Did King David exist?

[AV1611VET]

I'm currently in a discussion with a Catholic that believes King David didn't exist.

I showed him from Catholic documentation that he not only exists, but is also considered a saint.

Thus this poll.

Did King David exist?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I think it's rather unlikely that he did exist. The stories written about him appear legendary and were written during and after the exilic period (at the least). The archaeological evidence appears to suggest that Jerusalem during the Iron Age IIa period was a rather small town.

 

[redleghunter]

I think it's rather unlikely that he did exist. The stories written about him appear legendary and were written during and after the exilic period (at the least). The archaeological evidence appears to suggest that Jerusalem during the Iron Age IIa period was a rather small town.

Then roughly half of your liturgy is based on myth. David was a prolific psalmist.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Then roughly half of your liturgy is based on myth. David was a prolific psalmist.

I don't think it matters who wrote the Psalms. They're prayers/songs.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't think it matters who wrote the Psalms. They're prayers/songs.

Did not Christ confirm the historical King David? Or was He inaccurate?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Did not Christ confirm the historical King David? Or was He inaccurate?

Doesn't the kenosis imply that he wasn't some magical superman?

 

[redleghunter]

Doesn't the kenosis imply that he wasn't some magical superman?

Please explain. Who was not some magical superman? How are you applying kenosis?

David was mentioned by Christ as speaking of Him and was inspired by the Holy Spirit when doing so.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Please explain. Who was not some magical superman? How are you applying kenosis?

David was mentioned by Christ as speaking of Him and was inspired by the Holy Spirit when doing so.

Jesus wasn't omniscient. He didn't know the speed of light, he probably didn't know that David was a legendary character. He probably didn't believe the theory of evolution either. None of this matters for Christology. Historians, not even ardent Catholics, do not use the words of Jesus as a source for ancient history in order to ascertain what went on a full millennium before Jesus was born.

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus wasn't omniscient. He didn't know the speed of light, he probably didn't know that David was a legendary character. He probably didn't believe the theory of evolution either. None of this matters for Christology. Historians, not even ardent Catholics, do not use the words of Jesus as a source for ancient history in order to ascertain what went on a full millennium before Jesus was born.

When did the Catholic church adopt the kenosis theory and abandon the Hypostatic Union?

Or is this just your personal opinion?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

When did the Catholic church adopt the kenosis theory and abandon the Hypostatic Union?

Or is this just your personal opinion?

Hypostatic union says nothing of omniscience. It speaks about the nature of God incarnate and is really another issue to whether or not there was a historical David. There are several instances wherein Jesus is said to have asked questions and been surprised, these things don't happen to people who have the entirety of all possible knowledge in their heads.

 

[redleghunter]

Hypostatic union says nothing of omniscience. It speaks about the nature of God incarnate and is really another issue to whether or not there was a historical David. There are several instances wherein Jesus is said to have asked questions and been surprised, these things don't happen to people who have the entirety of all possible knowledge in their heads.

Conjecture on your part. Yes we were discussing David and you dropped the kenosis theory.

So Jesus according to your reasoning knew little about David and because Jesus was not fully God could not be used as a valid witness David was a historical figure?

Please confirm.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Conjecture on your part. Yes we were discussing David and you dropped the kenosis theory.

So Jesus according to your reasoning knew little about David and because Jesus was not fully God could not be used as a valid witness David was a historical figure?

Please confirm.

I didn't say that Jesus wasn't fully God. I said that he's not an authority on ancient history. Mathematicians don't cite Jesus either, neither do biologists nor social scientists, economists neither. What about that is an issue? We were discussing David and you dropped in Jesus, why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hypostatic union says nothing of omniscience. It speaks about the nature of God incarnate and is really another issue to whether or not there was a historical David. There are several instances wherein Jesus is said to have asked questions and been surprised, these things don't happen to people who have the entirety of all possible knowledge in their heads.

Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Hebrews 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Hebrews 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

The only issue is that when we do ancient history we want ancient sources. Every single source here comes from 1000 years after David supposedly existed.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only issue is that when we do ancient history we want ancient sources. Every single source here comes from 1000 years after David supposedly existed.

So what?

In a thousand years from now, if they deny you existed, will they be right or wrong?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

So what?

In a thousand years from now, if they deny you existed, will they be right or wrong?

That's not how history works. We try to reconstruct the past coherently and following strict methodologies. Using the NT as a source for the historical David is tantamount to using a facebook post as a source for the Crusades.

 

[AV1611VET]

We try to reconstruct the past coherently and following strict methodologies.

Fine ... whatever.

So in a thousand years they try to reconstruct your existence coherently and following strict methodologies and can't.

So they deny you existed.

Are they right or wrong?

(It's not a trick question, Aelred. Would you like my mentally-challenged nephew to answer it for you?)

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Fine ... whatever.

So in a thousand years they try to reconstruct your existence coherently and following strict methodologies and can't.

So they deny you existed.

Are they right or wrong?

(It's not a trick question, Aelred. Would you like my mentally-challenged nephew to answer it for you?)

Do you know what knowledge is? It's justified true belief. If they try to reconstruct my existence and can't then they'd be correct in following their methodologies because they wouldn't be justified in believing that I existed. If they tried to reconstruct my existence and could then they would accept that I existed because they would be justified in accepting it. The same is true for a historical David, he may have existed but we don't know that. We are not justified in believing that he did because the data doesn't include enough information and the information it does include is unsatisfactory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you know what knowledge is? It's justified true belief. If they try to reconstruct my existence and can't then they'd be correct in following their methodologies because they wouldn't be justified in believing that I existed. If they tried to reconstruct my existence and could then they would accept that I existed because they would be justified in accepting it. The same is true for a historical David, he may have existed but we don't know that. We are not justified in believing that he did because the data doesn't include enough information and the information it does include is unsatisfactory.

You just can't admit that someone using science can be wrong, can you?

I'll try a third time:

If they tried to reconstruct your existence and couldn't; then said you didn't exist:

Would they be right or wrong?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

You just can't admit that someone using science can be wrong, can you?

I'll try a third time:

If they tried to reconstruct your existence and couldn't; then said you didn't exist:

Would they be right or wrong?

That's a simple minded question. They'd be technically wrong if they thought I didn't exist but the point of the matter is that knowledge is justified true belief; being incidentally correct isn't knowledge. Guessing isn't knowledge nor is believing things for no reason at all. We don't have the evidence to be able to say that David existed besides the Tel Dan stelle and I don't think it counts as evidence for the Deuteronomistic David. If David did exist the best reconstructions portray him as something of a bandit/tribal king, certainly not an emperor of the region between Sinai and the Euphrates.