Moses was high on drugs

You have to look at this with a bit of logic and common sense and less prescient hindsight. Go all the way back then forward.

If Moses and/or Jesus is fictional, who created them and why? If you want to take a Dan Brown approach, you approach it going backwards like some mystery novel with a big cover-up revealed that make lazy-minded couch potatoes gasp in surprise to a conclusion many could coming from reading the dust jacket or watching the trailer. But if you go further back before there was a Moses or Jesus (or their invention) you have to ask the aforementioned questions.

Until the Christianity was officialized in the 4th Century AD there was little reason to create such characters to enforce a dogma which prior to the foundation of the Church was not necessarily very strict. This is why there were all those councils after the Church's foundation and by that time Moses and Jesus were already firmly entrenched by several centuries into the Christian consciousness.

As for the bible's historical worthiness, it certainly is lacking but then again so is just about every historical document of those times. Herodotus isn't exactly overflowing with historical accuracies. However with the Bible, keep in mind much of the Old Testament when you remove the miracles deals mainly with the history of the Jews people in Israel not the acts of the gods like you have with Greek Mythology. When we get to the time of David for example, there is far less splitting of Red Sea type miracles.

If the Bible is inaccurate in these passages it may be for over-embellishing the Israelite kingdom but certainly not for fabricating it. The Bible is quick to point out the defeats and tragedies of the Israelites with the Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Greeks - all of whom were real historical peoples who interacted with the Israelites.

As for Jesus' miracles, no they weren't so staggering. shortly after his death, there was a man named Appollianius or something like that who it was claimed could fly and do all kinds of feats like that which makes multiplying fishes and even raising the dead rather mundane in comparison.

And His miracles were not to draw attention but to teach certain points that some could not grasp without the miracles. Even the fish and loaves miracles was to prove a point to his followers.

My bad. That was awful. I don't know why I wrote sermon on the mount. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Complete failure at an argument asied, my point still stands... kind of. I think that Moses is relevant to both pharaoh's accomplishments, and prayer to Gods. The plagues would certainly cause prayer. Anyway, if your reasoning is that there is not a lot of historical context LEFT from that long ago, but that the bible is enough, do you believe other religious texts? I'm just wondering whether this is your sole reason. If so, it holds water, I guess, but if you apply it only to one religion, it is biassed. So what if Judea wasn't a wealthy region? The Romans were occupying, so there was a standing army everywhere. Roman gaurds watched everyone closely, and investigated thoroughly, that is, when they didn't just kill. I know there were many fringe prophets, and holy men that claimed the messianic status, but unless Jesus, too was a fraud, they would not have been convincing. Essentially you're saying that he did nothing special. His miracles were partially intended to get a ttention, and this would have drawn historians. I'm not saying it was impossible or even unlikely that Jesus oof Nazareth existed, but that I am not convinced. There is too much room reasonable doubt.

again, you're putting far too much hindsight into these things at a time when historical record keeping was spotty at best and did not always survive the ravages of time, natural disasters, and invaders. Particularly with Moses and the Egyptians. Historical records that have survived from that time period are mainly temple and tomb carvings which deal with the accomplishments of the pharoahs and prayers to the gods.

And what I remember of the Sermon on the Mount was that Jesus did NOT feed the multitudes as that was another event entirely.

And again what would the Romans care or know about it? Judea was a backwater, there were no Romans present at those events, and there were a number of prophets and messiahs running about at that time then.

Basically, you need to bone up some more if you want to make a legit argument that can't be picked apart so readily.

I have not done extensive research to the end of egyptian historians, but surely there would be egyptian accounts of the 10 plagues, and an adopted pharaoh leading the slaves to freedom. This would be a very significant event. The same with Jesus. Remember the sermon on the mount? Fed 500. That would have been about 20% of Jereusalem's population at the time. Even the Romans would pay attention to that. Not to mention all the other miracles, which would spread like wildfire in such a bustling hub. Even if not the Romans, you'd expect more prose on him than the gospels. The massive claims that the bible alone makes have very little reason to be believed, as we have no evidence that many of them are even possible. If the truth is distorted, as you say, then the entirety of the document is not very credible. I readily admit that most B.C. history was exagerated or undetailed, or whatever else to discredit it, but less extravegant claims are made; plausibility lends credibility to anything.

"The same for Jesus. If history (non-biblical) had taken notice of these notable figures, I would have plenty reason to believe they existed"

You're looking at this with waaaaay too much hindsight. As I mentioned before Jesus only spent 3 years preaching before he was crucified. For the Romans, the crucifixion of a "mad" prophet in a backwater area was of little importance. He was not a notable character until after his death and for the first generations, He was a completely underground character.

"but now, I just have an old novel, which has already been proven wrong many, many times (Pi = 3?). The bible, old and new, is not a reliable historical context."

And neither is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Kojiki, Homer's Iliad, Egyptian Temple Hieroglyphs with their boasting of Pharoah's accomplishments, certainly not Herodotus. But in all of them we also have truth - sometimes distorted and exaggerated but truth nonetheless.

What historians were present exactly at the time of Moses? True historical writing did not begin until the time of the Greeks. Ancient Egyptian writings that have survived deal more with the actions of the pharoahs and numerous prayers.

Take for example the Hittites. They were only a passing name in the Bible for centuries. It wasn't until the cracking of the heiroglyphic code in the 19th century, that we learned of their rivarly with Ancient Egypt. Further archeological work was needed to resurrect an entire civilization from nigh obscurity. And they were around the same time as Moses.

dco, i didnt think you would. I am sure many do not. For some reason I woke from a dream that had nothing to do with Moses and thought of ...Moses. Good to see ya again.

twodee - Long time no see! I'm not sure I agree with you on the whole moral of the story. I'm always willing to go hike a mountain, but if that entails waiting for forty years to talk to God, no, I will not. Moses does not represent enlightenment, but a profound waste of time.

Samurai - Okay. I can see what you mean. I guess I look at it this way: If I read about Hammurabbi in some ancient Mesopotamian text, I will likely trust it. However, if this text makes massive claims, and I then find another text making different, but contradicting claims, I would not trust either. I would need some other reason; more mistorical context. Luckily, in Mesopotamia there was plenty. My other beef is that there were many historians present at the time (of moses), but none recorded his aid in the Hebrew migration. The same for Jesus. If history (non-biblical) had taken notice of these notable figures, I would have plenty reason to believe they existed, but now, I just have an old novel, which has already been proven wrong many, many times (Pi = 3?). The bible, old and new, is not a reliable historical context.

Moses (a symbolic any person) who goes to the top of (his/her) mountain and faces the darkest misunderstanding of his/her life and people (perhaps contemplating suicide due to his/her feeling unclear why he/she is here). After facing this most dark place in the “Moses Ego” he/she reaches enlightenment (Buddha-ness?). This enlightenment gives clear vision to what has always been available to the “Moses” in each of us (Dorothy, Leave the heart (scarecrow), brain (tin man) and courage (ego- lion) behind and all you needed to do was click those slippers and you are home(enlightened)) Now that you are home (enlightened) everything looks the same but different. The bush is now a burning bush. There is wisdom in everything around and none of it has to do with intellectual wisdom. The labels of everything don't matter to this new wisdom and are even useless. It is so clear it may has well be “etched in stone.” Maybe it is etched in every stone and not just those tablets this guy carried down from a mountain in an old fairytale. Maybe it is etched in more than just stone. Anyway, that was his mountain. I have mine and you have yours. This “Moses” is born, lives and dies in our society constantly. Many of these “Moses-es” even right books about it. My hope is that we can find that “Mosses” in each of us. And that is my 2 cents on thinking about Moses.

If you want to take the lazy cafe latte swilling approach that someone just decided to make up folks then you go ahead. I tend to subscribe to the belief that legends and myths have a basis in fact or represent a form of fact through symbolism.

There is no non-biblical evidence? Uh, do you actually understand history and historical records? It's not like the entirity of human history is mapped out to the degree that we know every single person who drew breath on this planet over the last 10,000 years. Your simplistic approach to history does not a Jesus or whomever readily unmake.

Jesus during his life was just a carpenter who took up preaching in the last 3 years of his life before being crucified. At a time when prophets and crucifications were a dime a dozen, it's no wonder He didn't make it in the news especially since Judea was a backwater as far as Rome was concerned. And even if He did given the vast amount of time from then to now and chance of such record surviving the sack of Jersusalem by the Romans in 70 AD when Christians were in hiding and persecuted is pretty damn slim.

How about Siddartha? Mohamed? Mithras? Ra? Vishnu? Samurai, there are very many religions. Some may be based on true events, but many must be false. There is no non-biblical evidence for moses, jesus & friends. Hence, I have no reason to trust that they existed. Making up messianic or prophetic serves a great purpose; just look at how much influence these myths have.

So one group says Moses was high and another group says he didn't exist.

Seriously doubt the high thing since it's hardly conclusive and I don't subscribe to the non-existance bit for the reason that making up Moses doesn't make much sense. Many legends however distorted have a basis in facts.

Homer's Trojan War was dismissed as a poet's imagination until a spade uncovered Troy.

And add hot sun to it.

96thedayofrage - Please don't lump us all into a group. The label "atheist" doesn't mean anything more than "skeptic." Bertrand Russell correctly observed that organizing atheists into dogmatic groups is like herding cats; you have a bunch of independent thinkers all going their own way. I don't think Moses was high; I just don't see any evidence, besides the bible, that he existed. To say "well if he spoke to God, he must have been under the influence of narcotics" is extremely unscientific. This researcher is assuming that moses spoke to God. It's a very naive conclusion, and it, most definitely, is not secular.

If it was okay with Moses... then it's okay with me!

he he he suckers!

So what this guy is saying is that...the three major monotheistic religions of the world are all the product of some guy's crazy high?

Awesome.