Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I need to go back to this:

To argue that a group of people concocted a false story about a man whose teachings have affected more people than any other, and then were willing to die for the fable they told, is ludicrous, IMO.

If anything, dying for a belief only implies that the belief was sincerely held, not necessarily that the belief was true, but even then, someone who knowingly lied, not expecting to die for it, but was unexpectedly killed would not necessarily be sincere.

For "martyrdom" to actually imply sincerity, a few conditions would have to be met:

- the person would have to have actually made the claims in question publicly (i.e. not just have been rounded up in some group arrest).

- the person would have to have known that making the claim would certainly lead to death, or have been given an opportunity to recant where it was clear that recanting meant freedom and upholding the claim meant death.

- the statements were not coerced, deliberately or inadvertently.

- the person did not simply want to die (e.g. modern-day "suicide by cop").

- the person did not think that perpetuating a "pious fraud" would earn him reward in Heaven.

Can you provide any reliable accounts of an early Christian martyr that makes it clear that none of these possibilities apply in that particular case? I think you'll find that we have to get several generations away from Jesus before we get martyrs who we can be reasonably confident were sincere. Before that, I think that what martyrs we do have are mainly people who didn't expect to die for their preaching who probably would have been executed even if they recanted.

 

[rusra02]

I think I need to go back to this:



If anything, dying for a belief only implies that the belief was sincerely held, not necessarily that the belief was true, but even then, someone who knowingly lied, not expecting to die for it, but was unexpectedly killed would not necessarily be sincere.

For "martyrdom" to actually imply sincerity, a few conditions would have to be met:

- the person would have to have actually made the claims in question publicly (i.e. not just have been rounded up in some group arrest).

- the person would have to have known that making the claim would certainly lead to death, or have been given an opportunity to recant where it was clear that recanting meant freedom and upholding the claim meant death.

- the statements were not coerced, deliberately or inadvertently.

- the person did not simply want to die (e.g. modern-day "suicide by cop").

- the person did not think that perpetuating a "pious fraud" would earn him reward in Heaven.

Can you provide any reliable accounts of an early Christian martyr that makes it clear that none of these possibilities apply in that particular case? I think you'll find that we have to get several generations away from Jesus before we get martyrs who we can be reasonably confident were sincere. Before that, I think that what martyrs we do have are mainly people who didn't expect to die for their preaching who probably would have been executed even if they recanted.

(Acts 6:8-7:60)

 

[Doug Shaver]

" Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·ophʹi·lus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally." (Luke 1:1-4)

I am aware of the Lucan preface. Your quotation does not contradict what I said.

 

[Domenic]

Why would people believe the many things in the Bible that have not been proven?
Some of the writers died for what they were teaching…why would they do that?
There are many things in the Bible proven by science. The first sentence in the Bible:

“In the beginning, God created the Heaven, and the Earth.” The beginning is time. The Heavens is space. The Earth is matter. TIME, SPACE, and MATTER. In 2014 science made the claim they figured out what the universe was.. TIME, SPACE, and MATTER. How did the writer who wrote Genesis know this?

There are many other things science has proven, that is in the Bible. When the USA sent men to the Moon, they came back with moon rocks. Science examined these. There conclusion? NASA said, “It appears the moon is nothing more than a big reflector.” The Bible says, “The moon is there to reflect light upon the earth.” How did the writer of the Bible know this?

Archeologist have been using the Bible to discover ancient cities of fable. They find them where the Bible says they were.

The main proof of the Bible for me is the prophesies within the Bible. These have been proven to have been written long before the events, and can be matched to history. There are just a few left, and those have to do with the end of this system of things, and Jesus return.

Sure, not everything in the Bible can be proven, but God has put the above things into his written word for those who welcome service to a living God. A fact without the Bible, or all of the above: If a big bang took place, it could never have created life, or make every living thing on earth dependent on every other living thing. Without trees, and vegetation there would be no oxygen. No oxygen breathing creatures, and the tree, and vegetation would die. No fresh water, and all things would die. The earth has its own system to take salt water, turn it into fresh water, and distribute it worldwide. Without the sun, everything on earth would die. Food would not grow. Fresh water would not be made. The earth would freeze. All things would be dead. Everything works with everything else, or nothing works. Everything has a seed to reproduce its own kind. if everything was created by a big bang…my name is Elmer Fudd.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(Acts 6:8-7:60)

- I said "reliable". Questions about the reliabilty of the Bible in general aside, an ancient word-for-word account of an extemporaneous speech would never qualify.
- nothing in that passage suggests he would have been allowed to go free if he had recanted.
- his speech in the passage isn't clear about exactly what he believed, only that he opposed the Sanhedrin.
- nothing in that passage excludes the possibility that he simply wanted to die.
- nothing in that passage excludes the possibility that Stephen thought a "pious fraud" would earn him reward in Heaven.

Care to try again?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would people believe the many things in the Bible that have not been proven?
Some of the writers died for what they were teaching…why would they do that?
There are many things in the Bible proven by science. The first sentence in the Bible:

“In the beginning, God created the Heaven, and the Earth.” The beginning is time. The Heavens is space. The Earth is matter. TIME, SPACE, and MATTER. In 2014 science made the claim they figured out what the universe was.. TIME, SPACE, and MATTER. How did the writer who wrote Genesis know this?

Don't cherry-pick. If you want to invoke Genesis, then invoke all of it. Genesis proclaims that the sky is a solid dome that holds back water, and that plants arose on Earth before the Sun was formed.

NASA said, “It appears the moon is nothing more than a big reflector.”

Baloney.

It's one thing if you misrepresent your own scriptures, but please don't misrepresent things I care about.

 

[rusra02]

- I said "reliable". Questions about the reliabilty of the Bible in general aside, an ancient word-for-word account of an extemporaneous speech would never qualify.
- nothing in that passage suggests he would have been allowed to go free if he had recanted.
- his speech in the passage isn't clear about exactly what he believed, only that he opposed the Sanhedrin.
- nothing in that passage excludes the possibility that he simply wanted to die.
- nothing in that passage excludes the possibility that Stephen thought a "pious fraud" would earn him reward in Heaven.

Care to try again?

Nothing in the passage excludes the possibility he was levitating and eating an orange, but to a reasonable person, the account speaks for itself.

 

[outhouse]

but to a reasonable person, the account speaks for itself

You mean people who believe in mythology?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing in the passage excludes the possibility he was levitating and eating an orange, but to a reasonable person, the account speaks for itself.

To a reasonable person, no story that purports to describe someone dying for hearsay would be taken as proof of magic.

 

[Vishvavajra]

" Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·ophʹi·lus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally." (Luke 1:1-4)

No, Doug's right. That bit is not saying what you think it is saying. The author is claiming to make use of oral stories about Jesus that have been passed down within the Christian community, under the assumption that the narrative tradition must have originated among those who with first-hand knowledge (a typical assumption among ancient biographers but not necessarily true). In any case, that's not the same as actually interviewing eyewitnesses himself.

The scholarly consensus is that Luke dates from sometime after 80 CE, at which point it is very unlikely that there would have been any surviving witnesses, and the reference to stories' having been "handed down" across generations makes good sense. Luke's preface is of the sort that is typical of this genre in Greek literature, and it's meant to explain his reasons for writing yet another Gospel, as well as to suggest that he is synthesizing multiple traditions--most likely with an aim to distill what he sees as the real heart of the story, as he rejects a lot of the fanciful bits that show up in Matthew.

 

[Kenny]

The difference is that it isn't the "whispering something to one person" but rather letters from the horses mouth.

That is true Ken, however, as we both know, letters can be made to say something not necessarily true, to make it sound more to the liking of the writer. And also, we know that those letters were written well beyond the life span of all those involved.

And thus we have two people viewing it with totally different perspective.

I wish I could. That statement came from long and intriquing conversations I have had with several of my Jewish friends, one being Hassidic. In fact, I attended her daugther's Bat Mitzvah. According to her, Jewish woman are required to marry and procreate to continue the line. However, I could not find accepted Talmudic law to confirm that.

OK. That explains it. I was thinking of the Pentateuch. I'm sure that must be in the Talmudic law taken from the time when if a husband died with no seed, she was to marry the next of kin to produce seed in the name of her husband. I believe, however, was relating to women getting married and not men getting married.

I agree that there is no statement of his being married one way or another. And I understand your POV that it would diminish his mission but I would say that many missionaries are or have been married in the pursuit of their missions. How would Christ's have been diminshed by his having been married? The closeness of Christ's relationship with Mary Magdalene intimates, at least to me, that they had some kind of intimate relationship beyond that of friend. But again, I can see your side of this and concur you have a valid point. There is an interesting blog by Rev Dr. Mark Roberts who mentions that both Philo and Josephus agrue that Christ being single was by choice and furthermore, that "women had a negative impact on men". Here is the link to that blog:

Was Jesus Married? A Careful Look at the Real Evidence
I don't agree with his suppositions but it makes interesting reading.

Bright Blessings Ken. I look forward to this exchange each time I see it. Jo

Interesting read. His statement on the Essenes is correct. Of course, as he said, the Bible doesn't say either way so we are left with suppositions.

I would say he didn't for the following reasons:

1) Magdalene met Jesus during the 2nd year of ministry which means that he would have to meet her, get to know her and marry her in 2 years.
2) When a man got married with a woman, there was 1 year of no work. Deut 24:5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken . (Can't get rid of those underlines) So he would have to do nothing for 1 year and build his home.
3) Going to his itinerary for the last two year, there would have been no time for even a wedding to happen with the crowds following him wherever he went.

I can't logically accept that he, somehow, snuck in a marriage within the 2 year itinerate life within the laws of the Tannakh and the Talmud.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Why would people believe the many things in the Bible that have not been proven?
Some of the writers died for what they were teaching…why would they do that?

Were you under the impression that Christians are the only people who have ever been martyred. As soon as they were in control of the Roman Empire, Christians persecuted Greco-Roman pagans into oblivion. If pagans were willing to die for their religious identity, does that make it true? Christians have also martyred no small number of Jews over the centuries. Muslims too. And then there's the fact that by this logic every Christian heresy must be true, as dominant Christian groups had them killed by the hundreds and thousands. In short, this line of argumentation relies on a stark lack of historical perspective.

“In the beginning, God created the Heaven, and the Earth.”

The beginning is time. The Heavens is space. The Earth is matter. TIME, SPACE, and MATTER. In 2014 science made the claim they figured out what the universe was.. TIME, SPACE, and MATTER. How did the writer who wrote Genesis know this?

How did the author of any creation myth ever written know that in order to have a creation myth you need to account for the stuff that needs creating, plus the time necessary for it to be created? Is every religion that has a creation myth now true? Or did you think that Christianity was the only one? Once again, you would do well to educate yourself and gain some perspective. You can't honestly claim this one thing is unique when you are ignorant about everything else.

There are many other things science has proven, that is in the Bible. When the USA sent men to the Moon, they came back with moon rocks. Science examined these. There conclusion? NASA said, “It appears the moon is nothing more than a big reflector.” The Bible says, “The moon is there to reflect light upon the earth.” How did the writer of the Bible know this?

By the time that was written it was common knowledge that the moon was reflecting sunlight at the earth. This shows up in ancient literature besides just the Bible. Astronomy is one of the oldest human pursuits, after all. As for the NASA story, that's one of the many apocryphal fables that apologists make up and spread around and that then get repeated as if they were fact. NASA scientists were not just learning about the reflective capacity of the moon in 1960; they knew its geography and chemical composition well before they sent anybody there to get a sample.

Archeologist have been using the Bible to discover ancient cities of fable. They find them where the Bible says they were.

Examples? I happen to be tangentially associated with the field in question, and I can tell you that archaeologists don't use texts in the way you suggest. In fact, trying to tie archaeological finds to the literary record is considered methodologically problematic in all kinds of ways. The prevailing attitude is that material culture ought to speak for itself.

As for the relationship of Biblical narrative to the archaeological record, the overwhelming consensus is that prior to the Two Kindgoms period there really isn't any correspondence. There is basically zero physical evidence of anything from Genesis through Kings, after which we're not really dealing with stories but rather prophetic works. And as for the prophets, the Judaic tradition doesn't use that word in the way that modern English-speakers do: prophets speak about the present, not predict the future.

In general I think you're too influenced by cheap apologetics in the mouths of others and haven't really done any of this work yourself. That's equivalent to saying that the Bible is special because you heard other people say so. It would be much more impressive if you were able to speak in your own terms.

 

[Vishvavajra]

OK. That explains it. I was thinking of the Pentateuch. I'm sure that must be in the Talmudic law taken from the time when if a husband died with no seed, she was to marry the next of kin to produce seed in the name of her husband. I believe, however, was relating to women getting married and not men getting married.

It's a crucial distinction. It was normal in ancient societies for women to have little or no choice in whether they got married or to whom. Men seldom had those kinds of restrictions. Part of that had to do with the fact that women were never really treated as independent, even as adults, and that they were not allowed to make a living for themselves, so their male relatives would be eager to marry them off to get rid of them. And there really wasn't a safety net for single women, either. Men on the other hand could marry or not, as they pleased.

Augustus passed laws to pressure men into getting married and having heirs, but that only applied to native Roman citizens, not subject peoples.

 

[Vishvavajra]

If a big bang took place, it could never have created life, or mae every living thing on earth dependent on every other living thing. Without trees, and vegetation there would be no oxygen. No oxygen breathing creatures, and the tree, and vegetation would die. No fresh water, and all things would die. The earth has its own system to take salt water, turn it into fresh water, and distribute it worldwide. Without the sun, everything on earth would die. Food would not grow. Fresh water would not be made. The earth would freeze. All things would be dead. Everything works with everything else, or nothing works. Everything has a seed to reproduce its own kind. if everything was created by a big bang…my name is Elmer Fudd.

So... if things weren't the way they are now, then they would be different from how they are now? That's a tautology, not an argument for anything in particular. And you say that natural processes could not have resulted in life or ecosystems, but you provide no support for that assertion. Why does order in the universe require supernatural intervention? We have no evidence that an orderless universe is even possible, much less that it would be the default state of things in the absence of some supernatural agency.

Logically it's the equivalent of saying that without Baal there could be no lightning or rain, since natural meteorological phenomena are completely incapable of forming clouds and condensation and electrical storms on their own, and without his awesome power all of the streams would dry up and the all life would go thirsty and die. (That actually happens in an Ugaritic myth, so it came to mind.)

 

[JoStories]

And thus we have two people viewing it with totally different perspective.

Agreed Ken. I am curious, however, how you rationlize the letters being written so much beyond the lifespan of Christ. I do not mean any disrespect in that but am merely curious. It is of interest OK. That explains it. I was thinking of the Pentateuch. I'm sure that must be in the Talmudic law taken from the time when if a husband died with no seed, she was to marry the next of kin to produce seed in the name of her husband. I believe, however, was relating to women getting married and not men getting married.
erhto me, with regard to my dissertation, how people can choose to view things. And keep in mind that I fully recognize my own choice to believe that the letters were written not only by simple men but were also written with an intent in mind.

OK. That explains it. I was thinking of the Pentateuch. I'm sure that must be in the Talmudic law taken from the time when if a husband died with no seed, she was to marry the next of kin to produce seed in the name of her husband. I believe, however, was relating to women getting married and not men getting married.

Perhaps I am not understanding you here. The Talmudic law is straight forward and states that the messiah must come from the line of David and must be paternal. How does that explain Mary and the line of Christ through her? I apologize if I am being obtuse but I cannot see how the one explains the other.


Interesting read. His statement on the Essenes is correct. Of course, as he said, the Bible doesn't say either way so we are left with suppositions.

I would say he didn't for the following reasons:

1) Magdalene met Jesus during the 2nd year of ministry which means that he would have to meet her, get to know her and marry her in 2 years.
2) When a man got married with a woman, there was 1 year of no work. Deut 24:5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out towar, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken .(Can't get rid of those underlines) So he would have to do nothing for 1 year and build his home.
3) Going to his itinerary for the last two year, there would have been no time for even a wedding to happen with the crowds following him wherever he went.

I can't logically accept that he, somehow, snuck in a marriage within the 2 year itinerate life within the laws of the Tannakh and the Talmud.

Valid points, of course. With the exception of #1. Plenty of people meet and get married well within the two year mark. And then, with regard to #2, I am not sure why the man had to ' cheer up' the wife unless the wife was forced into the marriage (highly probable) and would suffer from the depression of having to live with someone she barely knew, never mind did not love. But you are absolutely correct that this is all merely supposition. Even stating that, I cannot understand how his having been married would have diminished the weight of his message. For me, it would have enhanced the message, making him more human and therefore more understandable to the common man.
A bright and peaceful good morning to you with many blessings Ken. JO

 

[JoStories]

It's a crucial distinction. It was normal in ancient societies for women to have little or no choice in whether they got married or to whom. Men seldom had those kinds of restrictions. Part of that had to do with the fact that women were never really treated as independent, even as adults, and that they were not allowed to make a living for themselves, so their male relatives would be eager to marry them off to get rid of them. And there really wasn't a safety net for single women, either. Men on the other hand could marry or not, as they pleased.

Augustus passed laws to pressure men into getting married and having heirs, but that only applied to native Roman citizens, not subject peoples.

Agreed. And there is also the Talmudic culture that was the norm at that time, IE: man were to marry for some of the reasons you mention here. Women in that age were property. Consider the story of Dinah, extrapolated in the story 'The Red Tent'. This absolute insistence that Jesus would never have married has never truly made sense to me. What difference would it have made, really?

 

[rusra02]

No, Doug's right. That bit is not saying what you think it is saying. The author is claiming to make use of oral stories about Jesus that have been passed down within the Christian community, under the assumption that the narrative tradition must have originated among those who with first-hand knowledge (a typical assumption among ancient biographers but not necessarily true). In any case, that's not the same as actually interviewing eyewitnesses himself.

The scholarly consensus is that Luke dates from sometime after 80 CE, at which point it is very unlikely that there would have been any surviving witnesses, and the reference to stories' having been "handed down" across generations makes good sense. Luke's preface is of the sort that is typical of this genre in Greek literature, and it's meant to explain his reasons for writing yet another Gospel, as well as to suggest that he is synthesizing multiple traditions--most likely with an aim to distill what he sees as the real heart of the story, as he rejects a lot of the fanciful bits that show up in Matthew.

You are going beyond what Luke actually said. Further, the evidence suggests Luke was written long before 80 CE. Luke was not himself an eyewitness of Jesus ministry, but spoke to those who were. That Luke wrote his gospel and the book of Acts close to when the events occurred, this quote from W14 1/1 is telling, I think;
"Luke touches on historical facts that can be verified. For example, he uses a number of obscure titles of Roman civic officials, such as praetors, or civil magistrates, in Philippi; politarchs, or local rulers, of Thessalonica; and Asiarchs, or leading men, in Ephesus. (Acts 16:20, Kingdom Interlinear; 17:6; 19:31) Luke calls Herod Antipas a tetrarch, or district ruler, and Sergio Paulus he calls the proconsul of Cyprus.—Acts 13:1, 7.
Luke’s correct use of titles is noteworthy because when the status of a Roman territory changed, so did the title of its administrator. Yet, “time after time such references in Acts prove to be just right for the place and time in question,” says Bible scholar Bruce Metzger. Scholar William Ramsay calls Luke “a historian of the highest order.”

 

[Vishvavajra]

You are going beyond what Luke actually said. Further, the evidence suggests Luke was written long before 80 CE. Luke was not himself an eyewitness of Jesus ministry, but spoke to those who were. That Luke wrote his gospel and the book of Acts close to when the events occurred, this quote from W14 1/1 is telling, I think;
"Luke touches on historical facts that can be verified. For example, he uses a number of obscure titles of Roman civic officials, such as praetors, or civil magistrates, in Philippi; politarchs, or local rulers, of Thessalonica; and Asiarchs, or leading men, in Ephesus. (Acts 16:20, Kingdom Interlinear; 17:6; 19:31) Luke calls Herod Antipas a tetrarch, or district ruler, and Sergio Paulus he calls the proconsul of Cyprus.—Acts 13:1, 7.
Luke’s correct use of titles is noteworthy because when the status of a Roman territory changed, so did the title of its administrator. Yet, “time after time such references in Acts prove to be just right for the place and time in question,” says Bible scholar Bruce Metzger. Scholar William Ramsay calls Luke “a historian of the highest order.”

Scholarly consensus disagrees with you. You don't have to agree with scholarly consensus, but it does mean that a supermajority of professional Biblical scholars think the evidence suggests a date after 80 CE, to the point where suggesting an earlier date at this point would require a hefty burden of proof that other scholars of the same tier haven't been able to meet.

As for the details you mention about Roman government, I don't know why you would find any of that compelling evidence for anything in particular, other than that the author of Luke did his homework. It's not as if people had to be eyewitnesses in order to know who was president in 1968. Or that the US had no Dept. of Homeland Security then. Or any other number of specific details. People in the Roman world (the best record-keepers in history) didn't suffer mass amnesia every decade or two. Especially not when every inscription and official document was stamped with the names of all the important people involved at the time, along with their titles. Really, this is just one more line of argument that requires one to be wholly ignorant of history in order to buy it.

At the same time, Luke plays fast and loose with some details, such as when he claims that the census required Joseph to return to Bethlehem. Even non-eyewitnesses would know that was just something the author made up in order to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, in order to fit within the prophetic structure that he's referencing, as well as to frame him as a new David, which is part of what Luke is up to. But Luke, despite its boilerplate preface, isn't just about recounting facts; it's characterization of Jesus is actually the number-one priority, and the facts are chosen and modified to fit that program, as they would be in any other ancient biography.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Agreed. And there is also the Talmudic culture that was the norm at that time, IE: man were to marry for some of the reasons you mention here. Women in that age were property. Consider the story of Dinah, extrapolated in the story 'The Red Tent'. This absolute insistence that Jesus would never have married has never truly made sense to me. What difference would it have made, really?

We don't know that he did marry, but we also don't have any evidence that he didn't. It's one of the many things about his life that people have to be content to leave up in the air. All we can say for sure is that his later biographers didn't have any knowledge of his being married, or didn't think it was significant. But they also didn't know when he was born or a number of other biographical details, so it's not inconceivable that his being married simply wasn't a core part of his story, so it fell out of the tradition. It's also possible that he simply didn't live long enough to marry, as in the ancient Mediterranean it would not be unusual for a man to marry in his early 30s (often to a girl half that age). Or perhaps he was simply too busy wandering around and preaching to settle down as a householder. And his relationship with his own family seems to have been strained in certain ways, possibly because his paternity was in question (the fact that he's called "Jesus, son of Mary" makes him sound like a *******, or one whose father refused to recognize him).

But the blanket statement that Jesus was definitely never married is just something that people believe because they want to have a particular view of him. Compare the Catholic doctrine that he was an only child, which is also unsupported by the evidence. Worse, his brothers are explicitly mentioned not only in the Gospels but also by Paul, who claims to have met James personally. People try to weasel out of that one by claiming that "brother" isn't used literally, but that's special pleading and doesn't fit the context at all. It seems that Jesus's family life is something that a lot of people find very threatening to their particular view of him, for whatever reason.

Similarly, the statement that Jesus definitely was married is overstating the case and is more concerned with opposing the traditional view than it is with the evidence (of which there is none).

 

[Domenic]

Some of you are using what is called, “Adverse Reasoning.” The Bible does not say Jesus was not married, thus maybe he was. The bible does not say Jesus was never in California, thus maybe he was. The Bible does not say the center of the earth is not made of cheese, thus maybe it is.

It is easy to sit back and say, “Prove this, and prove that,” but you never prove your adverse theories. Some claim, “Men of science have proven this, and proven that,” If that is so, how come many of the things they have proven, often to turn out not true?
When some of you claim, “Science says this is true,” How come you never speak about the other 50% of scientist who say it is not?