Moses PROVED to be a fraud, but...?

[Skipper]

I'd say the claim of moving apart and crossing the red sea proves him to be a fraud more than any correlations between other previous religions.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'd say the claim of moving apart and crossing the red sea proves him to be a fraud more than any correlations between other previous religions.

I'd say the claim of him not existing trumps that.

[Ashendant]

I'd say the claim of moving apart and crossing the red sea proves him to be a fraud more than any correlations between other previous religions.

Actually that was scientificly proven to be possible, but not on how movies and the bible depict it

[Skipper]

I'd say the claim of moving apart and crossing the red sea proves him to be a fraud more than any correlations between other previous religions.

Actually that was scientificly proven to be possible, but not on how movies and the bible depict it

I guess then, my first sentence should have read "I'd say the claim of MOSES moving apart and crossing the red sea". Regardless of whether it's scientifically possible or not, the claim that he was the reason it happened (or happened at all in the perfect time and conditions that would have allowed them to cross) is what makes him a fraud.

Also, the claim of him not existing is also a very valid one padraic haha

[Minimalist]

Maybe the army abandoned the Aten idea because they did'nt want to follow a woman?

Maybe. The example of Hatshepshut from the preceding century should mean that a female pharaoh was not unknown. Still, I imagine this was simply a religious backlash by the upper classes. No one gave a shit what the commons thought. They did as they were told.

I have to go looking for a website for you. You may find it interesting.

[Cerrone]

Welcome.

One growing consensus is that the Exodus is myth and that Moses never existed. I'm unaware of any causal link between Mosaic law and the the Egyptian law of M'aat,although there may be some correlations .Egyptian ethics and moral law are not directly analogous with Judaeo-Christian mores.Their entire world views,cosmology and theology are different.

Another growing consensus is that Judaism is younger than traditionally thought. the Exodus is dated at anything from 1450B CE to1250 BCE. It's being increasingly accepted that the Torah was probably written in Babylon as late as the C8th BCE. That at least some of Mosaic law was lifted from Hammurabi's code, circa 1790 BCE.

---

Tut's parents were Akhn Aten and one of his five sisters,although it's not known which one (established though DNA testing) It is now though common Egyptian Royal incest may have been the cause of Tut's death at age 19 due to genetic defects..

Thank you for the welcome!

I don't think anyone can say that the egyptians had no influence on the hebrews, the egyptians were an ancient superpower for a very long time. It's like saying that people living in england or somalia aren't influenced by the actions of american government or business, they're certianly affected in a huge way- whether by trying to emulate cultural aspects, or by being repulsed or whatever. Conquered nations and people more often than not try and emulate their conqueror to become as powerful and reclaim themselves from vassaldom- not so much today I hasten to add... but throughout history this has usually been the norm, and for the hebrews and Moses' to have copied some of the social laws of the egyptians seems natural.

(Today 11:25)Skipper Wrote:
I guess then, my first sentence should have read "I'd say the claim of MOSES moving apart and crossing the red sea". Regardless of whether it's scientifically possible or not, the claim that he was the reason it happened (or happened at all in the perfect time and conditions that would have allowed them to cross) is what makes him a fraud.

Also, the claim of him not existing is also a very valid one padraic haha

Hahah yeah the red sea, but as if any christian could be convinced of such things through common sense alone...

I know that there are some people who say Moses may not have existed, and that used to be my own opnion on religion itself; just ignore it, it's bullshit. But it's not constructive in my experience, you can throw an arguement and the chance to change somebodys mind away by coming at them from that angle. If the guy did exist, and for the benefit of conversation assume he did, then from what i've found his actions negate him more than just calling into question his existance.


Also for Padriac, and i'm not encouraging turning this into a thread on Aten! But.. i've never read or heard anything concrete about Akhenaten remarrying one of his daughters- he had six children, girls but no male heirs and died without a male child. I'm sure that was the case. I also wasn't aware that Tutankhamuns heritage had ever been proved to have been directly linked to Akhenatens daughters, you mentioned DNA evidence but it's been my understanding he may have been a cousin or some family relative young enough to be harmless in politics and still be connected to the pharoahs family and be a legitimate claim to the throne- the perfect candidate for an Amun puppet king- and of course DNA doesn't always work in accurately narrowing down direct parentage. I'd be interested in seeing anything you've got about that though.

[Minimalist]

Yam Supf = "Reed Sea" not "Red Sea" a little fuckup that doesn't even slow xtians down in their rampant desire to believe utter bullshit.


Anyway, this is not the web site I saw which gave a translation of a document/inscription on the subject but it gets the point across.

http://ib205.tripod.com/ahmose_1_1.html

Ahmose I slowly drove the Hyksos back to their capital Avaris (location on one of the eastern branches of the Nile in Lower Egypt), once here Ahmose laid siege to the city. Ahmose had troubles of his own with his kingdom, he left the siege of Avaris in the control of his military commanders so that he was free to placate a rebellion in the Theban region. When Ahmose returned to Avaris he found that negotiations had been taking place between the Hyksos and his military commanders ­ the Hyksos were allowed to leave Egypt gracefully in return for surrendering the city (1532 BC).

...However, Ahmose was not going to let his enemy escape so easily ­ the Egyptian army pursued the Hyksos people into southern Palestine to Sharuhen. The city was put under siege by the Egyptians, after three years the Hyksos once more fled this time into Syria. Again the Egyptians followed, but Ahmose finally returned home to Egypt.

As noted earlier, this set the stage for 4 centuries of Egyptian occupation of Canaan. However, look at it from the Canaanite point-of-view. Here they are negotiating in good faith to give up Avaris and go back home when the king comes back and sets after them. Gee? Where have I heard this story before? Don't you suppose that embittered Canaanites might have sat around their fires bitching about the duplicity of the Egyptians? So 1,000 years later someone takes the tale, tweaks it a bit and you get this glorious bullshit tale about how 'god' saved them. Some people will believe anything, as our resident fundies prove every day.

[HeyItsZeus]

I'd say the claim of moving apart and crossing the red sea proves him to be a fraud more than any correlations between other previous religions.

I was actually going to post this but you got here before me. Seriously people, there is no need for a serious discussion when we know people can't have demi-god like abilities. Just pointing that out like Skipper did.

---

I'd say the claim of moving apart and crossing the red sea proves him to be a fraud more than any correlations between other previous religions.

Actually that was scientificly proven to be possible, but not on how movies and the bible depict it

Really? Proof please.

---

[quote='Minimalist' pid='92531' dateline='1284053814']
Yam Supf = "Reed Sea" not "Red Sea" a little fuckup that doesn't even slow xtians down in their rampant desire to believe utter bullshit.


Actually I did not know this until now. Why hasn't this been accepted by "them" already? What difference does it make to them if it's the Red Sea or the Reed Sea? Won't they still stand by their claims no matter what?

[Minimalist]

Because the Sea of Reeds was, at best, a shallow swamp. Not at all as glorious as the parting of the Red Sea!

Also it would have been on the "northern route" out of Sinai which god told the Hebrews to avoid because although he had just kicked the shit out of the Egyptians apparently the Philistines were too tough for him!

Seriously, the Philistines did not even arrive in the area until c 1155 BC and that was as defeated refugees after losing a battle to the Egyptians. They were hardly the powerhouse that they later grew to be. This is an anachronism which helps date the germ of these bible stories to the 7th-8th centuries BCE according to archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@min

Something which has always bothered me is how could it have taken anyone 40 years to get from Egypt to Canaan?


The only explanation I can think off (if true,which I doubt) is that the Hebrews were breeding up to get strong enough to commit genocide on the inhabitants of the promised land.

I also seem to remember reading something doubts being cast on the popular explanation of the Reed Sea (which I was taught at my Catholic school; It was 6 feet deep at most and this wind came up---).


@Skipper

I think it's necessary to tread softly when making claims of cross cultural influences. It's too easy to mistake correlation for causation.Think it's consensual that it has pretty much always occurred,but not so much on the extent. I accept there was almost certainly some Egyptian influence on the formation of the Jews as a people.However,I'm cautious about ascribing specifics.