Historical Moses and Transfiguration

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Agree. But we can not say it is NOT historically true. There is simply no (official) data.
And, we should not say Moses is not needed to be historically true either. It is NEEDED. We simply do not have (official) historical data.

But, we have the Bible. I take what the Bible (or the Torah) says more reliable than the official data. What's said in the Bible is critical to those who believed in it. Official historical data is only political and academic. Nobody (no officers) really care how reliable and complete those data are. To put down some historical descriptions is only their job.

I personally tend to see the emergence of, belief in, character of and nature of the Christian faith in terms of historical continuity with the Second Temple Jewish cult, practices, ceremonies, rituals and scripture. For me, the historicity of the texts is secondary, if important at all. As such I don't care if the stories are historical or not and the historian in me, (I have an MA in history) is simply unconvinced that they are historical.

 

[juvenissun]

I personally tend to see the emergence of, belief in, character of and nature of the Christian faith in terms of historical continuity with the Second Temple Jewish cult, practices, ceremonies, rituals and scripture. For me, the historicity of the texts is secondary, if important at all. As such I don't care if the stories are historical or not and the historian in me, (I have an MA in history) is simply unconvinced that they are historical.

A Christian SHOULD care about those part in the Bible which does not have historical data. The Genesis is a very obvious example. The Genesis NEEDS to be true. Otherwise, the Christianity will collapse.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

A Christian SHOULD care about those part in the Bible which does not have historical data. The Genesis is a very obvious example. The Genesis NEEDS to be true. Otherwise, the Christianity will collapse.

Well then what you consider to be Christianity is vulnerable, like a baby in a debate. That is truly pitiful, I'm sorry to say.

 

[cloudyday2]

A Christian SHOULD care about those part in the Bible which does not have historical data. The Genesis is a very obvious example. The Genesis NEEDS to be true. Otherwise, the Christianity will collapse.

Taking the Garden of Eden as an example, it does not need to be literal IMO. The story of original sin can simply be a way of saying that all humans have a tendency to want to be our own gods. Christianity solves this original sin by providing communion with Jesus (or whatever). Taking everything literal just makes you easy pickings for atheist apologists.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Taking everything literal just makes you easy pickings for atheist apologists.

Totally! It weakens the Christian faith to see it as an absolute adherence to biblical literalism. The bible is most important and most informs the Christian faith when it is not read literally, when it is read typologically, for example: Jesus as the New Adam, Jesus as the New Moses, Jesus as the Son of David, Jesus as the High Priest of the order of Melchizedek.

 

[juvenissun]

Well then what you consider to be Christianity is vulnerable, like a baby in a debate. That is truly pitiful, I'm sorry to say.

Yes, it looks vulnerable.
But if it survives, then it is more likely to be true.
This might be a very good way to strengthen the faith.

 

[juvenissun]

Taking the Garden of Eden as an example, it does not need to be literal IMO. The story of original sin can simply be a way of saying that all humans have a tendency to want to be our own gods. Christianity solves this original sin by providing communion with Jesus (or whatever). Taking everything literal just makes you easy pickings for atheist apologists.

Scientifically, The Garden NEEDS to be literally true.
Otherwise, some problems, scientifically and theologically, will show up.

 

[juvenissun]

Taking the Garden of Eden as an example, it does not need to be literal IMO. The story of original sin can simply be a way of saying that all humans have a tendency to want to be our own gods. Christianity solves this original sin by providing communion with Jesus (or whatever). Taking everything literal just makes you easy pickings for atheist apologists.

I think I have seen most, if not all, of those pickings. However, none of them can stand at the end.
You may give a try if you don't believe it.

 

[juvenissun]

Totally! It weakens the Christian faith to see it as an absolute adherence to biblical literalism. The bible is most important and most informs the Christian faith when it is not read literally, when it is read typologically, for example: Jesus as the New Adam, Jesus as the New Moses, Jesus as the Son of David, Jesus as the High Priest of the order of Melchizedek.

What is wrong if we read those literally?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

What is wrong if we read those literally?

Nothing is morally wrong with it. However, I'm sure you understand that it's historically awkward.

 

[juvenissun]

Nothing is morally wrong with it. However, I'm sure you understand that it's historically awkward.

I like to add: nothing is theologically wrong with those literal readings.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I like to add: nothing is theologically wrong with those literal readings.

Mistaking theology for history seems weird to me. It's just a particular path I'd not be inclined to take nor to encourage people to accept uncritically.

 

[danny ski]

This is new to me. Thanks.
Is the Messiah also not a part of the Torah?
Would that make the teaching in the Torah incomplete, or even crippled?
What do you believe on the issue of afterlife? Or are you satisfied with "I don't know"?

The Torah is about this world and living this life. Hence, the afterlife is not mentioned nor is it important.

 

[ChetSinger]

I am regularly puzzled by some of my brethren who have no problem believing that Jesus did things such as rising from the dead, raising others from the dead, walking on water, shouting down storms...and then can't believe that Moses could have been a real man.

Or who believe that God can simultaneously parse millions of prayers, and bring every single dead person back to life for judgment, yet not believe that God left Jonah in a fish for three days, because, well, that's just impossible.

It's like the NT is accepted without question, while the OT is disbelieved unless demonstrated otherwise. Odd, imo.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I am regularly puzzled by some of my brethren who have no problem believing that Jesus did things such as rising from the dead, raising others from the dead, walking on water, shouting down storms...and then can't believe that Moses could have been a real man.

Or who believe that God can simultaneously parse millions of prayers, and bring every single dead person back to life for judgment, yet not believe that God left Jonah in a fish for three days, because, well, that's just impossible.

It's like the NT is accepted without question, while the OT is disbelieved unless demonstrated otherwise. Odd, imo.

Believing things isn't a competition. Some of us do have a concern with things such as evidence and data.

 

[ChetSinger]

Believing things isn't a competition. Some of us do have a concern with things such as evidence and data.

Where's the evidence that Christ walked on water, except that the New Testament says that he did?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Where's the evidence that Christ walked on water, except that the New Testament says that he did?

OK. So you're the sort of sensitive soul who thinks if some of it didn't happen then none of it did...? Scared of facts and fiction... Ah well, have fun with that.

 

[cloudyday2]

I am regularly puzzled by some of my brethren who have no problem believing that Jesus did things such as rising from the dead, raising others from the dead, walking on water, shouting down storms...and then can't believe that Moses could have been a real man.

Or who believe that God can simultaneously parse millions of prayers, and bring every single dead person back to life for judgment, yet not believe that God left Jonah in a fish for three days, because, well, that's just impossible.

It's like the NT is accepted without question, while the OT is disbelieved unless demonstrated otherwise. Odd, imo.

I agree that there is no reason to take the NT literally and the OT allegorically. They should both be scrutinized piece by piece. Some stories are historical and some stories are not historical.

Also, some stories can be labeled allegory, because we see that the story evolved or has anachronisms and so forth. It isn't simply that every story with a miracle must be an allegory. Sometimes there is evidence that a story is an allegory instead of history.

 

[cloudyday2]

I think I have seen most, if not all, of those pickings. However, none of them can stand at the end.
You may give a try if you don't believe it.

I'm trying. Don't write me off yet...

 

[juvenissun]

Mistaking theology for history seems weird to me. It's just a particular path I'd not be inclined to take nor to encourage people to accept uncritically.

No mistakes. Theology is theology and history is history.
I do not know if Genesis is historically true. But I do know it must be theologically true.
Since nobody knows the historical fact, so, it still has a higher probability to believe it is historically true than not.