"Scholarly consensus" sees Moses as a mythical figure?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you prepared to back that charge up? If not, then please withdraw it. I’m no friend of Modernism/liberal theology, but I’ve seen no evidence she subscribes to it and your charge is crossing the line.
 
If she believes that truth can only be found in science, or that the truths found in science can be contrary to truths found in theology, or that the scientific method is necessary to prove the truth of Scripture than that is heretical.

I said her statement was broaching on heresy, not that she herself was heretical.
 
You are clearly not able to read my posts properly and see only your favorized black and white. It´s needless to continue this talk.
 
ChunkMonk said:
If she believes that truth can only be found in science, or that the truths found in science can be contrary to truths found in theology, or that the scientific method is necessary to prove the truth of Scripture than that is heretical.

I said her statement was broaching on heresy, not that she herself was heretical.
Click to expand...
Heresy is a serious charge best left to clear cut cases, NOT to areas YOU think maybe kinda sorta MIGHT be “broaching” it. Rad Trads throw that term around way too often.
 
You know what? Instead of arguing I’m just going to flag it and let the Mods remove it.
 
alice24 said:
but we would make a bad job in science to simply fill this gap with belief. Let theology to theologians, belief to believers, and science to scientists. One of my dearest profs was a catholic and deeply faithfull. She woud never mix this.
Click to expand...
This seems to imply 3 things:
  1. that scientific ‘evidence’ is required for a thing to be believed.
  2. that science and religion should not be mixed and are mutually exclusive
  3. that natural science is the higher form of gaining knowledge and gives more assurance than Scripture
    All 3 implications are broaching on or are outright heresy.
 
Of course you are. Shutting down debate is usually where these conversations go. Can’t have faithful Catholics challenging the modernist tendencies!
 
Yes, I heard this theory before and wondered myself if it could possibly be true. Others have been questioned as well. :confused:
 
Yeah, I gave him a chance to recant. A lot has to be read into your post for it to be construed as Modernist. I’m just not seeing it.
 
Yes…it makes me sick that some people are so easy with simply calling someone unfaithfull or modernist. I don´t need my faith to be scientifically proved, and I now that this wouldn´t even be possible or in the borders of proper research techniques - just as I wouldn´t expect a math prof to back up his faith with algebra. That doesn´t mean he is maybe a really humble christian, even if he would say “I won´t do this as a serious scientist”
When it comes to history, people too often think it´s just some “kind of science” and nothing with special research tools, definitions, working methods - because there´s popular history every day on TV (and mostly really painfully wrong stuff, if you have insight…). Not that we all spent years at university for this…
 
Last edited:
So, can the scholars and historians be wrong and if so, why, outside of Scripture?
 
Again, Moses is not proofable with scientific research methods of history and archaeology - Not more, not less. This doesnt mean he has not existed.
If I can´t smell the sun than probably because I should use my eyes, not my nose - to make it clearer.
 
Actually having your faith scientifically proven helps in proving your faith is true and keeps you from falling prey to somebody elses agenda.
 
Can you provide any evidence that Catholics must believe Moses was a real person?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top