Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Good posts...I think most all religious folks fall into these type of categories. It's natural exaggerations, "tall tales", little extra spice here and there that we place around holy men, heroic leaders, etc. Like all myths the details chosen can be a gateway to understanding beyond the actual life lived.

For some it all has to be literal and straight-up, for others it could be representing steps of initiation hidden in plain sight.

My friend --kateb this topic is Muslim ??
He wants to bring down the ethnic origins of the Jewish people ?
These have different reasons stemming from hatred to the Jews Koranic
But our friend, a Muslim does not know that dropping the national identity of the Jewish people also mean the fall of the Koran and the word of God also

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

The only problem accepting that story is that the Hyksos were expelled in the 1500 BCE, my idea is that the Pharaoh of Exodus (and Oppression) was Akhenaten - if we were to set a date.

There are many parts of the Moses story that fits to history, but none fits into one timeline, but rather multiple different ones.

Why was the story of Joseph in the Holy ???
If the history of the Jewish people is a myth ?? as you like to say?
Is God a Muslim did not know this myth also ???
The story of Joseph and the story of the Hebrews out of Egypt came in the Koran with misrepresentation and fraud in some of the details ??
Is that the Prophet Muhammad did not know the truth to this myth also ??
Read the Koran well , O mystic

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Yes Alhamdulilah he existed historically.

Ahmadiyya is Nchaet school in India during the colonial Englishman her
It is not a recognized school of Islamic schools where the original
She holds a private interpretations of the founder also

 

[Shad]

thats good because I really can't believe that the complex system of worship could have been invented by men based on a fictional character.

Some of the laws would never have been implemented if men were the originators of the laws and at least one law is beyond the ability of any man to judge...that is the law of coveting. Only God can know who has coveted something belonging to another... so no man in his right mind would invent a law that they have no way of enforcing.

Moses was most certainly an historical person. If he wasnt, Judasim simply would not exist today.

Feel free to explain how every other religion you think is false did the exact same thing. Or do you think Romulus and Remus were raised by a Wolf as per the foundation charter of Rome?

 

[Kenny]

We do not see that with monotheism. Yet people did rally round Yahweh off and on.

What we do see is Canaanite mythology and deities, and that in war time people would rally around Yahweh but still holding on to polytheism.

What you may not understand is that these were not some orthodox culture with a single religion. These people belonged to multiple cultures and traditions.

After the exile they were forced by their captors to a single tradition. This is when Moses was born.

Even after the exile, polytheism was not dead, just because King Josiah ruled in on one god. It took 200-400 more years before Judaism was even fully monotheistic. Just before Jesus was born during Hellenistic oppression.

Let me see if I understand. Moses is a myth but King Josiah was real. The stories in the Bible were made up but Jesus was a real figure. We can't trust what was written but we believe what it says about the Canaanites. The history isn't true but we accept its accounts about "in war time people would rally around Yahweh but still holding on to polytheism".

So you have basically said everything that is written in the Tanakh but we don't accept it as historical data.

Got it!!

 

[Kenny]

Oh for... READ THE BOOKS. Insisting on being a brain-dead numptie and arguing against the plain and obvious reading of the texts; never mind a couple of hundred years of scholarship by tens of thousands (conservatively) of people will just get you stuck on ignore.

Yes... you are the bright one and everyone else is brain dead. But I don't mind... I'm reaping benefits of a great relationship with YHWH.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Why was the story of Joseph in the Holy ???
If the history of the Jewish people is a myth ?? as you like to say?
Is God a Muslim did not know this myth also ???
The story of Joseph and the story of the Hebrews out of Egypt came in the Koran with misrepresentation and fraud in some of the details ??
Is that the Prophet Muhammad did not know the truth to this myth also ??
Read the Koran well , O mystic

Evidently God did not know Moses was a fiction, yes. The Koran also confuses Miriam, Moses' sister with Mary, Jesus' mother. If we go off the Tanakh and New Testament dates these two fictional people are fifteen hundred years apart in time. The Koran is a garbled secondary fiction. I have no reason to doubt Muhammad believed what he preached; but then so has every one else who preached a version of the Abrahamic God, right down to today. We have no way of telling them apart.

Zulk-Dharma's idea falls down on Ahkenaten and his succesors being in control, either directly or thru proxies, of Coele-Syria, including Palestine, all the way up to Kadesh. Egyptian control seems to have still been extant at the time of Ramesess IX about 1125BC. No room here for Moses, Exodus, the Conquest, Settlement or Judges.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

The Koran also confuses Miriam, Moses' sister with Mary, Jesus' mother.

Wrong, that's not true. It's a literary style used in the book, prophet Muhammad himself gave his exegesis after some disciples were confused and asked him what's the meaning behind this, he answered: "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them."

Evidently, to his support, the Bible does the same by calling Jesus, son of David.

The other parts of your post are just false conjectures and apologist defenses in support of the materialist, unscholarly consensus by the minority of historians - easily dismissed and debunked as that idiosyncratic rubbish you wrote above.

 

[outhouse]

Let me see if I understand. Moses is a myth but King Josiah was real.

Yes true.

The stories in the Bible were made up but Jesus was a real figure

False and based on severe lack of education on the topic.

Not all the stories in the bible are mythology, this is a fact.

Yes Jesus was a real man.

We can't trust what was written but we believe what it says about the Canaanites.

The bible does not report on Canaanites accurately.

The history isn't true but we accept its accounts about "in war time people would rally around Yahweh but still holding on to polytheism".

The OT is not a history book. It is theology.

So you have basically said everything that is written in the Tanakh but we don't accept it as historical data.

No the Culture who's book Christians plagiarized, the Jews, you know its their book? Jews will tell you not to look at this as a historical book.

It is filled with poem, songs, mythology, pseudo history, allegory, metaphor, and some history, and much more.


BUT it is factually not a literal historical account of the past.


Next thing you will denounce evolution, claim a flat earth, and tell us the universe was made in 6 days, and the earth is 6000 year sold that does not fly anymore.

And a literal interpretation of history only ruins the epic beauty in the text, meant to teach moral lessons and proselytize devotion to one god.

 

[outhouse]

... I'm reaping benefits of a great relationship with YHWH.

And you little to nothing about the concept. You refuse credible education and knowledge on the subject.

You magically throw out all of an online encyclopedia out the window, when you yourself have zero historical education on the topic.


Apologetically biased scholars are not credible, nor will they ever be just because they want to fight the status quo you refuse.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Let me see if I understand. Moses is a myth but King Josiah was real. The stories in the Bible were made up but Jesus was a real figure. We can't trust what was written but we believe what it says about the Canaanites. The history isn't true but we accept its accounts about "in war time people would rally around Yahweh but still holding on to polytheism".

So you have basically said everything that is written in the Tanakh but we don't accept it as historical data.

Got it!!

Frustratingly Josiah is known only from the Tanakh. But Judah was in existence and we have external records of it having kings before and after until the Babylonians took over the place and carted the nobility and choice bits of the population off to weep by the Euphrates. Note though it is this otherwise unrecorded king in a lacuna of history who gets brought the "found" Deuteronomy and "reforms" the religion into a recognisable monotheistic form.

Yahweh was the national God, in a pantheon with other Gods that were Gods to other nations. He appears to be a storm god from Midian way, brought into the Canaanite pantheon as the fictive son of El. Like a lot of these national gods, Baal for instance, he eventually usurped or became merged with El. "Though shalt have no other Gods..." doesn't mean there were no other gods, only that Judah made damn sure they worshipped this particular god first and foremost. The same would apply to the other gods in the other kingdoms.

No we don't believe what it says about the Canaanites. Firstly because they are indistiguishable from one another (Hebrew and Phoenician are Canaanite dialects) and secondly most of what is written is tedentious propaganda written as much as one and a half millenia after the events it portrays. We can only cross check, and that in broad details only, when Israel and Judah come into contact with and are mentioned in other peoples records. The Assyrians for instance.

We have found records from Moab of their god Chemosh being described much as Yahweh is in Kings; giving his people into Israel's hands when they displeased him and restoring their fortunes when they came back to him. His cult shows up in Jerusalem, just as Yahweh's shows up elsewhere than Jerusalem and Samaria. We can cross-reference this material with the Tanakh. It is at these points of contact that we can put any trust in in the Tanakh and only these points of contact and inference.

The Israelites and Judeans rallied around Yahweh and Yahweh was seen to lead, admonish or reject them as Chemosh and Baal were seen to lead admonish or reject their peoples. 1-2 Kings are hostile and much later than they purport to be but time and time again the people are worshipping other gods as well as Yahweh and most of the time Yahweh has a wife, Asherah, just as all the surrounding deities do. Most of this is apparent even in KJV which obscurs much. Go to any of the better translations and you will see more. Better yet read a decent Bible commentary or apparatus.

Everything before Ahab is taken as legendary or mythical because we have no evidence for any of it and large amounts of evidence from numerous different sources and several different disciplines against it. We are not just making things up or relying on things that other people made up for their own reasons thousands of years ago, in an alien culture with alien values.

I have read the arguments and considered the evidence and find it very improbable that Jesus existed; but even on the possibly one in twelve thousand chance Jesus did exist, all the material in the Gospels about him can be accounted as fiction and that is a mainstream argument. Just go and ask anyone who came out of a seminary, apart from Evangelicals and others of a conservative bent, in the last fifty years. That a lot of scholarship doesn't quite reach the pews is a shame.

Edited because the last para was misleading.

 

[outhouse]

Quran spoke about those events ?

Yes it used the bibles mythology, and no credible historian disagrees.

Not one credible historian in the whole world uses the Koran for historical study on Jesus because plagiarized text has no historical value.

Islamic mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology. Stories about Musa (Moses)[11] and Ibrahim (Abraham)[12] form parts of Islam's scriptures.

 

[outhouse]

I have read the arguments and considered the evidence and find it very improbable that Jesus existed

Unsubstantiated personal opinion. But your welcome to follow what ever you like and if you would like help in this area, you I would offer.

all the material in the New Testament can be accounted as fiction

False.

It was written in rhetorical prose, and some sections have historicity. It is a sentence by sentence basis.

and that is the mainstream consensus.

False.

The mainstream consensus is that he existed, and at least two facts cab be determined. His baptism by John and his Crucifixion.

The 100% failure in a 100% mythical Jesus lies in the fact, mythicist cannot produce a credible replacement hypothesis that explains the poor evidence.

An Aramaic Galilean teacher from Nazareth who traveled with a small group, his inner circle, and was baptized by John, who taught after Johns death for 1 to 3 years, and made at least 1 trip to the temple where he caused some kind of trouble and died under Pilates and Caiaphas rule. Is about as strong as it gets, and has complete historicity.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

Not one credible historian in the whole world uses the Koran for historical study on Jesus because plagiarized text has no historical value.

Other than the Baptism event and crucifixion event. The gospels are absolutely invaluable from a historical viewpoint by all credible historians (not in the same way you're misusing the term "credible," I use it by its actual definition), this is because it's a book full of parables, metaphors and allegories.

Not one credible historian in the whole world uses the Koran for historical study on Jesus because plagiarized text has no historical value.

No, it's because we have older sources such as the Gospels and historical references from pre-Quranic historians. If the Gospels mysteriously disappeared, the Koran would naturally be equally subject to study as the earliest reference for the historical events. Use your logic, a person doesn't go for Joseph Smith Jr.'s book to search for the Biblical figures.

Also, the definition of "plagiarized:"

"Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own."

Quran makes it clear the references are from the Bible and does give credit to that source. If it plagiarized, which is a misuse of the word, the Quran wouldn't refer to the events verbatim, even using same names, and give credit to the earliest reference to the events, the Hebrew Bible. If they were plagiarized, we wouldn't happily acknowledge they are the same figures from the Bible. But since you're not good at English semantics, you don't get that.

Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology.

No, but it's true the Hebrew Bible plagiarized from prior events, such as Epic of Gilgamesh for the Noah story.

Also, you keep talking about creditability and then foolishly quotes Wikipedia, it's blatant you have no knowledge on the subject other than what you read on Wikipedia, yet you're eager to share your ignorance. From the article itself:

This section improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view. (December 2010)


This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (July 2012)

This section relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (July 2012)


.
Beings, places and events
The following entities are unique to Islam:

• Muhammad - the prophet of Islam.
• Jinn - creatures of fire; along with angels and humans, one of the three intelligent species created by God
  • Ifrit - Infernal jinn
• Kaaba - the sacred building that Muslims visit while on the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). In Islamic mythology, Abraham (Abraham) and Ishmael built the Kaaba at God's command, to serve as the earthly counterpart of Jannah (Heaven). Adam built the original earthly Kaaba, but Abraham and his son had to rebuild it.
• Buraq - a winged steed with a very wide stride: it could place its hooves at the farthest boundary of its gaze. It would transport Muhammed and Abraham between cities.

The following Islamic subjects have some elements in common with Jewish and Christian traditions:

• Angels - beings of light that serve as God's messengers; in Islam, these lack free will
  • Jibrail - the archangel Gabriel, an archangel who serves as a messenger from God
  • Michael - the angel of nature
  • Darda'il - the angels who travel in the earth searching out assemblies where people remember God’s name. The Qur'an tells of two angels, Harut and Marut, sent down to test the people at Babylon.
  • Kiraman Katibin - the two angels who record a person's good and bad deeds
  • Mu'aqqibat - a class of guardian angels who keep people from death until its decreed time
  • Azrael - the angel of death
  • Munkar and Nakir - the angels who test the faith of the dead in their graves
  • Israfil - the angel of the trumpet of doom
  • Ridwan - the angel in charge of maintaining Jannah or Paradise
  • Maalik - the angel who guards the Hellfire
• Places
  • Garden of Eden - the heavenly Paradise where Adam and Eve lived before their Fall
  • Barzakh - the state of the souls of the deceased before the Day of Judgment, when they will be assigned to Heaven or to Hell
  • Jannah - Heaven; the abode of the righteous after the Day of Judgment; contains the Garden of Paradise
  • Jahannam - Hell; the abode of the wicked after the Day of Judgment
  • Mount Qaf - a mythical mountain located so far away
• Events[citation needed]

[clarification needed]

Full of weasel words:

However, the consensus among Muslim scholars
Some parts of the Qur'an state that

The article simply is not reliable, it's one of those article that is not subject to much moderation and professional research and you have the audacity to speak about credibility , this just supports my theory that your definition of credibility is "what I agree with."

You're dismissed and your arguments are disregarded as invalid.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

False.

It was written in rhetorical prose, and some sections have historicity. It is a sentence by sentence basis.

Not false. Only two events recorded in the gospels are historical. The rest are not, that's the consensus by all credible scholars, I know this since I study the history and am subject to understand this, you quote rubbish things from a confirmatory biased mind - none of what you've said has been true or verified with any form of sources, all the rest is theology. Hebrew Bible is the historical valuable source for ancient historical events citing from other nations' epics.

 

[outhouse]

. Only two events recorded in the gospels are historical. The rest are not, that's the consensus by all credible scholars,

Laughably unsubstantiated.

Historicity of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Almost all historical critics agree, however, that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[60]

 

[outhouse]

Biblical and Quranic narratives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From a modern scholarly perspective, similarities between Biblical and Quranic accounts of the same person or event are evidence for the influence of pre-existing traditions on the composition of the Qur'an

Nothing in this section is not credible.

Bible plagiarized from prior events, such as Epic of Gilgamesh for the Noah story.

So what, no one argues that.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

Laughably unsubstantiated.

Your refusal to be educated is stunning.

Historicity of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, you cite something that is not credible and something anyone can edit. I don't need your miserable rubbish website, I study it from credible sources and history from credible historians and experts. But even then, your conjecture and apologist comment is dismissed by the fact the article largely refer to the Hebrew Bible and agrees that the New Testament is not reliable other than two historical events, baptism and crucifixion. Here from your own unreliable, inauthentic source:

The historicity of some NT teachings of Jesus is also currently debated among biblical scholars. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to Jesus, Paul's letters, are usually dated in the 50s CE. Since Paul records very little of Jesus' life and activities, these are of little help in determining facts about the life of Jesus, Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[57][58] although this view is disputed by other scholars. Many scholars have pointed out, that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is, that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[61][62][63][64]

Will you man up and recognize this fact or will you keep citing confirmation bias and apologist conjectures?

Almost all historical critics agree, however, that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[60]

No one disagrees with this, we disagree with the Christian Bible and Gospels. That which you quoted can be given to us from the historical, secular references we have of Jesus. Your whole post is absolutely stupid and nonacademic.

You're dismissed and your arguments are disregarded as invalid.

 

[outhouse]

No, it's because we have older sources such as the Gospels and historical references from pre-Quranic historians.

Age of a source does come into play, but does not always dictate historical accuracy.

If the Koran was accurate, it would be used. But not one credible scholar uses said book. Because it is not historically credible in any shape or form for Jesus or Israelites.


Many of the stories are different from the bible, and those difference, every single one, has no historicity.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

So what, no one argues that.

It's important to note your silliness, you said Quran were plagiarizing, when it's clearly referring to the Biblical events. I've presented actual plagiarizing from the Bible's side.

Biblical and Quranic narratives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing in this section is not credible.

Once again, your confirmation bias and apologist conjectures are miserably pitiful:

This comparison on the name/kind of tree between Qur'an & Bible needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2008)

Haman
Main articles: Haman (Bible) and Haman (Islam)
In the Bible, Haman was a Persian noble and vizier of the empire under Persian King Ahasuerus who desires to persecute the Jews. In the Qur'an, Haman is an adviser and builder under a Firaun(Pharaoh) of ancient Egypt whose narrative relationship with Moses is recounted in the Qur'an.

The structure which Firaun commands Haman to build is similar to the Tower of Babel in Genesis, unrelated to the narrative of Haman in the Bible. Both structures are made from burnt bricks for the purpose of ascending to the heavens.

However, it's also been suggested that these two are different individuals. The name "Haman" was in fact mentioned in old Egyptian tablets which now stand in the Hof Museum, Vienna[citation needed] (Walter Wreszinski, Ägyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hof Museum in Wien, 1906, J. C. Hinrichs' sche Buchhandlung).

This disclaimer have been there since 2008, the article proves itself there that it's unreliable. Also, it provides no source the Haman in the Bible is the same as the one in the Quran. There are also a Quranic figure named Salih, he's not the same as that Biblical figure with same name, this proves its unreliability. You've got to stop using Wikipedia as a primary source and go for something credible.

From a modern scholarly

I stop you there, no where is your lonely opinion "scholarly."

similarities between Biblical and Quranic accounts of the same person or event are evidence for the influence of pre-existing traditions on the composition of the Qur'an

No offense, but I ask you kindly, are you stupid? Who is arguing the Quran isn't referring (not "influenced or inspired," it's explicitly referring to the Bible) to the Biblical accounts? Look up the definition of "reference." Arabia had a long tradition of stories orally transmitted faithfully, from a historical viewpoint, Muhammad would have been a scribe to the traditions. Either way, discuss this somewhere else with someone who wants to waste time with you. You're polluting the thread, stop replying.