, and today, there is barley enough to say he did exist.

As written he did not.

Again, time continues to give credence to what was written. Opinions are a dime a dozen.

LOL That does not make any sense, in light of the factual mythology and blatant historical errors, and pseudo history while writing theology.

That is not how we determine history, but it does show severe bias and fundamentalism in that you want the history to be true so bad, your basically now telling us to throw factual evidence out the window to protect your precious theology.

Your right apologetic opinions are a diem a dozen.

Finkelstein is just one person who has a position that is contradicted by others

Yes because apologist refuse credible history.

Finkelstein is the man on the hill right now, he is the most educated on the topic, and still actively on the front line. Its why he is the head of archeology in Israel.

 

[outhouse]

The problem with your position is that you forget that science is always correcting itself.

The problem with your position is it remains uneducated, and apologetically biased.


You also don't even know what your debating. This is not a scientific exercise, it is biblical scholarship, you know historians that use archeology, social and cultural anthropology? It seems you know little about these studies. Little to none.

You probably argue evolution to?

 

[Kenny]

They did not say that, that is false. they did however say there was no evidence for his existence, and today, there is barley enough to say he did exist.

As written he did not.



LOL That does not make any sense, in light of the factual mythology and blatant historical errors, and pseudo history while writing theology.

That is not how we determine history, but it does show severe bias and fundamentalism in that you want the history to be true so bad, your basically now telling us to throw factual evidence out the window to protect your precious theology.

Your right apologetic opinions are a diem a dozen.



Yes because apologist refuse credible history.

Finkelstein is the man on the hill right now, he is the most educated on the topic, and still actively on the front line. Its why he is the head of archeology in Israel.

I think it has become obvious here after the dismissal of all evidence. It isn't so much as archaeology continues to verify what was written but more along the lines that you don't want it to be true.

Why is that?

 

[Kenny]

The problem with your position is it remains uneducated, and apologetically biased.


You also don't even know what your debating. This is not a scientific exercise, it is biblical scholarship, you know historians that use archeology, social and cultural anthropology? It seems you know little about these studies. Little to none.

You probably argue evolution to?

Please note how even in this area you make statements without any empirical and verifiable evidence...

Are you a flat earther?

 

[outhouse]

I think it has become obvious here after the dismissal of all evidence

But your the only one dismissing evidence.

What about the factual evidence that shows there was no Exodus, that the Exodus is a theological piece, not a historical one????

You have dismissed the Canaanite origins, that has factual hard evidence.

Canaanite pottery
Canaanite alphabet
Canaanite mythology
Canaanite deities

It isn't so much as archaeology continues to verify what was written but more along the lines that you don't want it to be true.

I would love there to be evidence to back up a leader who led people out of Egypt, I could care less one way or the other, I am after the truth. You just don't like the truth so far.

Why is that?

Im guessing your bias, your fanaticism is stopping you from accepting education

 

[Eileen]

Your question was *Do you think Moses existed as a historical person?, my answer is Yes, I think he was a historical person. But I can not prove that to everyone's satisfaction. You asked for an answer but not an explanation of why I believe that way nor did you explain why you chose your answer. But obviously we do not all agree with either your answer of mine.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

Please note how even in this area you make statements without any empirical and verifiable evidence...

Are you a flat earther?

Don't pay him attention, he is a troll and he operates in a way where he gets away with his trolling, because he still stays within the rules from a legal point of view, but he will provoke one to call him out on his foolishness and then he will report your posts, since it's a technical violation of the rules. I just realized everyone knows he is a troll. Just ignore him.