Is This Scholar Bonkers?

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,123
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,857.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Kool. I agree and think the same thing - that the author's intent was to assert a singular flesh and blood man, whom did this and that in 'history'. Same goes for Noah. However, if it turns out that they did not exist in history, contrary to the author's intent, then whose to say the rest of the Bible is, all of a sudden, trust-worthy?

I will extent to you the same followup posed to @hedrick ...

Is it possible that the stories of Jesus fall somewhere on the same scope? That Moses, Noah, and Jesus are either mythical, other? He states, no, because it points to a 'conspiracy'. Thus, I ask you the same question. If it is not possible, why not?


*** Again, I'm not necessarily a 'Jesus mythicist.' However, when evaluating the details, seems as though one might need to at least place this option on the table / chopping block.*** Along side with...


- "He was real, and rose from the dead"

- "He was a single real man, but merely a human being alone - same as all other recorded people in history claiming to be of God."

- Or maybe another option..?

Keep in mind, I've never really dove into this option before... I figure you and @hedrick , being that both of you seem to look to be open to other options, may be a good place to start the exploration process :)

Points to consider, in exploration of the 'He never existed option':

1. Jesus never bothers to write anything to paper Himself. Seems odd, since the Word is of great importance to His teachings. Why verbalize only, to instead let fallible men later write stuff? Later men could write whatever they want, especially decades/centuries later. - (i.e.) Not falsifiable, for the most part - (which ties to point #2 directly below).


2. The Gospels are anonymous. Yea, so? So are many accounts from antiquity. Why is this significant here however? Because not only do we not know who wrote them, but when. - Most of which are thought to be written many decades later. Legends can certainly inflate over time. Being that eyewitness attestation is of great importance to the claims of miracles, the fact that we have no clue who wrote them, seems to raise more questions than answers. See below...


3. We don't have original manuscripts. And it's argued that complete copies do not arise until during or after Constantine, whom was a known follower whom encouraged scribes to write about Christianity.

4. The Jewish Diaspora happened around the exact same time as the Flavian dynasty. Which was argued to issue wartime propaganda to suppress the Jews. This point might fall directly to @hedrick 's assessment to assert that 'Jesus was mere myth' is to also follow 'conspiracy theory'. But again, since the original publication of the Gospels were anonymous, this means we do not know WHO wrote them, and when. - Which ties back to points 2 and 3.

5. We really have very little, if nothing, outside the Bible itself -secular reports of such claimed events in history. Seems as though if many rose from their graves and walked a city for many to see, we might have recordings of such, and not a singular passage from the Gospel assertion/account itself. Again, this points to the fact that anyone can write anything later, and have it be uncontested / unfalsifiable.


I'll stop here for now.

Thank You!

Is it possible? Sure, it's possible that Jesus and Moses are simply myth or utter legend, but it's also possible that a person can solipsistically pick up a Richard Carrier or Robert Price book and run with either of these like there's no tomorrow and like there's no other books or sources on the entire planet to read on the subject and by which to make personally substantive, existentially robust, Subjective decisions. Of course, in the latter case, just as in the former case about Jesus and Moses---it's possible, but whether or not ANY of these possibilities are 'probable,' even objectively speaking, is a whole other topic and not one that, despite the Bayesian claims that are made one way or the other, is easy to make conclusions about, is it? :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,123
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,857.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
5. We really have very little, if nothing, outside the Bible itself -secular reports of such claimed events in history. Seems as though if many rose from their graves and walked a city for many to see, we might have recordings of such, and not a singular passage from the Gospel assertion/account itself. Again, this points to the fact that anyone can write anything later, and have it be uncontested / unfalsifiable.

I'll stop here for now.

Thank You!
On this last point, I personally don't have a difficult time with this little blurb in Matthew. From all that I hear about it among atheists, one would think that there was a Zombie Mini-Apocalypse and former dead people crawled solidly out of their graves, hobbled into town, made their way slowly down the main thoroughfares for everyone to see and then softly knocked on the doors of the homes of their former loved ones and slurped out a hackneyed, "Sssssurrrr-pprrrrIIIeeeeeeeeeeeeeee--zzzz!!! Eh-he!!! :bbrr:

:ahah: ... so yeah, if it happened at all, that's not how I think it went down.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Is it possible? Sure, it's possible that Jesus and Moses are simply myth or utter legend, but it's also possible that a person can solipsistically pick up a Richard Carrier or Robert Price book and run with either of these like there's no tomorrow and like there's no other books or sources on the entire planet to read on the subject and by which to make personally substantive, existentially robust, Subjective decisions. Of course, in the latter case, just as in the former case about Jesus and Moses---it's possible, but whether or not ANY of these possibilities is 'probable,' even objectively speaking, is a whole other topic and not one that, despite the Bayesian claims that are made one way or the other, is easy to make conclusions about, is it? :cool:

I'm fully aware. I'm raising the topic here, because as of lately, as I research more and more, I can't help but to reach stumbling blocks - which seem to more-so offer suggestions that maybe He never truly existed at all - like Moses, Noah, Adam and Eve, etc....


I'm placing some of my rationale here on the 'chopping-block.' I'm not married to these ideas. I'm merely playing the game of 'rule-outs.'

Care to engage?

And on a side note, I don't ascribe to Richard Carrier here. If some of my observations parallel his, it is not intended. I'm surmising such current observations more-so on my own accord, as much as possible anyways. Does this mean I made them up all on my own? Of course not. What I'm saying is that I do not only look for evidence from specific sources. :)
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
hedrick said:
I think this is more complex than some questions. One thing is that the current view of secular historians is fairly recent, starting in the latter part of the 20th Cent. Lots of Christians know that the Virgin Birth is controversial, but even among groups like mine that don’t accept Biblical inerrancy, there’s much less awareness of the issues with OT history. Of course among OT scholars there obviously is.

My impression is that among scholars who don’t accept inerrancy, and who are involved in OT history, it’s pretty well accepted that the book of Exodus isn’t historical. So that would be held be most secular and non-evangelical Christian scholars. (Remember that Catholics now accept critical scholarship, so it’s not just “liberal” Christians involved. That’s why I say non-evangelical. That may be a bit oversimplified, since I'm not sure Orthodox accept critical scholarship either.) But Judaism has the same kind of split, and I’d assume Islam as well, so it’s not just Christianity. No group is uniform, so you can bet there is some atheist scholar that thinks the OT story of Moses is substantially true.

Note that while there’s agreement among most non-evangelicals about Exodus, as you get into the time of the kings, there’s disagreement even among secular archaeologists and historians about questions like the existence of David, and just what Israel looked like at various periods. Evangelical scholars are, of course, committed to the historical accuracy of the whole OT, but even non-evangelicals (like secular scholars) are unclear on just how accurate that period is. I’d guess that Christians would tend to be on average less radical, but that’s just a guess.

As far as I can tell from a small amount of reading, interpreting archaeology isn't quite as easy as you'd hope, so there's legitimate room for disagreement. There are historical questions to which the answer simply isn't clear, even if you're trying to avoid bias. Furthermore, a couple of ideologies seem to have developed among archaeologists that aren't entirely explained by differences on religion. But this seems to apply primarily to periods after Moses. I think there's a consensus there. (Personally, I think saying Moses didn't exist may be a slight oversimplification. There are lots of theories about what basis the stories came from, if any. I think it's at least possible that there actually was a leader called Moses, even if the book of Exodus isn't really historical.)
Thank you for the the great response. Seems as though it's quite possible many Christian sects may 'conclude' that Moses was either completely fictitious...? Or maybe, multiple figures in history....? Or maybe other....?
I still have a couple/few questions to consider. The first of which may be unknowable? :)

1. Did the author intend for it's readers to believe Moses was real? (i.e.) Was it the author's intent to assert that Moses was an actual singular character in history?
2. Was Noah real, and did the flood happen?
3. Is it even 'possible' that Jesus falls along the same lines, as described above? Or is this not possible? I'm no mythicist per se. But I will tell you... The more I delve into the NT, the more I have to at least consider it as a 'plausible' conclusion anyways, that maybe Jesus is the same as Moses; as you explained above - (myth, a group of people explained in history, legend, other...). And no, I haven't been reading or listening to Richard Carrier :)
Which Christian sects are you talking about?
All 3 Abrahamic Religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe that both Abraham and Moses were real.

If both Moses and Abraham are mythical/fictitious, then so are all 3 of those Abrahamic religions. Would you agree?

So why pick on just Christianity, as Christianity arose out of Judaism, as Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.
=====================================
Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon
search "abraham moses"
==================
Hebrew OT

Exo 3:6
He saith also, 'I am the God of thy father, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob;' and Moses hideth his face, for he is afraid to look towards God.
Exo 3:15
And God saith again unto Moses, 'Thus dost thou say unto the sons of Israel, Jehovah, God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name -- to the age, and this My memorial, to generation -- generation.
Exo 33:1
And Jehovah speaketh unto Moses, 'Go, ascend from this place, thou and the people, whom thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I have sworn to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, To thy seed I give it,'
===========================
Abraham and Moses are mentioned together in 4 verses of the Christian NT:

Mar 12:26
'And concerning the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the Book of Moses (at The Bush), how God spake to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
Luk 16:29
'Abraham saith to him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them;

Once again Abraham refuses the rich man's request, telling him that the brothers already have a witness in the writings of Moses and the prophets that will allow them to escape his fate. Moses, as well as the prophets, are shown several times in the New Testament to support Yeshua's identity as the Messiah (Luke 24:27, 44; John 1:45; 5:46; Acts 3:22-24; 7:37; 26:22-23; 28:23).

Abraham
tells the rich man that his brothers would have to recognize the prophesied Messiah because of the things written about him in the Tanakh. This echoes what Yeshua told the Jews in John's Gospel:
======================================================
Luk 20:37
'And that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the Bush, since he doth call the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;

Act 7:32
I am the God of thy fathers; the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 'And Moses having become terrified, durst not behold,
=======================================
Last time Moses is used in the Christian NT:

Rev 15:3
and they sing the song of Moses, servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, 'Great and wonderful are Thy works, O Lord God, the Almighty, righteous and true are Thy ways, O King of saints,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,123
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,857.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm fully aware. I'm raising the topic here, because as of lately, as I research more and more, I can't help but to reach stumbling blocks - which seem to more-so offer suggest that maybe He never truly existed at all - like Moses, Noah, Adam and Eve, etc....

I'm placing some of my rationale here on the 'chopping-block.' I'm not married to these ideas. I'm merely place the game of 'rule-outs.'

Care to engage?

And on a side note, I don't ascribe to Richard Carrier here. If some of my observations parallel his, it is not intended. I'm surmising such current observations more-so on my own accord, as much as possible anyways. Does this mean I made them up all on my own? Of course not. What I'm saying is that I do not only look for evidence from specific sources. :)

That's good to know, because @Nihilist Virus does ascribe to Richard Carrier. So, maybe the two of you can haggle some of that out and then you can get back to me when you've settled with him about which parts of Carrier's work are useful and which ones are questionable.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I do apologize to Silmarien if my frankness offended you. I DID expend much effort and time to try to grind the sharp edges off of the statement but it was all deleted somehow and it was very maddening to me that I lost all of the work. But like I said I came to the conclusion the God decided you were not ready for what I had to add so I canceled the edit and left it as originally wrote as that part was not deleted. I am very sorry it may have hurt you.

No worries, I wasn't in any way offended.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
:ahah: ... so yeah, if it happened at all, that's not how I think it went down.

I have to wonder...? You throw out quite a few 'ifs'. With OT characters, as well as here in Matthew 27:52-53, for example.

Which again makes me ask... If so many claimed/asserted events in history are of question, even in the NT, why is the claim of a resurrection fact?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Which Christian sects are you talking about?
All 3 Abrahamic Religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe that both Abraham and Moses were real.

Tell that to @Silmarien @hedrick @2PhiloVoid , and my Catholic friend. I'm positing the entire topic here, as to not invite permanent discord with my friend.

If both Moses and Abraham are mythical/fictitious, then so are all 3 of those Abrahamic religions. Would you agree?

My 'knee-jerk' reaction wants to agree with you, but as I stated early on... My best friend believes in a resurrection, but thinks practically all supernatural based stories from the OT are fiction. I'm trying to wrap my head around the details; and maybe a little beyond.

So why pick on just Christianity, as Christianity arose out of Judaism, as Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.


Because this is the apologetics section for 'CF'; not 'JF' or 'IF' :)
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,123
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,857.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have to wonder...? You throw out quite a few 'ifs'. With OT characters, as well as here in Matthew 27:52-53, for example.

Which again makes me ask... If so many claimed/asserted events in history are of question, even in the NT, why is the claim of a resurrection fact?

In relation to what I brought up earlier about what "Secularists" are L:eyes:King for when (and IF) they actually do look at the Bible, they rely upon certain criteria by which they have required to be a part of their method of empirical scrutiny. While this may seem rational and scientific, the problem with this method and its epistemic expectations is seen in the literary fact that the EPISTEMOLOGY AND THEOLOGY presented within the Bible militates against the decisiveness, the finality and the fruitfulness of a merely empirical venture ...

Yeah. God PURPOSELY has made things epistemologically difficult for us: so it remains quite an open question as to whether nor not Moses existed and Jesus indeed experienced a Resurrection. On my part, I tend to think that Moses existed and Jesus rose again.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
On my part, I tend to think that Moses existed and Jesus rose again.

Quite honestly, it would seem quite difficult to unpack what you stated above :)

I'll ask, in plain English. Can you give (your) reasons as to why you believe Jesus not only existed, but that He rose from the dead?

As I stated earlier, it looks like we might have three plausible conclusions.

1. He existed, and rose again.
2. He existed, but like other claimed prophets/gods, was a mere mortal or not an ultimate God.
3. 'He' was the product of legend, lore, apocryphal means, other....

As my profile lends forth, I'm a skeptic. I am in doubt of option 1. Both 2. and 3. appear more plausible. I'm interested in exploring, as to WHY option 3. is not a reasonable conclusion.

Thank you again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,123
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,857.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Quite honestly, it would seem quite difficult to unpack what you stated above :)

I'll ask, in plain English. Can you give (your) reasons as to why you believe Jesus not only existed, but that He rose from the dead?

As I stated earlier, it looks like we might have three plausible conclusions.

1. He existed, and rose again.
2. He existed, but like other claimed prophets/gods, was a mere mortal or not an ultimate God.
3. 'He' was the product of legend, lore, apocryphal means, other....

As my profile lends forth, I'm a skeptic. I am in doubt of option 1. Both 2. and 3. appear more plausible. I'm interested in exploring, as to WHY option 3. is not a reasonable conclusion.

Thank you again.

The problem here, my dear Watson, is that there are semantics at play, and what you think denotes the act of "being reasonable" can generally apply to ALL THREE options above. So, have fun with that one; and for the last time, you might want to pick up a book on Philosophical Hermeneutics and begin some additional research, and then once you're done with that, delve into some Biblical Epistemology as well as into Epistemology across the board and learn to dissect the underlying cognitive strands which hold up various modern disciplines of thought. Then again, somewhere along the way, you're going to just have to suck up to the fact that life is hard, will continue to be difficult and come to realize that the act of prayer isn't for the sole purpose of wishing all the bad things in life away. At that point, God's Spirit might actually be able to speak to you for once.

In the meantime, I'll be praying for you, cvanwey. Seriously.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
The problem here, my dear Watson, is that there are semantics at play, and what you think denotes the act of "being reasonable" can generally apply to ALL THREE options above. So, have fun with that one; and for the last time, you might want to pick up a book on Philosophical Hermeneutics and begin some additional research, and then once you're done with that, delve into some Biblical Epistemology as well as into Epistemology across the board and learn to dissect the underlying cognitive strands which hold up various modern disciplines of thought. Then again, somewhere along the way, you're going to just have to suck up to the fact that life is hard, will continue to be difficult and come to realize that the act of prayer isn't for the sole purpose of wishing all the bad things in life away. At that point, God's Spirit might actually be able to speak to you for once.

In the meantime, I'll be praying for you, cvanwey. Seriously.

Thanks for the 'tips'. I'm glad to know you are aware of my educational background. I also have no clue why you are bringing 'prayer' into the mix here; seems off the cuff really.

I'll ask you one more time, for sake in brevity.

Can you give (your) reasons as to why you believe Jesus not only existed, but that He rose from the dead?

I would just like to know?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,123
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,857.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thanks for the 'tips'. I'm glad to know you are aware of my educational background. I also have no clue why you are bringing 'prayer' into the mix here; seems off the cuff really.

I'll ask you one more time, for sake in brevity.

Can you give (your) reasons as to why you believe Jesus not only existed, but that He rose from the dead?

I would just like to know?

What are 'my' reasons? I'm sure that if I laid them out, they'd be the usual ones you've heard before and, from your claims, those you've already researched and/or read about only too well.

Besides my own experiences in life, the only cognitive difference in all of this is the way in which I also understand OTHER areas of life as well as other philosophies, even philosophies opposing the Christian faith. And THAT's where my difference of perspective comes in! It's NOT in having some funny or mystical insights that no-one else has or can have. If there is anything funny in my views its in the fact that I've said all of this to you and to a number of others here before, more than once and in a variety of ways. But, oh well.

Furthermore, there is no secret decoder ring of man-made origin that's going to illuminate all of the nuances of the Christian faith for you. If you think there is or that there should be, then I'll await your testimony when you find the winning "Cracker-Jack" box ... :cool:
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
What are 'my' reasons? I'm sure that if I laid them out, they'd be the usual ones you've heard before and, from your claims, those you've already researched and/or read about only too well.

Besides my own experiences in life, the only cognitive difference in all of this is the way in which I also understand OTHER areas of life as well as other philosophies, even philosophies opposing the Christian faith. And THAT's where my difference of perspective comes in! It's NOT in having some funny or mystical insights that no-one else has or can have. If there is anything funny in my views its in the fact that I've said all of this to you and to a number of others here before, more than once and in a variety of ways. But, oh well.

Furthermore, there is no secret decoder ring of man-made origin that's going to illuminate all of the nuances of the Christian faith for you. If you think there is or that there should be, then I'll await your testimony when you find the winning "Cracker-Jack" box ... :cool:

@2PhiloVoid , I would just like to know your reasons? :) It's not a trap, I promise. I'm curious.

Now, can I guarantee I might not want to probe a bit? NO. However, I know that nothing I say, in any type of 'rejection', is going to sway your current position. Why? Because I know you did not come to your conclusions 'willy-nilly.'

It would be more-so for the sake that others read these posts, and also that I also like to challenge my (own) position(s). :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
The problem with Moses is that the stories involving him aren't consistent with what is known of history and archaeology, except special evangelical versions. However that doesn't mean that Moses didn't exist. It simply means that the stories told about him aren't entirely accurate. It's perfectly possible that someone called Moses existed and was responsible for some people leaving Egypt. However it doesn't appear that this could have been the major source of the people of Israel.

I agree with your perspective.

There's nothing about my beliefs about the Bible that isn't found in mainline Protestant churches. Mainline scholarship is quite reasonable and modest as a baseline assumption we can have about the biblical text. It also helps make more sense of the New Testament than the conservative Evangelical account, which just posits God being more than a little schizophrenic.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
The traditional rabbinic explanation for the name "Moses" is its similar sound to water (in Hebrew), but I suspect that "Moses" mean "son of <blank>" as was common for pharaohs where the <blank> was left unsaid because it was the tetragrammaton. Some scholars think that Moses was originally more like a demigod who parted the Red Sea using his own innate magical powers and ascended to heaven much like Elijah. They suspect that the feats of Elijah were meant to parallel the feats of the original demigod-like Moses, so Elijah gives insight into the original form of the Exodus. I guess this is a bit off-topic LOL

There is some speculation that the name Moshe is a corruption of Tutmoshe, or "Birth of Thoth".

Either way, it's like that names like Moses and Aaron aren't Hebrew in origin, because they have no clear Hebrew meanings.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0