Did Moses exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moses existed and exists.

There is no real valid question about it.

You can contact Catholic Answers apologists for such - I do not have such for it is not a matter of concern - there is no question that he existed and exists.

What is important is not what some popular periodical says but what the Sacred Scriptures and the Church says. Popular magazines are written often to sell stories and if something is attention grabbing popular magazines will publish them. Such theories are simply non-reality based. And so often secular sources get so much wrong in the area of the Church - if news persons writing religion stories would write sports stories they would be fired long ago for lack of good research etc.

If some particular archeologist says otherwise - they are simply wrong. Odd theories or claims get thought up all the time. Such is all they are.

Though I can understand your wish to have the other sources for apologetical reasons if you run across someone who as read that popular magazine -the staff there can some sources for you- give them a call.

catholic.com/contact/info
 
Faith1960 said:
How can we trust the video when this is the same channel that aired The Lost Tomb of Jesus, then a bunch of archaeologists said the Tomb didn’t belong to Jesus, after all?

Of course, it’s produced by someone entirely different, with different information by different people.

Is that how?
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of the other documentary so I can’t comment on it. We don’t have cable and never have but I saw the Exodus one several years ago while staying a hotel during a move from overseas. If they are by different people it may go back to what I was saying earlier about archeologists not agreeing with each other about nearly everything. It’s a very competitive field and is based on educated guesses formed by examining artifacts and often not many of those. I’ll try to find the other documentary online later and see if I can watch it. Most of the time in archeology people start off with an agenda to prove. Sometimes they are able to do so, sometimes they twist evidence to do so, and sometimes they surprise themselves and change their minds. This happened with a few that investigated the Shroud of Turin and St. Juan Diego’s tilma. Normally you can kind of get a feel for which category the people fall into by how the work is presented. I’ll see if I can watch it later on and if I’m able to I’ll PM you.
 
bitterhope said:
I’ve never heard of the other documentary so I can’t comment on it. We don’t have cable and never have but I saw the Exodus one several years ago while staying a hotel during a move from overseas. If they are by different people it may go back to what I was saying earlier about archeologists not agreeing with each other about nearly everything. It’s a very competitive field and is based on educated guesses formed by examining artifacts and often not many of those. I’ll try to find the other documentary online later and see if I can watch it. Most of the time in archeology people start off with an agenda to prove. Sometimes they are able to do so, sometimes they twist evidence to do so, and sometimes they surprise themselves and change their minds. This happened with a few that investigated the Shroud of Turin and St. Juan Diego’s tilma. Normally you can kind of get a feel for which category the people fall into by how the work is presented. I’ll see if I can watch it later on and if I’m able to I’ll PM you.
Click to expand...
The one I’m talking about was produced by James Cameron and investigated by Simcha Jacobovici (sp). Neither are real archaeologists.
 
Faith1960 said:
The one I’m talking about was produced by James Cameron and investigated by Simcha Jacobovici (sp). Neither are real archaeologists.
Click to expand...
Anyone .have anything to say about the Discovery Channel and the Lost Tomb of Jesus vs Moses?
 
Bookcat said:
The first is bogus of course- the second who knows?
Click to expand...
Did you watch .the second one, about Moses? It sounds like those miracles could’ve happened, told in a way that’s understandable for me.
 
Faith1960 said:
Did you watch .the second one, about Moses? It sounds like those miracles could’ve happened, told in a way that’s understandable for me.
Click to expand...
No.

No question on the miracles in the Bible. They were miracles.
 
JurisPrudens said:
There is no definite position of the Church on the historicity of Exodus.

However, personally I don’t think such a figure could have been purely fictional. Although particular elements of his biography might have been exaggerated.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for saying there is no definite position of the Church On the historicity of lExodus?
 
To doubt or deny the historicity of Moses would be to overthrow the foundation of the Old Law. It is practically of faith that Moses and the Exodus, as well as the Pentateuch in general is historically factual. All sound Catholic exegets admit the historicity of these books (after all, without an Exodus, what does the celebration of Passover mean?).

Also, I take some exception to the OP’s post (I know it’s meant well, by the way) that says the Church accepts historical criticism more in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is no less inspired than the New Testament, and thus the tradition of the Church in the interpretation thereof is no less binding than in regards to the New Testament. The truth of our faith, the Christian, equally hinges on the facts of the Old Testament as it does the New.

It is also noteworthy that no place in the other parts of Scripture is Moses treated of as a fictitious or mythical person, but in numerous places is the historicity presumed (e.g. Sir. 46).

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
 
By the way, the profession of faith at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) contains the following:

This holy Trinity, which is undivided according to its common essence but distinct according to the properties of its persons, gave the teaching of salvation to the human race through Moses and the holy prophets and his other servants, according to the most appropriate disposition of the times.

Since this profession of faith is exercise of infallibility, it seems that the existence of Moses is of faith.

Moreover, the 1906 decree of the PBC on the authorship of the Pentateuch requires that Moses be considered in a true and proper sense the author of the Pentateuch. Obviously this presupposes his historical existence.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
 
Latinitas said:
To doubt or deny the historicity of Moses would be to overthrow the foundation of the Old Law. It is practically of faith that Moses and the Exodus, as well as the Pentateuch in general is historically factual. All sound Catholic exegets admit the historicity of these books (after all, without an Exodus, what does the celebration of Passover mean?).

Also, I take some exception to the OP’s post (I know it’s meant well, by the way) that says the Church accepts historical criticism more in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is no less inspired than the New Testament, and thus the tradition of the Church in the interpretation thereof is no less binding than in regards to the New Testament. The truth of our faith, the Christian, equally hinges on the facts of the Old Testament as it does the New.

It is also noteworthy that no place in the other parts of Scripture is Moses treated of as a fictitious or mythical person, but in numerous places is the historicity presumed (e.g. Sir. 46).

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
Click to expand...
So what about all the articles online that say archaeologists claim there was no Moses or Exodus?
 
There are historians online who claim that there was no sixth century AD.

So?

Today’s academic historians benefit professionally from having some original take on a subject, so that they can write articles about it. This emphasis on originality encourages people to come out with wacky stuff.

Trained academics who don’t have a job in academia benefit even more from wacky original theories, because they can sell books or get on the cable channels.

Archaeologists like to find stuff, but they don’t like to publish what they find until they get good and ready, like in twenty or thirty years. This encourages wacky speculation sometimes, because they don’t have to expose their work to the critical eyes of their colleagues. (Except in private letters and emails to friends, which are frequently cited as sources in their friends’ archaeological articles. And boy, that wouldn’t fly in a lot of academic and scientific disciplines, but Archaeologists Are Different.)

When it comes to archaeology in Biblical areas, you have a lot of it funded by Biblical archaeology societies, Christian universities, etc. So there’s a counter-movement of archaeologists who will argue against every single thing in the Bible, until and unless they get solid proof to the contrary. As archaeology has increasingly vindicated the Bible as a valid source of historical records, the anti-Biblical folks have gotten wackier in some cases. (Or at least they say crazy stuff for the sake of discussion.)

If you are really interested in this sort of stuff, it pays to read a lot of archaeology and Biblical historical studies blogs. Paleojudaica is definitely not a religious-oriented blog (and it would be Jewish if it were), but the guy links to all sorts of crazy and sane academics, and gives you a good idea of what’s going on in people’s heads and in their fields. After a while, you will not get so shocked by every crazy idea that is going around; and you’ll see how much room for argument there can be, without being forced to disbelieve anything that is of the Faith.
 
Faith1960 said:
An article online by Time magazine said that as yet no proof of Moses existed and all the stories about the plagues, manna from Heaven etc. have the sound of myth. Does anyone have reputable sources that say otherwise?
Click to expand...
Jews celebrated the Passover faithfully for next 3000 yesrs .
Isn’t that carrying a myth a
bit far
 
Mintaka said:
There are historians online who claim that there was no sixth century AD.

So?

Today’s academic historians benefit professionally from having some original take on a subject, so that they can write articles about it. This emphasis on originality encourages people to come out with wacky stuff.

Trained academics who don’t have a job in academia benefit even more from wacky original theories, because they can sell books or get on the cable channels.

Archaeologists like to find stuff, but they don’t like to publish what they find until they get good and ready, like in twenty or thirty years. This encourages wacky speculation sometimes, because they don’t have to expose their work to the critical eyes of their colleagues. (Except in private letters and emails to friends, which are frequently cited as sources in their friends’ archaeological articles. And boy, that wouldn’t fly in a lot of academic and scientific disciplines, but Archaeologists Are Different.)

When it comes to archaeology in Biblical areas, you have a lot of it funded by Biblical archaeology societies, Christian universities, etc. So there’s a counter-movement of archaeologists who will argue against every single thing in the Bible, until and unless they get solid proof to the contrary. As archaeology has increasingly vindicated the Bible as a valid source of historical records, the anti-Biblical folks have gotten wackier in some cases. (Or at least they say crazy stuff for the sake of discussion.)

If you are really interested in this sort of stuff, it pays to read a lot of archaeology and Biblical historical studies blogs. Paleojudaica is definitely not a religious-oriented blog (and it would be Jewish if it were), but the guy links to all sorts of crazy and sane academics, and gives you a good idea of what’s going on in people’s heads and in their fields. After a while, you will not get so shocked by every crazy idea that is going around; and you’ll see how much room for argument there can be, without being forced to disbelieve anything that is of the Faith.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Lots of people claim different things. Archeology is about making guesses based on what you happen to find. Most of the time they set out to prove something and so they already have a bias and discard much information in order to prove their agenda. It’s also not unheard of to manufacture evidence either. That’s why things must be taken with a grain of salt and with a thinking and rational mind in order to draw your own conclusions
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top