The historicity of Moses and the Exodus account

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Well, these not-so-central people if proven nonexistant, then how come we trust a book which is based on fiction for no apparent reason, all the while, labeling it as authentic history.

If you can detach the Church from the past, then on what does it rest?

What gives it authority?

The accuracy of the New Testament is uncontested by all serious scholars. The part of the New Testament that grants the Church authority is Matthew 16:18–19. You can trust in Jesus, that’s all that’s required for a Catholic, you do have a problem if you’d rather be Jewish.

And God ought to make himself presentable in our terms, to diffrentiate himself from nonsensical imposters.

Herein lies your real problem, your own attitude. If you watched and understood the video link i sent you then you wouldn’t make such a statement. Again, no serious scholar disputes that there was Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, the only debate is whether he rose again from the dead. Assume for a minute though that he did (i.e. Jesus was God), you’re telling me that coming to earth, preaching for years to thousands of people and then going through a horrific death isn’t presentation enough for you?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

labeling it as authentic history

Only fundamentalists do that.

 

[Raafat]

I’m a revert Catholic. I was born Catholic, then fell away. For similar reasons, I suppose. Then I came back.

May I know why?

Yes, I believe he did. We consider the Torah to contain testimonial evidence of that which happened in the time of Moses and Joshua.

However, the Jews also kept an “oral Torah” during those centuries. It was passed down by father to son through all those years, but was finally written down in the 3rd century AD.

Yes, the Torah contains an account, but it is only the Torah, as far as I know.

The oral tradition os very very very very, here it comes again, very unreliable. People forget, misrepresent, nothing is said the same twice, and it is far easier to make things up in an oral tradition.

Trust me on this, I come from an Islamic background, and the Hadiths, an oral tradition, is hardly reliable with so many conflicting reports.

Moses had organized a nation with a system of law. By the time of his death, he had many people under him, some of which also were his secretaries. We believe those things which were written after his death, were written in his name by his subordinates.

Why would his subordnates have the same authority as him, if they write something, then he had to approve of it to have his authority and accountability on it.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

And God ought to make himself presentable in our terms, to diffrentiate himself from nonsensical imposters

Again: no doubt = no free will. If God gave us free will, we will always doubt. Some more than others.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Is Hell just ‘separation of God’ or an eternal torment with fire, coming from a horrific movie?

We don’t know. Do we take “the fires of Hell” literally? Or is it a figure of speech? We don’t know. And since revelation is finished, we will never know.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

This same God said an eye for an eye, then, how come an indefinite amount of eyes for the same eye?

Because it’s God’s eye. Original sin was a sin of disobedience against God, not against another person.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The oral tradition os very very very very, here it comes again, very unreliable. People forget, misrepresent, nothing is said the same twice, and it is far easier to make things up in an oral tradition.

Trust me on this, I come from an Islamic background, and the Hadiths, an oral tradition, is hardly reliable with so many conflicting reports.

Exactly. As a Catholic, you believe that the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, only approved true traditions. Again—you believe. You can’t prove anything, and you would be wasting your time if you tried.

Hadith is a different story. Even Islamic scholars classify them into weak, medium, and reliable. But up until recently, they relied on the isnad as a way to authenticate them. It’s only very recently that both Western scholars and Islamic scholars have begun to look at the actual content to authenticate them: do they agree with other hadith? the Qur’an? Did the author have an ulterior motive for creating a hadith?

The difference between Islam (Sunnis, at least) and the Catholic Church is the question of authority. If you are a Catholic, you believe that the Church (Pope + consensus of the bishops, usually speaking after a council) is infallible in terms of faith and morals. There is no equivalent authority in Sunni Islam. Those who say a consensus of 'ulama give authority disagree on exactly who is an 'alim, and how much agreement is necessary. You only have to look at ISIS, where ISIS claimed to have several 'ulama agreeing with them. Opposing Sunnis, some of whom thought you needed 100% agreement among the 'ulama, had a problem. No one has authority to declare someone NOT a Muslim. There is no ex-communication.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

then he had to approve of it to have his authority and accountability on it

No. Like Islam, at the time the Jewish scholars as a group decided such things. But keep in mind there was no complete agreement among the Jews about what was part of the Old Testament until well after the death of Christ. That’s why the Protestants have different books in their version of the Old Testament. Catholics follow the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria. Jews (and Protestants) follow decisions of Jewish scholars much later (2nd c.? I forget) who decided that anything later than a certain date (c. 200 BC) was NOT part of the Old Testament.

 

[Raafat]

But having said that, is there an internal logic to a religion? Are there contradictions–or are the contradictions in your head? Does it make sense that a religion (any religion) would continue to define various doctrines (not change the doctrines, but refine them) over time? For example, does it make sense that Jesus was not seen as divine by the Apostles at the beginning? But then some of them began to believe it, and by the Gospel of John (c. 90 AD) Jesus was clearly seen as divine? Does it make sense that theologians would then begin to think about how that could work–was Jesus completely divine? Completely human? Half and half? And each time they “solved” one question, a few other questions would pop up. Does that make sense? Does it make sense that the Qur’an is eternal, even though a lot of it refers to actual incidents in Muhammad’s life? Does it make sense that 100+ (depending on who you ask!) verses are abrogated? Does it make sense that 'Uthman had to re-call all the Qur’ans in existence, burn them, and then issue an “official” version? These are all questions you have to ask yourself–is there an internal logical consistency? Or maybe you decide no religion has an internal logical consistency. You decide.

Ummm, If Apostles the ‘eye witnesses’ and their students are not sure whether he was a God or not, how come we who only heard about it, believe it?
It just means he didn’t claim it or didn’t prove it.

The issue of Jesus’ nature, in my mind, are just logical and theological acrobatics,.

And no, nothing about Islam makes sense anymore to me, especially they deny any human intervention in shaping the Quran and basic tenants of belief.

 

[Raafat]

Herein lies your real problem, your own attitude. If you watched and understood the video link i sent you then you wouldn’t make such a statement. Again, no serious scholar disputes that there was Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, the only debate is whether he rose again from the dead. Assume for a minute though that he did (i.e. Jesus was God), you’re telling me that coming to earth, preaching for years to thousands of people and then going through a horrific death isn’t presentation enough for you?

I haven’t had the chance to watch it yet, sorry. I’ll see it tomorrow.

The accuracy of the New Testament is uncontested by all serious scholars. The part of the New Testament that grants the Church authority is Matthew 16:18–19. You can trust in Jesus, that’s all that’s required for a Catholic, you do have a problem if you’d rather be Jewish.

But if there is no OT, there’d be no Jesus. If he affirmed a lie, then his authority wanes.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Ummm, If Apostles the ‘eye witnesses’ and their students are not sure whether he was a God or not, how come we who only heard about it, believe it?

It just means he didn’t claim it or didn’t prove it.

The issue of Jesus’ nature, in my mind, are just logical and theological acrobatics,.

Have you actually read the Gospels? If you have, you see that the Apostles are constantly misunderstanding Jesus. Jesus is constantly correcting them. It was a gradual process, as I said before. Even after the resurrection you have Thomas the Apostle not believing until he actually saw Jesus. And then, as I said before, you have the philosophical problem of “how” Jesus could be God. Again, if Jesus simply said “I am God” and here is proof, then no free will. It’s up to you: believe or not.

So if you say (as a Muslim, for example) that there is nothing in the Gospels about the divinity of Jesus, you’re wrong. There are all sorts of passages (even leaving out John, who clearly believes Jesus is God–“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God…”). Is this “proof”? Again, of course not. But are there all sorts of passages that actually spell it out? Sure: “I and the Father are one.” “My Lord and my God” said Thomas. Etc. Do a google search. There are also clever references where the author of the Gospels give some attribute or quality to Jesus that in Jewish tradition was only given to God. Or the author will quote a passage from the prophets that talks about God and substitutes the word “Jesus.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Recently an article came out which spoke about the fact that there is no archeological evidence that supports the story of Jews being enslaved in Egypt and that they left under the leadership of Moses.

This is even accepted by some Jews, who have a webpage on it

However, I’ve also read of reasons for no archaeological evidence existing.

One, the Israelites were enslaved of almost four centuries before their exodus. This would mean that culturally, whatever they had and left behind for future archaeologists to find, would’ve been Egyptian, as anything they received came from their oppressors. They had no means of creating their own crafts and vessels which is often a way of identifying the culture.

Second, Moses name was stricken from Egyptian documents per the Pharaoh’s orders when he sent Moses into exile, but this is in the Exodus account and nothing other to support the story.

The third issue is and probably the main one, is that the Egyptians have prohibited archaeological research in areas of interest which Jewish scientists seek to explore. The reasons of course are based on political/religious fear that would prove that the Jews were in fact enslaved by the ancient Egyptians.

The other is that the Jews who were enslaved were a smaller part of a larger group which included various people from different tribes and races.

Either way, there is little doubt that the Torah was written by the same author and it’s believed that the author was Moses himself.

Jim

 

[Erikaspirit16]

But if there is no OT, there’d be no Jesus. If he affirmed a lie, then his authority wanes.

Of course. No one here is arguing with you about that.

 

[Raafat]

No. Like Islam, at the time the Jewish scholars as a group decided such things. But keep in mind there was no complete agreement among the Jews about what was part of the Old Testament until well after the death of Christ. That’s why the Protestants have different books in their version of the Old Testament. Catholics follow the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria. Jews (and Protestants) follow decisions of Jewish scholars much later (2nd c.? I forget) who decided that anything later than a certain date (c. 200 BC) was NOT part of the Old Testament.

Muslims deny any human intervention in saying what belongs to the Quran.
They Hadiths are secondary, and are not as ‘scripture’ as the Quran.

The difference between Islam (Sunnis, at least) and the Catholic Church is the question of authority. If you are a Catholic, you believe that the Church (Pope + consensus of the bishops, usually speaking after a council) is infallible in terms of faith and morals. There is no equivalent authority in Sunni Islam. Those who say a consensus of 'ulama give authority disagree on exactly who is an 'alim, and how much agreement is necessary. You only have to look at ISIS, where ISIS claimed to have several 'ulama agreeing with them. Opposing Sunnis, some of whom thought you needed 100% agreement among the 'ulama, had a problem. No one has authority to declare someone NOT a Muslim. There is no ex-communication.

Yes, there is no Papacy in Islam, but the infallible Pope is a distinctive Catholic doctrine.

EO, OO, Protestants, are much like Muslims in this regard, they don’t believe in infallibility.
In Islam, there’s no Central Authority, but there are something that are platantly clear, and this clearness is further puahed when many 'ulama with their evidence come and debate.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

But if there is no OT, there’d be no Jesus. If he affirmed a lie, then his authority wanes.

Of course. No one here is arguing with you about that.

Err I am. Just suppose for one minute the entire OT is nonsense, not what i believe but a thought experiment. What are you going to say? - “well that Jesus was just an ordinary guy going around healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the 5,000, conquering death - we’ve all done that haven’t we”

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Muslims deny any human intervention in saying what belongs to the Quran.

They Hadiths are secondary, and are not as ‘scripture’ as the Quran.

I know. But does that make sense? On the one hand, you have hadiths that talk about missing verses of the Qur’an (“so-and-so was killed in battle, and he knew x number of verses no one else did” or Ayesha’s hadith about keeping verses of the Qur’an under her pillow, and a goat ate them…) and on the other hand you have 'ulama saying the Qur’an is complete. But if you go down the road where some hadiths are false and some are true, and you have basic beliefs that are ONLY in the hadith (for example praying five times a day is not in the Qur’an–only hadith), and there is no authority to decide…I think you have a problem.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Yes, there is no Papacy in Islam, but the infallible Pope is a distinctive Catholic doctrine.

Well, you could quibble about details, but the infallible Imam of the Shi’is comes close.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Err I am. Just suppose for one minute the entire OT is nonsense, not what i believe but a thought experiment. What are you going to say? - “well that Jesus was just an ordinary guy going around healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the 5,000, conquering death - we’ve all done that haven’t we”

I don’t want to get sucked into a side issue, but if the OT is just nonsense, yes, I am going to say “Jesus was just an ordinary guy, whose exploits were exaggerated and made up.”

For example: “Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed his mother the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not for the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life he roused opposition, and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment. Still, after he left this world, he returned to meet his followers in order to convince them that he was not really dead but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him.”

Jesus? Nope. Appolonius of Tyana. Do you believe in Appolonius? If so, you’re about the only one around!

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Jesus? Nope. Appolonius of Tyana. Do you believe in Appolonius? If so, you’re about the only one around!

You’re just repeating part of the Christ-Myth theory. You know that right? You might at well start talking about a flat earth or George Bush orchestrating 9/11, that’s the level of credibility you are on with that theory.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

In Islam, there’s no Central Authority, but there are something that are platantly clear, and this clearness is further puahed when many 'ulama with their evidence come and debate.

Yes. There is one God. No Muslim would doubt that.

But there are a host of issues that have been debated over the centuries: in the Qur’an God “sits” on a “throne.” Can God "sit’? Do we take this literally or figuratively (keeping in mind the hadith of 'Ali that anyone who denies the literal meaning of the Qur’an and takes it figuratively is doomed to Hell!)? Does God “speak”? Same issue. Are some stories in the Qur’an only meant to solve a particular problem in a particular time and place, or are they supposed to contain lessons we can apply today? The Qur’an says it is clear; and yet 'ulama claim it needs hadith, sira, etc. etc. and years of study to understand. No authority = disagreement.

As for the Protestants, just look at how many thousands (literally!) of different groups there are. And how many people have become cult leaders (David Koresh, Jones, etc. etc.) by emphasizing one particular aspect. No authority, so they’re free to set up a group and create a cult. In Islam you can look at different varieties of Shi’is, Sufis, Mahdis, etc. It’s natural.