The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[The Union of the West]

How does one see the year in a vision? St. John didn’t even see it.

Who knows, but I don't watch them while I know Jesus is returning one day. I do not worry about it since only God knows when the time shall come and we should not believe in youtube predictions.

Like Tars said a few months ago.

My advice? Don’t pay attention to the prophecy mongers, they’re always pretty reliably wrong, and they’re just going to detract you from actually living your life. As St. Paul says, only God knows the hour. Don’t sweat it, don’t even look for it, it will come when it comes. Just live as Christ commands, in the time you have.

Oh yeah for sure. I was just poking fun at the fact that claiming to have seen the year in a vision makes absolutely no sense.

[Aeritai]

Who knows, but I don't watch them while I know Jesus is returning one day. I do not worry about it since only God knows when the time shall come and we should not believe in youtube predictions.

Like Tars said a few months ago.

Oh yeah for sure. I was just poking fun at the fact that claiming to have seen the year in a vision makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah it is weird, but I remember when the Youtube comments went crazy when Super Wolf Blood Moon happen. And to be honest seeing those comments made scared since this was back when I was a atheist.

[Tarsonis]

I was retreading R:21 to check something and came across this gem I never gave much thought to.

Rev 21:14 “The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Check it Protestants, biblical support for Apostolic Succession

[Tarsonis]

Oh yeah for sure. I was just poking fun at the fact that claiming to have seen the year in a vision makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah it is weird, but I remember when the Youtube comments went crazy when Super Wolf Blood Moon happen.

I didn’t have single fang grow. No fur or nothing. Major disappointment

[Aeritai]

Yeah it is weird, but I remember when the Youtube comments went crazy when Super Wolf Blood Moon happen.

I didn’t have single fang grow. No fur or nothing. Major disappointment

Feels bad man

[The Union of the West]

Oh yeah for sure. I was just poking fun at the fact that claiming to have seen the year in a vision makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah it is weird, but I remember when the Youtube comments went crazy when Super Wolf Blood Moon happen. And to be honest seeing those comments made scared since this was back when I was a atheist.

Admittedly, I enjoy reading/watching that sort of thing. In the same way that I enjoy horror movies: for entertainment.

[Aeritai]

Also question for Catholics can any of you explain the Pope Prophecy? Like is Francis going to be the last Pope to reign?

[Diopolis]

Also question for Catholics can any of you explain the Pope Prophecy? Like is Francis going to be the last Pope to reign?

The pope prophecy is likely a forgery, wouldn't be binding if it wasn't, and doesn't appear to have been referring to the last several popes.

[Lower Nubia]

The Left Behind books are good(but very biased against Non-Protestants especially Catholics) but the films are offensive pandering crap.

Their theologically heretical too. The rapture isn’t real.

It was Rapture “theology” that made me criticise the Solo Scriptura method that my Church denomination uses. How can you claim that your Church teaches correct doctrine, from the Bible, but then get something like the return of Christ so backwards? What else has been disturbed through your interpretation?

Of course, one of the things I criticised the Baptist’s Rapture Doctrine on is its lack of historical prevalence, and certainly the lack of universality in the Church (300 AD-1500AD) If I do that for Rapture doctrine, I should to that for Eucharistic doctrine... and it’s been a deep rabbit hole to fall down, but a good one.

[Northwest Cascadian Republic]

Wow, a good thread on NS? What's the world coming to?

Speaking of sola scriptura

[Lower Nubia]

Wow, a good thread on NS? What's the world coming to?

Speaking of sola scriptura (Image)

They’d argue against: “Is the canon known through Tradition?” By having four corners of acceptance for the New Testament: Apostolic Authorship, truth content (if it talks of speaking sheep, it ain’t true), use in the Church from the earliest centuries and then the maintenance of that canon even against dissenting voices, throughout the centuries, and finally that it agrees with the central rock of faith as presented in the gospels.

This doesn’t help with the OT though. Not that I agree with the above anyway.

[The Blaatschapen]

(if it talks of speaking sheep, it ain’t true)

[Diopolis]

Wow, a good thread on NS? What's the world coming to?

Speaking of sola scriptura (Image)

They’d argue against: “Is the canon known through Tradition?” By having four corners of acceptance for the New Testament: Apostolic Authorship, truth content (if it talks of speaking sheep, it ain’t true), use in the Church from the earliest centuries and then the maintenance of that canon even against dissenting voices, throughout the centuries, and finally that it agrees with the central rock of faith as presented in the gospels.

This doesn’t help with the OT though. Not that I agree with the above anyway.

Three of the four pillars are just fancy ways of saying "tradition".

[Nea Byzantia]

It’s also worth noting the spiritual harm of the rapture teaching, as it will leave many Christians woefully unprepared for what’s coming. Also implicit in it is the idea that because we’re all going to be beamed up to heaven, what happens in this world doesn’t matter (yet another example of Neo-Gnosticism seeping into Protestantism).

Exactly. I spent 12 years among those types, before I came back to the Orthodox faith of my fathers, and believe me, you're bang on, on this point.

[Nea Byzantia]

Here's a question that is more historical than anything else, but as it is related to the Bible, I thought I'd ask.

Which Pharaoh was it who enslaved the Israelites? And which subsequent Pharaoh reigned when Moses came back and set them free? Personally, I always subscribed to the view that the Israelites were enslaved by Pharaoh Ramses II "the Great"(ruled: 1279 BC - 1213 BC) and that the Israelites were freed from bondage in Egypt at the end of the reign of Merneptah (ruled: 1213 BC - 1199 BC), but I have my doubts, at the same time, and I've always wondered which Pharaohs are the ones mentioned in Exodus.

(This question is predominantly for our resident Indiana Jones: Archie)

[The Grims]

Here's a question that is more historical than anything else, but as it is related to the Bible, I thought I'd ask.

Which Pharaoh was it who enslaved the Israelites? And which subsequent Pharaoh reigned when Moses came back and set them free? Personally, I always subscribed to the view that the Israelites were enslaved by Pharaoh Ramses II "the Great"(ruled: 1279 BC - 1213 BC) and that the Israelites were freed from bondage in Egypt at the end of the reign of Merneptah (ruled: 1213 BC - 1199 BC), but I have my doubts, at the same time, and I've always wondered which Pharaohs are the ones mentioned in Exodus.

(This question is predominantly for our resident Indiana Jones: Archie)

How did slavery work in Egypt ? Was a pharaoh even needed, or could any businessman captuere and own slaves ?

[Nea Byzantia]

Here's a question that is more historical than anything else, but as it is related to the Bible, I thought I'd ask.

Which Pharaoh was it who enslaved the Israelites? And which subsequent Pharaoh reigned when Moses came back and set them free? Personally, I always subscribed to the view that the Israelites were enslaved by Pharaoh Ramses II "the Great"(ruled: 1279 BC - 1213 BC) and that the Israelites were freed from bondage in Egypt at the end of the reign of Merneptah (ruled: 1213 BC - 1199 BC), but I have my doubts, at the same time, and I've always wondered which Pharaohs are the ones mentioned in Exodus.

(This question is predominantly for our resident Indiana Jones: Archie)

How did slavery work in Egypt ? Was a pharaoh even needed, or could any businessman captuere and own slaves ?

The Bible says the following concerning the enslavement in Egypt, how the Pharaoh reduced his own people to indentured servitude, and then subsequent Pharaohs reduced the Hebrews to Slavery:

13Yet there was no food throughout that region, because the famine was so severe; the lands of Egypt and Canaan had been exhausted by the famine. 14Joseph collected all the money to be found in the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan in exchange for the grain they were buying, and he brought it into Pharaoh’s palace. 15When the money from the lands of Egypt and Canaan was gone, all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? For our funds have run out!”

16“Then bring me your livestock,” said Joseph. “Since the money is gone, I will sell you food in exchange for your livestock.” 17So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and he gave them food in exchange for their horses, the animals of their flocks and herds, and their donkeys. Throughout that year he provided them with food in exchange for all their livestock.

18When that year was over, they came to him the second year and said, “We cannot hide from our lord that our money is gone and all our livestock belongs to you. There is nothing left for our lord except our bodies and our land. 19Why should we perish before your eyes—we and our land as well? Purchase us and our land in exchange for food. Then we, along with our land, will be slaves to Pharaoh. Give us seed that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become desolate.”

20So Joseph acquired for Pharaoh all the land in Egypt; the Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields because the famine was so severe upon them. The land became Pharaoh’s, 21and Joseph reduced the people to servitudeb from one end of Egypt to the other. 22However, he did not acquire the priests’ portion of the land, for it had been given to them by Pharaoh. They ate the rations that Pharaoh supplied; so they did not sell their land.

23Then Joseph said to the people, “Now that I have acquired you and your land for Pharaoh this day, here is seed for you to sow in the land. 24At harvest time, you are to give a fifth of it to Pharaoh, and four-fifths will be yours as seed for the field and food for yourselves and your households and children.”

25“You have saved our lives,” they said. “We have found favor in our lord’s eyes, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants.” 26So Joseph established a law that a fifth of the produce belongs to Pharaoh, and it is in effect in the land of Egypt to this day. Only the priests’ land does not belong to Pharaoh.

(Genesis 47: 13 - 25)

8Then a new king, who knew nothing of Joseph, came to power in Egypt. 9“Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become too numerous and too powerful for us. 10Come, we must deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase even more; and if a war breaks out, they may join our enemies, fight against us, and leave the country.”

11So the Egyptians appointed taskmasters over the Israelites to oppress them with forced labor. As a result, they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. 12But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and flourished; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites.

13They worked the Israelites ruthlessly 14and made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar, and with all kinds of work in the fields. Every service they imposed was harsh.

(Exodus 1: 8 - 13)

[Tarsonis]

To save Arch some time

Egypt and Exodus...

Broadly speaking, both sides in this thread have made some good points, and both sides have made significant mistakes.

My own position is that Exodus clearly isn't an accurate historical narrative, nor can it be taken literally; however, thread participants who've pointed out that Kowani's arguments against a literal Exodus have been deeply flawed are also frequently correct.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Exodus took place under the Egyptian New Kingdom (c.1550 - c. 1080 BC; the 18th-20th dynasties, including Ramesses II), which seems to be the implicit default position taken in the current discussion. Those who've objected that the lack of relevant historical evidence in Egyptian records isn't an inherent disqualifier are correct. With some rare exceptions, Egyptian royal records are propaganda designed to celebrate the king, whereby even a tactically ambiguous event like the Battle of Kadesh can be presented as a mighty victory for pharaoh; in that regard, Donald Trump had nothing on Ramesses II. Surviving Egyptian records are also highly partial rather than a complete record of events; there are extensive and important gaps. But this discussion over bias and partiality in the Egyptian historical and epigraphic records is a distraction that has virtually nothing to do with the most compelling evidence demonstrating that Exodus is not a literal historical record. This evidence is both historical and archaeological.

The most important point is that if the Exodus took place under the New Kingdom, as is often broadly supposed, then travelling to the Land of Canaan would have done nothing to take the ancient Israelites out of Egyptian control. For the majority of the New Kingdom period, certainly between Thutmose III and the final Ramessides, the territory of modern Israel/Palestine/Lebanon as far north as the Orontes was firmly and unequivocally under the control of the Egyptian state. Escaping Egyptian territory by crossing the Red Sea in order to ... enter Egyptian territory is clearly a profound problem for a historical Exodus.

Furthermore, we know from the sole surviving New Kingdom record of 'Israel' that the latter was most likely a wandering nomadic tribe in the Egyptian Levant. The record in question is the Merneptah Stele, discovered by the British archaeologist Flinders Petrie in the late 19th century, and describing some military campaigns of Ramesses II's son and heir Merneptah. While there are disagreements over the precise interpretation of the Merneptah Stele's mention of 'Ysrir', most scholars agree that it refers to a nomadic or semi-nomadic group in the general vicinity of historical Canaan who were caught up in a campaign by Merneptah to suppress a brief revolt by some cities in the region, and reassert long-standing Egyptian dominance. So there was a group of people called 'Ysrir' in broadly the right area in the New Kingdom period; that much is profoundly interesting. But they were in territory that was firmly under Egyptian control in their only appearance in the Egyptian record.

There are other, subtler, archaeological arguments involving the total absence of any form of identifiable 'Hebrew' material culture in either Egypt or Canaan in the relevant period; these are far more of an issue for a literal Exodus than the lack of historical records, though still not definitive in isolation. But when combined with the points in the previous two paragraphs, the weight of the totality of the evidence comes as close to conclusive as you can come for the period.

The Biblical narrative of the Exodus is therefore best understood as an inspiring allegory rather than as a literal description of historical events.

However, arguments that the Old Testament can't be used as history in any form are wildly overblown. It can; just not uncritically. Let's take an example from later in the Old Testament to demonstrate the point. The 22nd Dynasty (Third Intermediate Period) pharaoh Shoshenq I (c.940-c.920 BC) campaigned extensively in the Levant in an attempt to restore the lost New Kingdom empire in the region; he was temporarily successful, but Egyptian presence in Canaan collapsed again following his death. This isn't the place to get into the nature of the fragmentation of the Egyptian state in the Third Intermediate Period, or dwell on the fact that the rulers of the 22nd Dynasty were actually Libyans. It's enough to note that Shoshenq I campaigned throughout 'Canaan', reaching as far north as Megiddo, and that his campaigns are recorded on several monumental inscriptions from his reign, as far south as Karnak. Shoshenq was very likely the Biblical 'Shishak' recorded in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles as having attacked the Kingdom of Judah. The two historical narratives - the Egyptian and the Biblical - don't agree on the particulars (there's no mention of Jerusalem in the Egyptian lists of places Shoshenq attacked), but it is at least possible to reconcile the broad narrative, and to argue that differences in specifics are a matter of emphasis and local perspective rather than ahistoricity.

The relationship between Shoshenq I and the Biblical Shishak is, however, another argument against a literal Exodus since it strongly suggests the latter can't have taken place after the collapse of Egyptian power at the end of the 20th Dynasty, which would be the main alternative to a New Kingdom Exodus, and would help explain why Biblical Canaan and Philistia weren't under Egyptian control (which would better fit the Biblical narrative). Shoshenq's campaigns help fix the Biblical narrative of kings Jeroboam and Rehoboam in particular decades in the 10th century BC, in turn strongly suggesting that the Exodus - if historical - must have taken place in the New Kingdom; which is, as we've noted, is profoundly problematic.

Finally, 'archaeology' is spelled with two 'a's unless A) you work for the US national park service or B) embrace a specific theoretical school of thought popular in the United States in the 1960s. Almost everyone else, including most Americans, spells it with both 'a's.

[Nea Byzantia]

To save Arch some time

Egypt and Exodus...

Broadly speaking, both sides in this thread have made some good points, and both sides have made significant mistakes.

My own position is that Exodus clearly isn't an accurate historical narrative, nor can it be taken literally; however, thread participants who've pointed out that Kowani's arguments against a literal Exodus have been deeply flawed are also frequently correct.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Exodus took place under the Egyptian New Kingdom (c.1550 - c. 1080 BC; the 18th-20th dynasties, including Ramesses II), which seems to be the implicit default position taken in the current discussion. Those who've objected that the lack of relevant historical evidence in Egyptian records isn't an inherent disqualifier are correct. With some rare exceptions, Egyptian royal records are propaganda designed to celebrate the king, whereby even a tactically ambiguous event like the Battle of Kadesh can be presented as a mighty victory for pharaoh; in that regard, Donald Trump had nothing on Ramesses II. Surviving Egyptian records are also highly partial rather than a complete record of events; there are extensive and important gaps. But this discussion over bias and partiality in the Egyptian historical and epigraphic records is a distraction that has virtually nothing to do with the most compelling evidence demonstrating that Exodus is not a literal historical record. This evidence is both historical and archaeological.

The most important point is that if the Exodus took place under the New Kingdom, as is often broadly supposed, then travelling to the Land of Canaan would have done nothing to take the ancient Israelites out of Egyptian control. For the majority of the New Kingdom period, certainly between Thutmose III and the final Ramessides, the territory of modern Israel/Palestine/Lebanon as far north as the Orontes was firmly and unequivocally under the control of the Egyptian state. Escaping Egyptian territory by crossing the Red Sea in order to ... enter Egyptian territory is clearly a profound problem for a historical Exodus.

Furthermore, we know from the sole surviving New Kingdom record of 'Israel' that the latter was most likely a wandering nomadic tribe in the Egyptian Levant. The record in question is the Merneptah Stele, discovered by the British archaeologist Flinders Petrie in the late 19th century, and describing some military campaigns of Ramesses II's son and heir Merneptah. While there are disagreements over the precise interpretation of the Merneptah Stele's mention of 'Ysrir', most scholars agree that it refers to a nomadic or semi-nomadic group in the general vicinity of historical Canaan who were caught up in a campaign by Merneptah to suppress a brief revolt by some cities in the region, and reassert long-standing Egyptian dominance. So there was a group of people called 'Ysrir' in broadly the right area in the New Kingdom period; that much is profoundly interesting. But they were in territory that was firmly under Egyptian control in their only appearance in the Egyptian record.

There are other, subtler, archaeological arguments involving the total absence of any form of identifiable 'Hebrew' material culture in either Egypt or Canaan in the relevant period; these are far more of an issue for a literal Exodus than the lack of historical records, though still not definitive in isolation. But when combined with the points in the previous two paragraphs, the weight of the totality of the evidence comes as close to conclusive as you can come for the period.

The Biblical narrative of the Exodus is therefore best understood as an inspiring allegory rather than as a literal description of historical events.

However, arguments that the Old Testament can't be used as history in any form are wildly overblown. It can; just not uncritically. Let's take an example from later in the Old Testament to demonstrate the point. The 22nd Dynasty (Third Intermediate Period) pharaoh Shoshenq I (c.940-c.920 BC) campaigned extensively in the Levant in an attempt to restore the lost New Kingdom empire in the region; he was temporarily successful, but Egyptian presence in Canaan collapsed again following his death. This isn't the place to get into the nature of the fragmentation of the Egyptian state in the Third Intermediate Period, or dwell on the fact that the rulers of the 22nd Dynasty were actually Libyans. It's enough to note that Shoshenq I campaigned throughout 'Canaan', reaching as far north as Megiddo, and that his campaigns are recorded on several monumental inscriptions from his reign, as far south as Karnak. Shoshenq was very likely the Biblical 'Shishak' recorded in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles as having attacked the Kingdom of Judah. The two historical narratives - the Egyptian and the Biblical - don't agree on the particulars (there's no mention of Jerusalem in the Egyptian lists of places Shoshenq attacked), but it is at least possible to reconcile the broad narrative, and to argue that differences in specifics are a matter of emphasis and local perspective rather than ahistoricity.

The relationship between Shoshenq I and the Biblical Shishak is, however, another argument against a literal Exodus since it strongly suggests the latter can't have taken place after the collapse of Egyptian power at the end of the 20th Dynasty, which would be the main alternative to a New Kingdom Exodus, and would help explain why Biblical Canaan and Philistia weren't under Egyptian control (which would better fit the Biblical narrative). Shoshenq's campaigns help fix the Biblical narrative of kings Jeroboam and Rehoboam in particular decades in the 10th century BC, in turn strongly suggesting that the Exodus - if historical - must have taken place in the New Kingdom; which is, as we've noted, is profoundly problematic.

Finally, 'archaeology' is spelled with two 'a's unless A) you work for the US national park service or B) embrace a specific theoretical school of thought popular in the United States in the 1960s. Almost everyone else, including most Americans, spells it with both 'a's.

What about the possibility of linking the Hebrews to the Hyksos Kings? Didn't Josephus make that connection?

[Aeritai]

Also question for Catholics can any of you explain the Pope Prophecy? Like is Francis going to be the last Pope to reign?

The pope prophecy is likely a forgery, wouldn't be binding if it wasn't, and doesn't appear to have been referring to the last several popes.

So Francis is the last Pope to reign? Which means after his death or resigning then the end of the world starts?

[Nea Byzantia]

The pope prophecy is likely a forgery, wouldn't be binding if it wasn't, and doesn't appear to have been referring to the last several popes.

So Francis is the last Pope to reign? Which means after his death or resigning then the end of the world starts?

Maybe the end of the Catholic World as its been for the last Millennium.

[Sarderistan]

To save Arch some time

What about the possibility of linking the Hebrews to the Hyksos Kings? Didn't Josephus make that connection?

The Hyksos reigned before the New Kingdom era so that might not be possible.

[Nea Byzantia]

What about the possibility of linking the Hebrews to the Hyksos Kings? Didn't Josephus make that connection?

The Hyksos reigned before the New Kingdom era so that might not be possible.

Only if you assume the Exodus occurred during the New Kingdom.

[Sarderistan]

The Hyksos reigned before the New Kingdom era so that might not be possible.

Only if you assume the Exodus occurred during the New Kingdom.

Thing is, the Hyksos got overthrown by the New Kingdom pharaohs, Ahmose or another (I don't remember the name). So there must be mentions of a battle or change of gov't which didn't mentioned in the Bible.

[Lower Nubia]

They’d argue against: “Is the canon known through Tradition?” By having four corners of acceptance for the New Testament: Apostolic Authorship, truth content (if it talks of speaking sheep, it ain’t true), use in the Church from the earliest centuries and then the maintenance of that canon even against dissenting voices, throughout the centuries, and finally that it agrees with the central rock of faith as presented in the gospels.

This doesn’t help with the OT though. Not that I agree with the above anyway.

Three of the four pillars are just fancy ways of saying "tradition".

Apostolic Authorship, Truth content, an agreement with the central dogma of faith, Christ, as presented in the gospels, are not inherently tradition: the second is common sense, the third is common sense, the first is carried in Tradition, but can, hypothetically, be separated from it, especially with modern scholarship. Though I would not deny the central role of tradition in carrying the names of the apostles with those documents.

The problem is that when you're a protestant looking at those pillars, they are convincing in and of themselves, with very little thought needed for traditions. The relevant councils that came together to discuss the canon, can utilise a series of thoughts to establish the canon, without reverting per se, to their extra-biblical authority, because ultimately the biblical canon is "self" authenticating with the above criteria. It's very convincing when you're a protestant looking at the Bible in that lense.

Of course, when you look outside of that mind frame, it's clear to say the issue of Biblical canon becomes intractable for both New Testament and Old Testament by using the above criteria. As yes, we all agree on the 27 NT books, but not the 39/46/52 OT.