No such thing as Moses

[_GoodK]

If anything is ridiculous in this current exchange, it is the idea that Moses "probably didn't even exist." Moreover, 120 is within the current maximum lifespan of humans, so that does not even require a small stretch.

It is an enormous stretch, and it's ridiculous that you sit here claiming that it's plausible for a Hebrew nomad to live to be 120 years old in a time when people thought trepanning a migraine was a good idea.

Forget the fact that "Moses" is a fairy tale that people have been telling for a long time - Sargon of Akkadia, Cyrus the Great, Romulus and Remus - and that most of the Bible is recycled mythology, and there isn't a single reason to believe that Moses existed besides our religious texts. Let's pretend that the evidence for Moses is good enough. If you get to use religious texts as evidence - you have to use it all. You can't just pick your native religious text.

You have to accept that Moses not only taught the Phoenecians the alphabet, but Orpheus.

You have to accept that Moses talked to the prophet Muhammed and gave him some good old fatherly advice, while al-Khidr freaked Moses out enough to make him start asking questions, even though he promised to keep his mouth shut.

Of course you accept the idea that Moses was hanging with his buddy Elijah as Jesus turns into a super heroe.

The most recent Moses sighting was April 3, 1836,in Kirtland Ohio.

Hell, Moses even had a "disintegrator pistol" for Hubbard's sake!


It must feel like this.

Others may disagree, but I see Adam and Eve as literary devices and not necessarily as historical personages.

I couldn't agree more, it makes much more sense when we call the Bible what it is -- and Jesus is the deus ex machina.



..

[_The Dude]

Forget the fact that "Moses" is a fairy tale that people have been telling for a long time - Sargon of Akkadia, Cyrus the Great, Romulus and Remus - and that most of the Bible is recycled mythology, and there isn't a single reason to believe that Moses existed besides our religious texts. Let's pretend that the evidence for Moses is good enough. If you get to use religious texts as evidence - you have to use it all. You can't just pick your native religious text.

I wouldn't say that if you accept one religious text then you have to accept them all. It is logically possible that one or a few are more factual than the rest, and they ought to be examined on a case-by-case basis (if you have time). It is also logically possible that part of the Bible is historical and another part is not. OTOH, it is mighty suspicious how fixed people are on the truth of their own religious texts... how exceedingly rare it is for someone to cross in-born religious lines and concede that someone else's religious text is probably more historically accurate than the one he grew up with.

[_CaliforniaKid]

My studies have led me to believe that there probably really was a religious leader in the Sinai three millennia ago named Moses, albeit undoubtedly quite different from what the Bible describes (lifespan not excepted).

[_Calculus Crusader]

It is an enormous stretch, and it's ridiculous that you sit here claiming that it's plausible for a Hebrew nomad to live to be 120 years old in a time when people thought trepanning a migraine was a good idea.

There is nothing ridiculous about Moses attaining an age humans have observed. If we can accomplish something then God certainly can. It is even possible, albeit unlikely, that Moses could have lived that long without divine intervention.

Forget the fact that "Moses" is a fairy tale that people have been telling for a long time - Sargon of Akkadia, Cyrus the Great, Romulus and Remus - and that most of the Bible is recycled mythology, and there isn't a single reason to believe that Moses existed besides our religious texts. Let's pretend that the evidence for Moses is good enough. If you get to use religious texts as evidence - you have to use it all. You can't just pick your native religious text.

You have to accept that Moses not only taught the Phoenecians the alphabet, but Orpheus.

You have to accept that Moses talked to the prophet Muhammed and gave him some good old fatherly advice, while al-Khidr freaked Moses out enough to make him start asking questions, even though he promised to keep his mouth shut.

Of course you accept the idea that Moses was hanging with his buddy Elijah as Jesus turns into a super heroe.

The most recent Moses sighting was April 3, 1836,in Kirtland Ohio.

Hell, Moses even had a "disintegrator pistol" for Hubbard's sake!

Are you trying to win a non sequitur award?

[_krose]

My studies have led me to believe that there probably really was a religious leader in the Sinai three millennia ago named Moses, albeit undoubtedly quite different from what the Bible describes (lifespan not excepted).

Might I ask what leads you to this conclusion?

[_GoodK]

Are you trying to win a non sequitur award?

???

I guess you missed this:

You can't just pick your native religious text.

Or the point completely.


So I'll slow down.

First, tell me please, why is it ridiculous to assume Moses was never a real person?

you said that, right?

[_Danna]

The most recent Moses sighting was April 3, 1836,in Kirtland Ohio.

A wee correction. The most recent sighting was in 1918

I've noted this before:the Bible dictionary entry for Moses is not linked in D&C 138, and the vision at D&C 138 is not included in the LDS Bible dictionary for Moses at all. So if one were following the story of the translated Moses, LDS.org will not offer up Joseph F. Smith's vision- and vice versa.

Somebody at LDS.org must realise the implications of JFS vision: He explicitly includes Moses in his list of spirits that he saw in the spirit world. Which is impossible of course, as a translated being, Moses would not be in the spirit world - just as Enoch and his people were not present there. If he were actually in the spirit world, he could not have ministered to Jesus of course, or given keys to Joseph and Oliver.

So, not only is having to accept Moses visions from other faiths a bit of a problem; the implications of accepting all canonised LDS accounts creates a quandry as well.

[_Jersey Girl]

Let's pretend that the evidence for Moses is good enough. If you get to use religious texts as evidence - you have to use it all. You can't just pick your native religious text

Of course you can pick your native religions text. Why not? As for Moses age, etc. you already admit that the Bible is myth (though I should think that you wouldn't accept the whole Bible as myth...or do you?) if that is the case, why is it difficult for you to imagine that a myth grew up around a historical figure?

The only truth that can be said about Moses is that he is mentioned in multiple ancient myths for which there is no historical evidence.

Why do you think that discounts the ancient narrative in it's entirety? Are there other ancient tribal stories that you believe are true? If so, what are they?

What say you, sun warmed dude?

[_harmony]

Let's pretend that the evidence for Moses is good enough. If you get to use religious texts as evidence - you have to use it all. You can't just pick your native religious text

Of course you can pick your native religions text. Why not? As for Moses age, etc. you already admit that the Bible is myth (though I should think that you wouldn't accept the whole Bible as myth...or do you?) if that is the case, why is it difficult for you to imagine that a myth grew up around a historical figure?

The only truth that can be said about Moses is that he is mentioned in multiple ancient myths for which there is no historical evidence.

Why do you think that discounts the ancient narrative in it's entirety? Are there other ancient tribal stories that you believe are true? If so, what are they?

What say you, sun warmed dude?

Actually, if I remember my class on myth correcty, most myths start out as truth. Then after eons of time, and layer upon layer of additional flourishes, the myth bears little resemblance to its original truth.

But I could be wrong, because that class was a long time ago.

[_Jersey Girl]

Actually, if I remember my class on myth correcty, most myths start out as truth. Then after eons of time, and layer upon layer of additional flourishes, the myth bears little resemblance to its original truth.

But I could be wrong, because that class was a long time ago.

I should think so, yes, harm. I think of it as an ancient game of "telephone" (do you remember that game?) the stories for which originated amongst ancient tribal folk. I think we make the mistake of thinking that tribal orality has no basis in fact whatsoever.

I doubt we could ever achieve (i before e, except after c) evaluation of ancient tribal themes and cultural customs. We simply dig out pieces from deep beneath the earth and put them together to create a picture puzzle for which we will never have all the pieces. Do we understand the symbolism or cultural nuances in the language of the ancients? How is that even possible?

The stories of our own contemporary tribe are being told via the media. Does anyone actually think that, given our technology, our stories are told more accurately?

I refer you to Fox News.