Did King David exist?

[redleghunter]

I didn't say that Jesus wasn't fully God. I said that he's not an authority on ancient history. Mathematicians don't cite Jesus either, neither do biologists nor social scientists, economists neither. What about that is an issue? We were discussing David and you dropped in Jesus, why?

I brought up Jesus Christ because He confirms the historical David.

You dropped the kenosis bomb which your church considers heresy.

Jesus claims to be YHWH when He said "before Abraham was I Am."

You stated Jesus was not omniscient. That means He is not fully God. He is either fully God or not. There's no half or three quarters.

 

[redleghunter]

The only issue is that when we do ancient history we want ancient sources. Every single source here comes from 1000 years after David supposedly existed.

You mean the TaNaKh in Jesus' time on earth was also fable? Seems the scribes kept good records. Not to mention Josephus.

Are you still holding to the point that Jesus was fully God and fully man but did not know nothing bout history?

 

[redleghunter]

Do you know what knowledge is? It's justified true belief. If they try to reconstruct my existence and can't then they'd be correct in following their methodologies because they wouldn't be justified in believing that I existed. If they tried to reconstruct my existence and could then they would accept that I existed because they would be justified in accepting it. The same is true for a historical David, he may have existed but we don't know that. We are not justified in believing that he did because the data doesn't include enough information and the information it does include is unsatisfactory.

Did Jesus Christ confirm TaNaKh as a source in which people can find Him?

 

[redleghunter]

I'm currently in a discussion with a Catholic that believes King David didn't exist.

I showed him from Catholic documentation that he not only exists, but is also considered a saint.

Thus this poll.

Did King David exist?

Hey you may want a new poll. "Do Catholics support the Kenosis theory."

 

[Harfelugan]

I think it's rather unlikely that he did exist. The stories written about him appear legendary and were written during and after the exilic period (at the least). The archaeological evidence appears to suggest that Jerusalem during the Iron Age IIa period was a rather small town.

Any narrative of a tribal confederacy evolving into a kingdom will appear legendary. They wont however present the bad as well as the good of their founders. When they do the bad isn't the unflattering kind you see in the David narratives. I can agree that the version left to us was redacted sometime from Hezekiah to the post-exile periods. We should remember this doesn't mean they were then created whole cloth. There's no problem positing the establishment of an Israelite kingdom around 1000B.C.. For this reason many minimalist scholars present King Saul favorably yet discount David. Because if there was no literal King David they would have to create a kingly character by some other name. An Israelite kingdom of some type was established around this time. The size was debatable only because of a lack of extant texts or monuments. Yet there are no extant texts, that I know, of the same period by other accepted entities. From the southern Sinai to the Euphrates. We can conjecture that it was roughly organized with an unstable central govt. This fits very well with the biblical narrative. The Bible describes no empire comparable to those north and south of Canaan. Jerusalem at this time was only a 25 acre plot of land. Yes, it was small, but not for the region. Hazor the large Canaanite stronghold was only 50 acres at the time. Laish, later Dan is the described northern extent of the Israelite kingdom. When Israel took territory by battle it wasn't incorporated into Israel but at best annexed for the purpose of tribute. It would never appear as an empire. The Bible doesn't present it as such.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I brought up Jesus Christ because He confirms the historical David.

It doesn't matter whether Jesus considered David to be historical. That's not how ancient history is done. We don't use a first century text to ascertain the historicity of a 1st millennium BCE figure. That's like using Facebook to discuss the historicity of the Crusades.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Hey you may want a new poll. "Do Catholics support the Kenosis theory."

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Kenosis theory". Is it a Christological view which suggests that in Jesus' earthly life he was purely a man and had no divinity? In that respect it is in theological error. Christologically, Christ is God incarnate; is fully human and fully God. However, no one will say that Jesus when incarnate was also omnipresent or incapable of change or all powerful, these attributes aren't God's essence per se.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Any narrative of a tribal confederacy evolving into a kingdom will appear legendary. They wont however present the bad as well as the good of their founders. When they do the bad isn't the unflattering kind you see in the David narratives. I can agree that the version left to us was redacted sometime from Hezekiah to the post-exile periods. We should remember this doesn't mean they were then created whole cloth. There's no problem positing the establishment of an Israelite kingdom around 1000B.C.. For this reason many minimalist scholars present King Saul favorably yet discount David. Because if there was no literal King David they would have to create a kingly character by some other name. An Israelite kingdom of some type was established around this time. The size was debatable only because of a lack of extant texts or monuments. Yet there are no extant texts, that I know, of the same period by other accepted entities. From the southern Sinai to the Euphrates. We can conjecture that it was roughly organized with an unstable central govt. This fits very well with the biblical narrative. The Bible describes no empire comparable to those north and south of Canaan. Jerusalem at this time was only a 25 acre plot of land. Yes, it was small, but not for the region. Hazor the large Canaanite stronghold was only 50 acres at the time. Laish, later Dan is the described northern extent of the Israelite kingdom. When Israel took territory by battle it wasn't incorporated into Israel but at best annexed for the purpose of tribute. It would never appear as an empire. The Bible doesn't present it as such.

I think that Samuel and Kings portrays the reigns of David and Solomon as a Golden Age. The erection of the Temple, the establishment of central government and the establishment of vast trade. The way you are reading the texts is something of an attempt at reading them into the archaeological data. I don't see them fitting quite as neatly as you. The texts we have in Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings were all written by one school of authors, scholars name this author the Deuteronomist, they were all written after the Exile and so are very far removed from the times they write about.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I didn't say that Jesus wasn't fully God. I said that he's not an authority on ancient history. Mathematicians don't cite Jesus either, neither do biologists nor social scientists, economists neither. What about that is an issue? We were discussing David and you dropped in Jesus, why?

So God can be surprised and God doesn't know history. Sounds like to you God wasn't God.

This is absurd.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

So God can be surprised and God doesn't know history. Sounds like to you God wasn't God.

This is absurd.

What's absurd is using Jesus as a source for Iron Age II Levant... We barely have enough data to be sure of anything that Jesus himself said and did.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

What's absurd is using Jesus as a source for Iron Age II Levant... We barely have enough data to be sure of anything that Jesus himself said and did.

No what is absurd is to not take into account that God could change things in order for the scholars to make fools of themselves by trying to make everything they can dig up fit.

you either believe the Bible or you don't. you either believe that God can do what he can do or not. There is no half measure here and to say. If it is fiction then what is there to be believed?

was Jesus divine by the measure of his works or just some Charismatic guy that created a school of philosophy that some enterprising souls turned into a religion?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

No what is absurd is to not take into account that God could change things in order for the scholars to make fools of themselves by trying to make everything they can dig up fit

I'm sorry but I like academia and I like my religion. You think there's a sharp divide between scholars and religion because you make the divide, I don't.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I'm sorry but I like academia and I like my religion. You think there's a sharp divide between scholars and religion because you make the divide, I don't.

Pretty words that belie what I've already heard from you previously in this thread.

The Bible is a basic book of truths, yet academia wishes to dissect it into pieces in order to insert themselves, in their own arrogance between God and those who read the Bible for what it is. I think God would not miss a chance to make such people out as fools for daring to intervene in his works.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Pretty words that belie what I've already heard from you previously in this thread.

The Bible is a basic book of truths, yet academia wishes to dissect it into pieces in order to insert themselves, in their own arrogance between God and those who read the Bible for what it is. I think God would not miss a chance to make such people out as fools for daring to intervene in his works.

The bible is a collection of books. If you think it's truth you'd want to dissect it. If you don't like expert opinions then don't listen to them, they don't listen to you so fair enough. Me, I'm going to keep listening to the experts.

Also, you know that you're being anti-intellectual right? Some fundamentalists take offence to this notion but you know that it's precisely what you are doing right now, right?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

The bible is a collection of books. If you think it's truth you'd want to dissect it. If you don't like expert opinions then don't listen to them, they don't listen to you so fair enough. Me, I'm going to keep listening to the experts.

I don't believe in the term expert when it comes to religious truths. It is people who give themselves that title and not God. Being an expert only means that they have thought out what they assume as being the entirety of the evidence in front of them and I'd ask you to read the Book of Job before declaring the extent of any such knowledge.

It doesn't matter to me if other human beings don't listen to me. I am not accountable for their actions and will not answer to God for them, but I will speak my mind when others try to insert doubt into the Christian community only to give themselves a pat on their backs for assuming they have knowledge when all they have is doubt.

As far as being anti intellectual it is you who are calling your stance intellectual. God created intellect and knows the limitations humans have in this matter. I have met a few intellectuals who can't see the forest for the trees so please don't taught intelligence as if it alone is something beneficial to anyone.

Intelligence without wisdom is like a gun without a sight. It simply sounds loud when it goes off, but do we want a sound machine or sound judgements that will take us to where we wish to be.

 

[dysert]

Jesus wasn't omniscient.

Yes He was (when He wanted to be).

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Yes He was (when He wanted to be).

I would agree with this with one exception. He was always this way and only hide it from others when in his wisdom he knew hiding it would aid in his good works.

 

[AV1611VET]

Intelligence without wisdom is like a gun without a sight. It simply sounds loud when it goes off, but do we want a sound machine or sound judgements that will take us to where we wish to be.

If you're still looking for a church, I think I can find an Independent Fundamental Baptist church in your area.

 

[redleghunter]

It doesn't matter whether Jesus considered David to be historical. That's not how ancient history is done. We don't use a first century text to ascertain the historicity of a 1st millennium BCE figure. That's like using Facebook to discuss the historicity of the Crusades.

Awful example. Unless you believe the TaNaKh, too was a work of fabrication by goblins and grunkles.

 

[redleghunter]

However, no one will say that Jesus when incarnate was also omnipresent or incapable of change or all powerful, these attributes aren't God's essence per se.

Please elaborate.