The Bible: Truth or Fiction?

[oil&gas]

Josephus wrote around the time that the Jerusalem uprising was suppressed by the Romans & a faction of the Jews was besieged at Masada, ie. approx. 70-79 AD. Although he mentions Jesus, some scholars feel that his mention of Jesus is a later insertion that does not contain the same kind of phrasing as the rest of his text,.........

Josephus' famous passage on Jesus is almost without a doubt a forgery. This is
not just the opinion of some scholars. With the exception of a small handful
of evangelists of questionable integrity (Josh McDowell comes to my mind)
you won't likely find any serious scholars Christians or non-Christians who would
consider the Testimonium Flavianum to be authentic. It is not just the phrasing of
the text. Analysis of the writings of the early church fathers including Origen
shows that the passage didn't exist before it was quoted by Eusebius who was
likely responsible for the insertion of the passage.

 

[Brandon123]

Great idea for a poll.

 

[Don]

The bible is the interpretation of what the writer at the time perceived as the reason for what he/she observed. There is some fact mixed in with a lot of assumptions.

 

[WoodPeckr]

It's a grand book of Christian Mythology ....:thumb:

 

[rama putri]

What is your take on the Bible?

None of the above. It's allegorical.

 

[rld]

Josephus' famous passage on Jesus is almost without a doubt a forgery. This is
not just the opinion of some scholars. With the exception of a small handful
of evangelists of questionable integrity (Josh McDowell comes to my mind)
you won't likely find any serious scholars Christians or non-Christians who would
consider the Testimonium Flavianum to be authentic. It is not just the phrasing of
the text. Analysis of the writings of the early church fathers including Origen
shows that the passage didn't exist before it was quoted by Eusebius who was
likely responsible for the insertion of the passage.

I would not go anywhere near that far. IIRC there are three references to Jesus in J.'s work, and one of them is thought to be a later insertion (going off the top of my head here).

Most scholars think the other two including the reference to his brother are original.

Last place I read something solid on it was in "A Marginal Jew" by Meir which I would suggest is top notch scholarship. Josh McDowell, while a good writer, is not on my list of sound biblical scholars.

There is also Pliny and Tacitus.

 

[rld]

I'm suggesting a good chunk of it, "99.9%" of it is superstition passed on from generation to generation...............TO (ready for this?), SUPERSTITION.

My opinion of course, others may vary, unless you can prove God exists somehow in a tangible way, much like science can explain and prove gravity or something else along those lines.

Then you would be factually wrong.

 

[rld]

Infidels debating Christians often made this mistake. That is
they put themselves in a unnecessarily difficult position debating
the Christians with the claim that Jesus is non-historical or never
existed. To me this is a sign of frivolity. Some Christian scholars
would show more intellectual integrity by opening to evidences
against their faith. For instance the authenticity of the famous passage
of Josephus was actually first questioned by a Lutheran theologian.
To this day many Christians would have no problems to admit that
Josephus acknowledgement of Christ could be a forgery.
As an unbeliever I could still see that there is a strong likelihood that
Jesus once lived and left behind a vivid memory among one
segment of the early Christians. That doesn't in anyway impact my
belief that many aspects of Pauline Christianity being untrue. To say that
Jesus is unhistorical is too much of a stretch and would just weaken
your position.

You are quite correct that the question of the historical Jesus and the historical value of the bible is completely separate from the question of the value of the religious claims it makes.

What I find is that fanatics on both sides of the debate loose all sense of perspective and crediblity because there fanaticism does not allow them to see the reality before their eyes.

Radical athiests who say that bible has not historical value and that Jesus did not exist are likely wrong and get caught quite easily in the "Alexander trap."

Radical christians who claim that the bible is the perfect, literal word of god, can be proven factually wrong and are equally unlikely to add much to a reasoned discussion.

 

[Cobster]

Then you would be factually wrong.

I was hoping you'd say something like that, do tell. Please, humour me a bit, I need some amusement.

 

[Cobster]

You are quite correct that the question of the historical Jesus and the historical value of the bible is completely separate from the question of the value of the religious claims it makes.

What I find is that fanatics on both sides of the debate loose all sense of perspective and crediblity because there fanaticism does not allow them to see the reality before their eyes.

Radical athiests who say that bible has not historical value and that Jesus did not exist are likely wrong and get caught quite easily in the "Alexander trap."

Radical christians who claim that the bible is the perfect, literal word of god, can be proven factually wrong and are equally unlikely to add much to a reasoned discussion.

So if Jesus existed, is it safe to say that you believe Christianity is the THE CORRECT religion and all others are not?

 

[rld]

I was hoping you'd say something like that, do tell. Please, humour me a bit, I need some amusement.

It is easy. Because more than .1% of the bible deal with things that are not supernatural in nature. Historical events, law codes, geneologies, the epistles...

Now many people like to focus on the supernatural aspects of the bible, but they don't come close to making up the portion you suggest it does. Your clear inaccuracy may just demonstrate a lack of famaliarity with the text.

 

[rld]

So if Jesus existed, is it safe to say that you believe Christianity is the THE CORRECT religion and all others are not?

No, it is not safe to say at all.

I am confident that Augustus existed and Romans believed he was divine.

I am confident that Mohammed existed and that many think he was the one true prophet of the one true religion.

Historical existence combined with tales of supernatural powers does not lead neccesarily to the conclusion that the religion is correct.

As I have said in other threads, I don't know if there is a god, if there is I don't know if Jesus was his only (or even best) messenger, and I sure don't know what happens to an individual when he or she dies.

I am however, optimistic and working on the problem.

 

[Cobster]

It is easy. Because more than .1% of the bible deal with things that are not supernatural in nature. Historical events, law codes, geneologies, the epistles...

Now many people like to focus on the supernatural aspects of the bible, but they don't come close to making up the portion you suggest it does. Your clear inaccuracy may just demonstrate a lack of famaliarity with the text.

So what religion do you practice and please be VERY clear when answering.

 

[rld]

So what religion do you practice and please be VERY clear when answering.

I don't practice any religion. I am not baptized. I have never been a member of an organized church, although I have attended some for short periods usually with someone I was dating.

I am still trying to figure it all out.

I do, however, have a degree in history, focussed on medieval and early modern Europe with some lengthy studies of Rome and Sparta. In order to properly understand European history you really do need a good handle on the bible as a historic document.

Clear enough?

 

[Cobster]

Fair enough.


I don't practice any either, however, I share the same point of view as Einstein with a healthy dosage of atheism as well.
However, as for the Bible and the majority of its fables, I'll never buy into it them.

Clear enough?

 

[rld]

Fair enough.


I don't practice any either, however, I share the same point of view as Einstein with a healthy dosage of atheism as well.
However, as for the Bible and the majority of its fables, I'll never buy into it them.

Clear enough?

You are free to believe what you want...that is what works for me.

What bugs me is when people criticize or demonize another group without really understanding the issues involved. No matter what group is the target of ignorant hate-slander, it is a troubling phenomena.

 

[OnlySex]

Rld - It must hurt to be wrong particularly if you are enjoying a perceived position of a soapbox high above other's opinions doling out facts hurriedly parsed out of Google searches even if out of context.

Let's stick to the facts. The proper use of the word in context is murder. If you read the OT there are a number of places where God specifically directs capital punishment. If you were intellectually honest enough to put things in context you admit that. And this is not simply a Christian issue (by the by the RC church agrees with you on capital punishment), even atheists and agnostics debate the place of capital punishment.

Genesis is a narrative as is most of the Bible is but only the Ten Commandments was (supposedly) written by the hand of God. Yes, I saw the Google quotes of both passages of the bible (we can Google too) but both interpretations of Exodus and Deuteronomy of the commandments - Thou shalt not Kill/Murder is the exactly same and does not have any 'yeah buts'. Bullshit exceptions used to justify blasphemous actions are not written by the hand of God but by narratives or comments written later into the bible to feed the hypocrisy that surrounds the religion.

Maybe your bible quotes to justify murder could be of use for Ratko Mladic defense against the murder of unarmed Muslim women and children. Another good Christian bible thumper doing his part for religion.

So your little pejorative hate blast was only directed at white christians who disagreed with you.

Your good at transmitting but the receiver seems to be out of order. You are the only one using the term 'hate' - seems to be some kind of Christian sensitive persecution affliction you are suffering from.

My opinion of bible thumpers as hypocritical is only reinforced by your arguments. I don't hate them - I just wish they would keep their own biases from my ability to live my own lifestyle.

 

[rld]

My opinion of bible thumpers as hypocritical is only reinforced by your arguments. I don't hate them - I just wish they would keep there own biases from my ability to live my own lifestyle.

Nice to see you wind back from your earlier suggestion that christians were racists, revenge seeking, intolerant and uncharitable. But I still call that hate.

And I know you are the greatest biblical scholar ever born, but many parts of the OT are direct quotes from God (your first reference, but nice to see you winding back from that as well), but in many places the bible (I actually have a couple of copies and a fine concordance but it is easier to cut and paste than to type it all out again) God calls for capital punishment.

To say the bible is against capital punishment based on the 10 commandments while ignoring the rest is simply foolish.

But considering it has been one of the most hotly contested biblical issues in the last hundred years I am glad that a guru like yourself can put it to rest.

And if you are in Canada, I suspect that Christian theology or ideas on living probably never interferes with your ability to enjoy your lifestyle at all.

 

[Mencken]

Nice to see you wind back from your earlier suggestion that christians were racists, revenge seeking, intolerant and uncharitable. But I still call that hate.

And I know you are the greatest biblical scholar ever born, but many parts of the OT are direct quotes from God (your first reference, but nice to see you winding back from that as well), but in many places the bible (I actually have a couple of copies and a fine concordance but it is easier to cut and paste than to type it all out again) God calls for capital punishment.

To say the bible is against capital punishment based on the 10 commandments while ignoring the rest is simply foolish.

But considering it has been one of the most hotly contested biblical issues in the last hundred years I am glad that a guru like yourself can put it to rest.

And if you are in Canada, I suspect that Christian theology or ideas on living probably never interferes with your ability to enjoy your lifestyle at all.

Agree....most who view the Bible as "God's Word", "Inspired", etc. believe it is all directly from God in basically a similar way...God more or less told them what to write, and so if the Bible says "God said" then they believe that god said that. And the "Law" in the Old Testament is much more than the 10 commandments...it includes all of Leviticus, for example, and much more. There is no distinction in the Old Testament between the "10" commandments and a bunch of other laws...many of which seem blatently wrong to us today.

As to the original post/topic...I think the Bible includes a lot of historical stuff as it originated around the times it claims (but a bit later in some cases...some so called prophecies may have been a bit after the fact), but also included a lot of exaggeration and embellishment....and also some outright fantasy stories. As to whether Jesus actually existed...I think that probably there was a human person, or persons, that were referred to when the stories were written, but again, there were many details and added stuff to give the story the supposed divine authority, miracles being an example, as well as various birthplaces, etc.

 

[rld]

Agree....most who view the Bible as "God's Word", "Inspired", etc. believe it is all directly from God in basically a similar way...God more or less told them what to write, and so if the Bible says "God said" then they believe that god said that. And the "Law" in the Old Testament is much more than the 10 commandments...it includes all of Leviticus, for example, and much more. There is no distinction in the Old Testament between the "10" commandments and a bunch of other laws...many of which seem blatently wrong to us today.

As to the original post/topic...I think the Bible includes a lot of historical stuff as it originated around the times it claims (but a bit later in some cases...some so called prophecies may have been a bit after the fact), but also included a lot of exaggeration and embellishment....and also some outright fantasy stories. As to whether Jesus actually existed...I think that probably there was a human person, or persons, that were referred to when the stories were written, but again, there were many details and added stuff to give the story the supposed divine authority, miracles being an example, as well as various birthplaces, etc.

You make some very important points.

There is also the challenging question of putting the OT in context. Are the laws and rules in the OT made for all, or were they set out for just the members of the particular "covenant community" who were the subject of the OT. I am not sure that question has a clear answer. There is also the possibility that the laws of the OT were a mix of CC and universal. Very hard to parse it all out.