Historical Moses and Transfiguration

[ChetSinger]

Another message of this story is that all the people of Egypt and its animals were property of Pharaoh. Of course this would have been normal morality for ancient cultures. Wives and children were often treated as property - just like cattle. The head of the household often had the right to kill his own wife and children with no questions asked. But why would God play by the moral rules of the bronze age - unless the whole thing is merely a bronze age fable? So God kills all these first born Egyptians to punish the leader - after God deliberately hardened the heart of that leader to give God the opportunity to show that He was mightier than the Egyptian gods. Ugh.

Do you think that Pharaoh personally whipped the slaves to keep them in line, executed the ones who made trouble, and murdered every Hebrew baby boy that was born?

No. The Egyptian people did it. It was they who wielded the whips and swords. And it was they who ended up being punished for it.

You mentioned again that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. He did, but I'll mention again that he only did so after Pharaoh hardened his own heart five times. God gave the Egyptians five public signs, five opportunities, to do the right thing and release their slaves. But they refused.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Unless a person is determined to to dismiss the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, of course any evidence for it is also going to be dismissed. The evidence that I presented (as any for this event) is deductive reasoning from very strong circumstantial evidence. We have as accurate a date as is presently possible in trying to figure from non-existing year datings by the Egyptians, a fairly accurate dating of the destruction of Jericho, an impossible position of the destroyed walls...unless a miracle occurred, a feared Pharoah with writings supporting this fear, same Pharoah with a dead firstborn son, a supposedly dead Pharoah with an unusual face mask and moving resting places. To me, this is a pretty sound argument for the Exodus.

Despite the fact that we have no archaeological evidence that anyone was living in the Sinai peninsula during the 2nd millennium BCE. What about the fact that Ezion-Geber, one of the first places where the Israelites camped according to the book of Numbers, didn't exist until at least the 8th century BCE? Your circumstantial evidence isn't how we do history, we look at the data, the archaeological digs, we look at the textual evidence, we date the textual evidence (as best we can) and we see how it sits in a web of textuality and the digs. No historians are arguing for a historical Exodus, the very most that some may want to push is that the numbers were exaggerated and perhaps only a few hundred people left Egypt, that's it. And the ones pushing that story still have a considerable up hill argument to push.

 

[cloudyday2]

Do you think that Pharaoh personally whipped the slaves to keep them in line, executed the ones who made trouble, and murdered every Hebrew baby boy that was born?

No. The Egyptian people did it. It was they who wielded the whips and swords. And it was they who ended up being punished for it.

You mentioned again that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. He did, but I'll mention again that he only did so after Pharaoh hardened his own heart five times. God gave the Egyptians five public signs, five opportunities, to do the right thing and release their slaves. But they refused.

Do you think that EVERY Egyptian oppressed the Israelites? Do you think an Egyptian manager could simply REFUSE to oppress the Israelites if ordered? Yet God in his wisdom decided to punish EVERY Egyptian. Yesiree. At least when they said "kill them all and let God sort them out" it was a mere human speaking. What excuse did God have for not sorting them out?

 

[cloudyday2]

Do you ever think that having Christian faith is like trying to hold five basketballs under water?

I like the "five". I didn't catch that detail at first. LOL

 

[Anthony1970]

(1) If you think the Exodus story is literally true, how do you rationalize God's behavior with the "God is love" expectations? Exodus is a History, a law book, and many other things written a long time ago. It is not a modern history.

If you reject the Exodus as a historical event, you undermine the rest of the story of Salvation.

What is the God is love expectation?

 

[cloudyday2]

What is the God is love expectation?

I'm not sure what you are asking. The answer seem so obvious that I assume you must be asking something else that doesn't have an obvious answer.

 

[danny ski]

Moses died as affirmed in the Torah. The claim is that he was later assumed to heaven.

The Assumption of Moses is the Jewish book cited. But of course the liberals have redated it. Biblically Jude 9 and the Transfiguration story affirm it and various Early church fathers also appear familiar with it.

No and no. The reason why the Torah is clear on Moses' death is to prevent this kind of speculations. It's a heresy to assume otherwise, precisely because the Scripture is so clear. For the same reason there's no grave of Moses. Just because something is written in a "Jewish book" does not mean that it's part of our religion.

 

[cloudyday2]

No and no. The reason why the Torah is clear on Moses' death is to prevent this kind of speculations. It's a heresy to assume otherwise, precisely because the Scripture is so clear. For the same reason there's no grave of Moses. Just because something is written in a "Jewish book" does not mean that it's part of our religion.

What Judaism believes today is not important. We are discussing the Transfiguration. Why was it Moses and Elijah that the disciples saw with Jesus? Is the Transfiguration fictional if the people Jesus met were fictional? Was Jesus summoning dead people like the Witch of Endor? ...

There was a tradition that Moses had not died - just like Elijah. That may be part of why these two characters appeared to Jesus in the Transfiguration. Another aspect was symbolism (Moses symbolized the Law and Elijah symbolized the Prophecies).

 

[cloudyday2]

Another interesting tradition is that Elisha was resurrected. There is a story describing how a dead body was hurriedly hidden in Elisha's grave and somebody was resurrected from death. The Hebrew is ambiguous about whether the newly dead person was resurrected or whether Elisha was resurrected. Either way makes sense grammatically. According to "From Gods to God" ( http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/from-gods-to-god-shinan-zakovitch ) the Elisha resurrection was probably the original intention. Early Christians were aware of this tradition and drew many parallels between Jesus and Elisha.

 

[cloudyday2]

Another tidbit: There was a sect of Essenes who believed that the Torah had been changed by the Jewish authorities. (Of course most historians today believe these Essenes were correct that the Torah had been changed. The Torah probably edited to reach it current form by the Jews returning from Exile.) So they could believe that Moses had ascended to heaven and Elisha had been resurrected if that was their tradition. They knew the scriptures had been edited, so they didn't consider them authoritative.

The Nazarean – they were Jews by nationality – originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan... They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws – not this law, however, but some other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

 

[danny ski]

What Judaism believes today is not important. We are discussing the Transfiguration. Why was it Moses and Elijah that the disciples saw with Jesus? Is the Transfiguration fictional if the people Jesus met were fictional? Was Jesus summoning dead people like the Witch of Endor? ...

There was a tradition that Moses had not died - just like Elijah. That may be part of why these two characters appeared to Jesus in the Transfiguration. Another aspect was symbolism (Moses symbolized the Law and Elijah symbolized the Prophecies).

Do you really want to connect a rejected and heretical fable to the story of transfiguration? If the authors relied on the wrong and speculative tale of Moses, how credible is the story of transfiguration? As for symbolism- Moses WAS the greatest prophet-it says so right in the Torah. Personally, I don't think transfiguration happened. The popular description of Jesus is that he was an observant Jew. Perhaps. No observant Jew would approve of this story. The story was probably added later on, by a person with no knowledge of Jesus' religion.

 

[danny ski]

Another tidbit: There was a sect of Essenes who believed that the Torah had been changed by the Jewish authorities. (Of course most historians today believe these Essenes were correct that the Torah had been changed. The Torah probably edited to reach it current form by the Jews returning from Exile.) So they could believe that Moses had ascended to heaven and Elisha had been resurrected if that was their tradition. They knew the scriptures had been edited, so they didn't consider them authoritative.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

I don't care what Essenes believed. They chose the path of separation from the community and did not survive the test of time. So, their believes about "changes" to the Torah are of zero value to me. Their writing material is valuable, from the linguistic and historical POV, but that's about it. And if they did believe that the Torah was changed and not authoritative, they would had been condemned for that by all. Were they? Or is this another theory?

 

[cloudyday2]

Do you really want to connect a rejected and heretical fable to the story of transfiguration? If the authors relied on the wrong and speculative tale of Moses, how credible is the story of transfiguration? As for symbolism- Moses WAS the greatest prophet-it says so right in the Torah. Personally, I don't think transfiguration happened. The popular description of Jesus is that he was an observant Jew. Perhaps. No observant Jew would approve of this story. The story was probably added later on, by a person with no knowledge of Jesus' religion.

As an atheist, I follow the evidence wherever it leads. There is no reason to assume that any religion is correct about anything. That includes Judaism. The likeliest scenario is that all religions are wrong, because there is no evidence that God responds to the practices of any religion. Jews are supposed to be rewarded materially in this life for obeying the Law, but they only seem to be rewarded for going to work, saving their money, getting an education, eating healthy, exercising, etc. Whether somebody rests on Friday or Saturday or Sunday doesn't seem to matter as long as they rest.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't care what Essenes believed. They chose the path of separation from the community and did not survive the test of time. So, their believes about "changes" to the Torah are of zero value to me. Their writing material is valuable, from the linguistic and historical POV, but that's about it. And if they did believe that the Torah was changed and not authoritative, they would had been condemned for that by all. Were they? Or is this another theory?

That is a good question. Only a portion of the Essenes believed that the Torah had been changed. There was a lot more variation in Judaism in those times I think. I don't know if those Essenes were hated by the other Jews. I suspect they might have been connected to the Samaritans, because that is what the Samaritans believed (the Torah had been changed to make Jerusalem the location of the Temple according to them)

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Christianity is the only religion which disclosed many clues to people on what are the precise situations in the Heaven.

No religion tells any details about it except Christianity, which says a lot.

72 virgins is a pretty specific description of heaven.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

1. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says to not conjure the dead

2. Deuteronomy 34:7 says Moses died

3. Jesus is violating the law in summoning Moses' spirit

 

[cloudyday2]

72 virgins is a pretty specific description of heaven.

Here is something interesting:

A March 2002 New York Times article describes Luxenberg's research:

"Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages, argues that the Koran has been misread and mistranslated for centuries. His work, based on the earliest copies of the Koran, maintains that parts of Islam's holy book are derived from pre-existing Christian Aramaic texts that were misinterpreted by later Islamic scholars who prepared the editions of the Koran commonly read today. So, for example, the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality "white raisins" of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens. . . . The famous passage about the virgins is based on the word hur, which is an adjective in the feminine plural meaning simply "white." Islamic tradition insists the term hur stands for houri, which means "virgin," but Luxenberg insists that this is a forced misreading of the text. In both ancient Aramaic and in at least one respected dictionary of early Arabic hur means "white raisin."[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Luxenberg

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Here is something interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Luxenberg

You're a Slavoj Zizek fan, aren't you. Don't deny it, I am too. ;-)

 

[cloudyday2]

You're a Slavoj Zizek fan, aren't you. Don't deny it, I am too. ;-)

LOL - I will check him out and see what I think. He looks interesting.

In 2012, Foreign Policy listed Žižek on its list of Top 100 Global Thinkers, calling him "a celebrity philosopher,"[12] while elsewhere he has been dubbed the "Elvis of cultural theory" and "the most dangerous philosopher in the West

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_Žižek