Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently the Bible authors were too cheap to hire a continuity editor, the above sort of self canceling narration is legion throughout the tome. My personal favorite is the start of Mathew's gospel. He goes to elaborate pains to establish that Jesus was born of the House of David, just as the prophecies said of the coming Messiah. The roots of Joseph the carpenter are traced back more than five hundred years to establish the link. Then immediately after finishing this laborious ancestry, Mathew tells the story of the annunciation and the virgin birth, utterly negating the connection between Jesus and Joseph...and therefore the House of David.
LOL! That's one of my favourites too. I also like their comeback for that one....
'Ah well...see..ummm.. <cough> ...it's 'cause...,<splutter>, umm...see ..well...see...Jesus links to the David via Mary...see.'
Well, if that is the case, you still lose Christian because the prophecy says that the Messiah must come from David via his son Solomon but Mary comes through David's other son Nathan, therefore, if Jesus' blood-line to David is through Mary, Jesus can't be the Jewish Messiah.
This repost is usually met with...' I'm not going to talk to you any more because you insult my religion' ...whereupon they go and shout at some Muslim about him going to Hell because he worships a 'false' god.
Speaking of a "distortion of the truth", your statement that most biblical scholars accept a literal Moses is entirely, 100% incorrect. If you get your facts from a simple "internet search" and not from what biblical scholars ACTUALLY say as a consensus view, then you are perpetuating a "distorted view".
Here is an actual entry in a scholarly dictionary under the entry Moses, and the sub-entry "Historicity of Moses", wherein the scholarly consensus view is that both Moses and the Exouds have absolutely no historical proof whatseover (the biblical scholary consensus view) and that any arguments for the historicty of the latter are based on traditional assumptions and circular reasoning within the Bible itself:
No extant non-biblical records make reference to Moses or the Exodus, therfore the questions of historictiy depends solely on the evaluation of the biblical accounts.
One interpretation is the assumption of early Jewish and Christian traditions that the Pentateuch is an accurate historical record written by Moses himself. This conservative view persists in both traditions today along with a rejection of all the claims of critical scholarship. Apparently there is no inclination to ask, "How is it possible for 200 years of critical research to be completely wrong?"...
J. Van Seters' declaration: "The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend" (EncRel 10:116)...
Because of the complexities of the biblical text and the lack of certain data, conclusions about a historical Moses are narrowed to possibilites and probabilites...
(Dewey M. Beegle, The Anchor Bible Dictionary: "Moses", New York: Doubleday, 1992, pp. 909, 910, 911)
An article by an actual biblical scholar - not a "quick internet search". The historicity of Moses basically depends on a major belief that is not the consenus view of biblical scholars, either: the historicity of the events narrated in the Pentateuch:
Our only source of knowledge about an individual named Moses is the Bible. Archaeology has not unearthed objects bearing his name, nor do ancient Near Eastern documents contain references to him. Therefore, judging his historicity, like the historictiy of other early biblical figures, depends on one's own view of the historicity of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch where the preponderance of Mosaic references are found....
The importance of Moses, like the importance of all great national heroes, trascends his historicity.
(Adele Berlin, Harper's Bible Dictionary: "Moses", San Fransisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985, p. 659)
So - as you can see from actual scholars' summations of Moses' historicity, it deals with how one treats the historicity of the Pentateuch, and the various different Documentary Sources that comprise it (J, E, P and D) - a very complex question. But the scholar gives a good summation: it doesn't matter if he was real or not - his lasting influence as the hero of Israel has trascended any question of his reality.
So please take solace in that, and try not to represent the view of "conservative traditional believers" as the consensus view of actual biblical scholars. I know you won't, but at least you have been provided evidence to whole-sale reject in favor of your pre-held beliefs and assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
That certainly is a a textbook example of why we have to respond again and again rather than just decline to waste time. A failure to respond is going to be claimed as win as you did with loud exultation above*.
In fact you were nailed yet again #63 by Whoppers, superbly.
Really? I'll just go and find five or six links to sites that treat Moses as a real person. Just like whoppers found a few that say he didn't exist.
I find it ironic that the ten commandments says not to kill or covet, and the first thing that happens after Moses gets them is he goes down to find his people worshipping a golden calf. God's response? He covets the worship being received by the golden calf and demands Moses kill all those involved.
What's the irony? You seem anti religion, but apparently you don't know the Bible.
Killing by an individual, for selfish reasons is forbidden. However, there are transgressions punishable by death, among them - worshiping idols, killing (or cursing) parents, etc.
Also, when God decides to punish people is not the same as you or me killing someone.
Ok. I'll concede that you can probably access as many believers in a historical Moses as we can access those who don't. I'll give you that one. but I have to say that I have good evidential (not partiality) reasons to take Moses as not being a historically real person.
I'll also give you benefit of doubt on the rebuttal thing as well. But here, I have to say that the difference between 'murder' and 'kill' is a purely man - made morality distinction. Let alone that killing is killing if God approves and murder if he doesn't.
And my point is still valid that a disinclination to respond to you does not mean that there is no possible response and that you win - as you claimed.
P.s Looking just at the Jewish virtual library, just summarizing the Bible story of Moses does not necessarily mean that it is taken to be literally true. I have seen some Jews here say that some parts of the OT are not to be taken as literal - eg, Eden, Noah, Jonah, Job and frankly Exodus looks dodgy these days. I note that the point is the message and that is compared with the message from the greek gods - in which Jews surely don't believe.
Moses brings down the Ten Commandments, right? Then he gets angry and throws them down on the ground, shattering them in the process. So he trudges back up the mountain and brings down an entirely different set of Ten Commandments, among which is the command to not cook a kid (Young goat) in the milk of its mother.
Why did he not just bring down a duplicate set of the first commandments?
So many questions, so little time...
1) I don't know. Am I G_d?
2) Good question. Apparently it did not... It is also possible that G_d did not stay silent, but people's ears didn't hear.
3) That's the only question I can answer. G_d gave the 10 commandments to the Israelites, because they were the chosen people. There is a legend that G_d offered the commandments to others, but they refused to take the responsibility. Anyway, there is no problem, since the chosen will bring the gospel to all peoples of the world, who (after the arrival of the Messiah) will finally accept and embrace them.
OK, according to this, the Israelites are the "Chosen" people. So, the term "Chosen" came to represent the Jewish tribes living in the Middle East. Now, the term "gospel" is usually used to represent the stories about Jesus Christ as told in the first books of the New Testament, yet there are still tribes of Jews practicing Judaism in the Middle East. I doubt that those "Chosen" people ever did anything with the Gospels.
Moses brings down the Ten Commandments, right? Then he gets angry and throws them down on the ground, shattering them in the process. So he trudges back up the mountain and brings down an entirely different set of Ten Commandments, among which is the command to not cook a kid (Young goat) in the milk of its mother.
Why did he not just bring down a duplicate set of the first commandments?
Maybe God wanted him to have struggle and trudge back up that mountain to learn a lesson about controlling his temper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
