- Oct 25, 2016
- Reaction score
No, I believe that's part of the storytelling to make the account memorable. I can't understand why people can't understand how information was passed down in ancient times or why they discount it.That's how scholarship addresses it ... not our rules ...If that's how you processed it, then that's on you.So, no.That's a standard that doesn't exist anywhere in antiquity.Written accounts of moses while he was alive?Not to argue with you (because it doesn't bother me that you believe Moses was not a historical figure) but we have written accounts of Moses, we have written accounts of Jesus and Jesus talked about Moses. If you accept confirmation (from written accounts) that Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, then I see little difference between the two.My belief is that Moses and Jesus were historical figures. I believe they actually existed.
You're entitled to believe as you wish, none of my business ... but what you can't say is that there's archeological or historical evidence that Moses existed ... not until you produce such evidence and have it vetted by scholars ...
My understanding is that there are documents in Rome that describe Jesus Christ ... the local Jews were very angry with Him and as such this information appeared in the routine reports sent to the Capital ... what little was reported to Rome is roughly in compliance with the Biblical narrative ... folks outside the Jewish community ... He was a historical figure who is ascibed with legendary acts and miracles ... we have confirmation He threw the money-changers out of the Temple, but not that He turned water into wine ... this isn't well vetted, we'd have to read the scholarship and judge for ourselves ...
Remember the Saga of Starling Birdsong? ... the minstrel must witness the heroic act first hand in order to write the ballad of such an act ...
I believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David were historical figures. I believe that because of the written accounts, not all of which were contemporaneous. Some were based on oral accounts and were recorded in writing decades after the event occurred. Some were oral accounts that were passed down hundreds of years before being recorded. This wasn't unusual for ancient events in antiquity; it was the norm.
So why do I accept this? Because their ancestors had a rich tradition of story telling. They passed down historical events in allegorical format to transfer important knowledge and history to future generations. They were meticulous in passing down information that was worth remembering and deemed important for future generations. There is nothing in antiquity that comes close by comparison. So while some may quibble over details of these accounts, I understand that the purpose of the accounts was to transfer knowledge and that the successful transfer of knowledge was aided by making the accounts memorable so that they could be easily remembered. So when I read these accounts I look for the big picture of what they were trying to pass down.
Marco Polo wrote of seeing dragons in China. Thats more credible than written stories a thousand years later.
Textual Criticism: Last week we looked at the evidence for the reliability of the Bible with the early Church’s canonization process that demonstrates we can be certain that we have the right…truthfaithandreason.com
Do you believe Achilles was dipped in the River Styx because Homer said so? ...
As for scholarship, ancient man knew 6,000 years before science that the universe began and that man is a product of that creation.