I'd settle for evidence that he did.
Seems that might be easier, seeing as how there do not appear to be any contemporaneous accounts of his existence.
Maybe "Moses" is Hebrew for "Gilgamesh"?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It would, that is why I am asking for it. I would like to see the evidence that the poster has to make the claim that Moses didn't exist. I'm waiting.
"In the book of Psalms, written hundreds of years later "
Um...
OK....
Some folks are okay with letting grammatical errors slide.
Well obviously not identical to Christ's; eg no crucifixion or cave etc, but Osiris was betrayed and killed, and returned to life and ascended to the heavens. There is even the Passion of Osiris, with plays performed about his suffering and death.
Which is irrelevant (not to say false - plenty of people throughout history have not believed it).
It doesn't matter how many people have believed it for how long.
People believing it is meaningless when trying to find out if it is actually true.
Right, through contemporary and independend sources or actual archeological artifacts etc indeed. And the bible has none for its fantastical claims.
This is an irrational and reality-denying, unjustified assumption.
People can be wrong. And oftenly are.
Not to mention that the exact same thing can be said about followers of any religion at all, or any other non-religious fantastical claim (like aliens, bigfoot, lochness, etc etc etc).
The world is flooded with people who believe wrong things on bad evidence.
Why would it need that particular claim? Because your religion happens to have it? Where are the claims in christianity concerning Thor's hammer?
According to islam, Muhammed went to heaven and back on a winged horse.
I didn't say they were stupid. I said they were gullible. Which is logical. They didn't have our understanding of nature. It was common practice back then to attribute plenty of now-mundane things to supernatural forces.
you are going to deny that, you're just going to be wrong.
I wonder how you can say such things, pretending to be serious, when today we have excellent examples of people being more then willing to die for what they believe. You already know who I am thinking of.
And you will also agree with me that these people are wrong about what they believe.
So, you know for a fact that the argument of "they died for what they believed, so obviously what they believed had to be true" is ridiculous. If it wasn't, then ALL RELIGIONS would be correct.
Skipping over your attempt at taking a stab at science, you just have destroyed your entire position, by admitting that people can perfectly believe fantastical things while being wrong.
Your entire post, you've been basically saying that "the bible must be true, because people believe it".
People believing X is not evidence that X is the truth.
If you know the truth, you can show it. You don't know it if you can't show it.
If you can't show it, you merely "believe" it. Wich, as I've explained already, is pretty meaningless as far as truth is concerned.
Now, you just seem to be intentionally obscure / obfuscate the conversation.
The point is that what people "believe" is irrelevant.
Beliefs can be wrong.
Then why do you use "it must be true cause people believe it" as an argument to justify your beliefs??
I know very little about this subject. I had heard about Osiris' resurrection before somewhere, so after a quick check on Wikipedia to ensure I had not imagined it, I posted what I knew. The only other thing I remember is that Osiris was killed, and subsequently resurrected, twice. Which I think is why his body was chopped up and spread around Egypt the second time - to try to prevent a repeat of the first.I'm curious where you got your information, because according to Plutarch after Typhon (Set) had sealed Osiris in a coffin and sent it down river, and after Isis retrieved it, Typhon in a fit dismembered the corpse of Osiris and scattered his body parts across Egypt. Isis retrieved them all, save for his penis which had been eaten by fish in the Nile, and each body part received a burial and funeral. Plutarch then recounts that Osiris visited his son Horus from the underworld in order to help train him for battle. Osiris became king of the underworld and the god of cultivation (on account that he when he was king of Egypt had taught the pre-civilized Egyptians how to grow and cultivate crops).
Plutarch's account, I'm sure, isn't the only ancient account of the myth, so--at least on a personal level--I'd be curious which other ancient sources are available that relay the story.
For what it's worth, I'm relying on this translation of Plutarch's work here.
-CryptoLutheran
Everything we know about the sumerian texts on the one hand and everything we know about the biblical text on the other.
The biblical one consistenly shows up after the sumerian one.
So all the evidence points to the sumerian one being older.
And, considering the similarities, thus also the "original" one upon which the other was based.
There is no evidence to even only remotely suggest that the bible story came first.
Look...
Try to think it through and consider the flow of events here...
How did this person learn about the guy called "Moses"?
What came prior to the person claiming that "Moses didn't exist"?
Did he came up with a Moses story only to then claim that it's not true?
Or... did someone else tell him about this bloke called "Moses"?
Didn't someone, somewhere FIRST make the claim that this "Moses" character existed?
For example, would you wake up tomorrow and suddenly say "uikoglykrobaki didn't exist!!!"?
Off course not... Not unless someone first came up to you telling you about this uikoglykrobaki .
So such a negative claim of existence is a response.
Someone first claims that Moses exists.
That person fails to meet his burden of proof.
The result is a position where it is assumed / asserted that Moses did not exist.
So the evidence for the claim "moses didn't exist" is the total lack of evidence in support of the positive claim "moses existed".
Cappiche?
Claims of non-existence are completely meaningless and useless anyway.
What a bunch of deflecting gymnastics to shift the burden of proof. I'm still waiting for the original poster to support his positive claim.
I'm curious where you got your information, because according to Plutarch after Typhon (Set) had sealed Osiris in a coffin and sent it down river, and after Isis retrieved it, Typhon in a fit dismembered the corpse of Osiris and scattered his body parts across Egypt. Isis retrieved them all, save for his penis which had been eaten by fish in the Nile, and each body part received a burial and funeral. Plutarch then recounts that Osiris visited his son Horus from the underworld in order to help train him for battle. Osiris became king of the underworld and the god of cultivation (on account that he when he was king of Egypt had taught the pre-civilized Egyptians how to grow and cultivate crops).
Plutarch's account, I'm sure, isn't the only ancient account of the myth, so--at least on a personal level--I'd be curious which other ancient sources are available that relay the story.
For what it's worth, I'm relying on this translation of Plutarch's work here.
-CryptoLutheran
What a bunch of deflecting gymnastics to shift the burden of proof. I'm still waiting for the original poster to support his positive claim.
When I said you made me laugh before I didn't think you could honestly do it again while maintaining a perfectly straight face. Are you serious? You seriously are saying that you can't understand something as straightforward as burden of proof?
Saying Moses didn't exist is the same as my statement that I have seen no evidence that Moses existed. If there's no evidence to see then there's nothing to support. Now it's your turn to show us evidence. Try...REALLY TRY to answer that without shifting the burden of proof onto anyone else or answering with a question.
The burden of proof in this case is on the poster that made the claim that Moses didn't exist. You and others on this forum seem to believe that you have no burden of proof ever in regards to statements or claim you make.
This is incorrect. If someone had said, "Moses existed" and the poster then said, prove that Moses existed it would be on the poster who claimed Moses existed.
When the poster made the claim, Moses never existed, the burden then is on him. He made a positive claim. He is saying that he knows that Moses never existed. It is up to him then to support his claim. It is you who doesn't understand burden of proof.
If the poster had said that they had not seen any evidence to support that Moses existed, he would not have a burden of proof. That is not what happened.
That is a different conversation completely."Moses didn't exist"
"Why do you think that?"
"Because I've never seen any evidence that he was a real historical person."
"Oh. Well here is some evidence that shows he was real...."
That's how the conversation should go down.
That is a different conversation completely.
If a person doesn't believe that there is any evidence that Moses existed, it would be intellectually honest to make a statement that they do not believe there is any evidence that Moses existed other than the Bible. It is not intellectually honest to make a claim that Moses didn't exist and then put the burden on someone else.
If a person's belief that Moses didn't exist is not based on some evidence that supplies that belief with support or is not based on some logical fault in his existence it is up to that person to back up why he believes that Moses didn't exist. A non-believer is basing his position on logic and evidence and if a statement is made without either it is mere opinion or an assertion based on emotion or bias. There may not be evidence for Moses existence other than the Bible but what evidence does this poster use to determine his claim? Why is he free from any burden of proof of his claim? Intellectual honesty would require that if the non-believer has his position based in evidence and logic that he support his claims with both. If he shrinks from that responsibility it hardly looks like his position is what he claims it is.
I'm starting to agree with Strawberry up there.
If I say, Leprechauns don't exist, I don't have to back that claim up with evidence. There's no evidence to suggest that they are real. This conversation we are having is the exact same scenario.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?