Is the Bible Really True?

[Kolibri]

I have to go with the science. For example, we know that the earth is not the center of the solar system or universe. There was a point in history where the Church would burn you for making such a statement.

I've always found the Bible to be scientifically accurate. But you are correct, the churches made it a capital punishment to disagree with their interpretation of scripture. They were ever so dogmatic once they stopped learning like little children. (Luke 9:48) And violent once they attached themselves to the governments.

 

[maggie2]

Just because it is a Christian site does not mean it is automatically biased nor does a book that makes those types of claims necessarily unbiased. The site is well written, acknowledges when seeming parallels do exist, and most importantly has tons of scholarly references to support it. The problem with these types of claims is that they are usually not supported in ancient literature. But if you know of something that does support those claims by all means present it.

You said in an earlier post that Josephus wrote, "that Jesus who they said was the messiah" In my response to that I quoted Wikipedia on Edward Gibbon as follows: "Over two hundred years ago the great scholar Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire dismissed that passage as a 'vulgar forgery'. He demonstrated that the passage was not to be found in Josephus at the beginning of the third century and must have been inserted into the text early in the early fourth century, after Christianity had been made the religion of the Roman Empire". I think he was a 'scholar'.

Here is a quote from an article that appeared in Harper's magazine in 2002 written by Daniel Lazare. "As Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a journalist who specializes in biblical and religious subjects, point out in their recent book, The Bible Unearthed, the patriarchal tales make frequent mention of camel caravans. When, for example, Abraham sent one of his servants to look for a wife for Abraham's son, Isaac, Genesis 24 says that the emissary "took ten of his master's camels and left, taking with him all kinds of good things from his master." Yet analysis of ancient animal bones confirms that camels were not widely used for transport in the region until well after 1000 B.C. Genesis 26 tells of Isaac seeking help from a certain "Abimelech, king of the Philistines." Yet archaeological research has confirmed that the Philistines were not a presence in the area until after 1200 B.C. The wealth of detail concerning people, goods, and cities that makes the patriarchal tales so vivid and lifelike, archaeologists discovered, were reflective of a period long after the one that Albright had pinpointed. They were reflective of the mid-first millennium, not the early second." I realize this quote refers to the Old Testament and we are discussing Jesus. However, the Old Testament is used to support the New and so I think this has at least some relevance.

Check out the writings of Godfrey Higgins (1771 - 1834), an Englishman who learned several languages, researched extensively and became an expert on mythology, religion and ancient Egypt.

Another author you might want to check out is Gerald Massey (1828 - 1907). Another Englishman. As a fairly young man he became interested in Egyptology and wrote on the subjects of mythology, religion and Egyptology. He, too, was considered an expert in these subjects.

You can also check out the writings of Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880 - 1963). An American who studied these topics and also became an expert on them. His writing, however, is sometimes dry and can be boring as some of it is quite cumbersome.

And finally, if you go to Amazon there are many current day authors who write on this subject, many who have spent years researching the topic.

 

[maggie2]

Are you aware there are plenty of anti-Christian axes being ground out there?

Yes, I am well aware of that. But could you please tell me how it relates to this discussion? My intention is not to grind any axe, rather to have a discussion of the topic at hand. I do not condemn any other person's beliefs, nor do I beat up on Christians. I simply discuss issues that I find of interest to me and that have helped me have a much healthier view of life.

 

[nazz]

You said in an earlier post that Josephus wrote, "that Jesus who they said was the messiah"

Sorry, you have me confused with someone else. I never said that.

 

[nazz]

Yes, I am well aware of that. But could you please tell me how it relates to this discussion? My intention is not to grind any axe, rather to have a discussion of the topic at hand. I do not condemn any other person's beliefs, nor do I beat up on Christians. I simply discuss issues that I find of interest to me and that have helped me have a much healthier view of life.

It was relating to this previous post of mine:

Just because it is a Christian site does not mean it is automatically biased nor does a book that makes those types of claims necessarily unbiased. The site is well written, acknowledges when seeming parallels do exist, and most importantly has tons of scholarly references to support it. The problem with these types of claims is that they are usually not supported in ancient literature. But if you know of something that does support those claims by all means present it.​

 

[maggie2]

The bible was not written by apologists. It was written by eye witnesses to the events.

Thats where i get my information from.

I do not think I said that the Bible was written by apologists. What I did say was that you might benefit from reading something that wasn't written by apologists. I can see how that might lead you to think I was saying the Bible was written by them. That was not my intent, however.

As to the Bible being written by eye witnesses to the events, I choose to disagree with that statement. You have a right to believe whatever you want to and we can agree to disagree and that's fine with me. Whatever works for you is what you should do and I'll do the same. I think we all must find our own path and walk that path with integrity. I hope your journey is rich in wisdom and a deepening faith.

 

[maggie2]

Sorry, you have me confused with someone else. I never said that.

You are right, I did confuse you with someone else. Sorry about that.

 

[maggie2]

It was relating to this previous post of mine:

Just because it is a Christian site does not mean it is automatically biased nor does a book that makes those types of claims necessarily unbiased. The site is well written, acknowledges when seeming parallels do exist, and most importantly has tons of scholarly references to support it. The problem with these types of claims is that they are usually not supported in ancient literature. But if you know of something that does support those claims by all means present it.​

Sorry, I must be missing something, but I still don't see how this relates to people having anti-Christian views and having an axe to grind. I see how this relates to our previous discussion, though, and I think I answered that post you are quoting above.

I must be sitting down and it's going right over my head but I really am confused as to how this relates to people being anti-Christian. Are you saying that this thread is anti-Christian? If so that's fine, but please just clarify for me what you are referring to by that statement.

Thanks

 

[nazz]

You are right, I did confuse you with someone else. Sorry about that.

no worries

 

[maggie2]

I've always found the Bible to be scientifically accurate. But you are correct, the churches made it a capital punishment to disagree with their interpretation of scripture. They were ever so dogmatic once they stopped learning like little children. (Luke 9:48) And violent once they attached themselves to the governments.

Can I ask if you have scientific proof that Moses parted the Red Sea? Do you have scientific proof that the walls of Jericho actually fell because of Joshua? Do you have scientific proof that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale? Or that Daniel spent time in a lion's den? Or that Jesus raised Lazarus? Or that Jesus walked on water?

I'd love to see scientific proof of any one of these stories.

 

[nazz]

Sorry, I must be missing something, but I still don't see how this relates to people having anti-Christian views and having an axe to grind. I see how this relates to our previous discussion, though, and I think I answered that post you are quoting above.

I must be sitting down and it's going right over my head but I really am confused as to how this relates to people being anti-Christian. Are you saying that this thread is anti-Christian? If so that's fine, but please just clarify for me what you are referring to by that statement.

Thanks

I don't see where you have addressed the lack of sources for these claims about Jesus and Horus and how the site I posted was well referenced.

 

[maggie2]

I don't see where you have addressed the lack of sources for these claims about Jesus and Horus and how the site I posted was well referenced.

Here is the answer to the question about sources that I posted above but I'll repeat it here for you.

Here is a quote from an article that appeared in Harper's magazine in 2002 written by Daniel Lazare. "As Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a journalist who specializes in biblical and religious subjects, point out in their recent book, The Bible Unearthed, the patriarchal tales make frequent mention of camel caravans. When, for example, Abraham sent one of his servants to look for a wife for Abraham's son, Isaac, Genesis 24 says that the emissary "took ten of his master's camels and left, taking with him all kinds of good things from his master." Yet analysis of ancient animal bones confirms that camels were not widely used for transport in the region until well after 1000 B.C. Genesis 26 tells of Isaac seeking help from a certain "Abimelech, king of the Philistines." Yet archaeological research has confirmed that the Philistines were not a presence in the area until after 1200 B.C. The wealth of detail concerning people, goods, and cities that makes the patriarchal tales so vivid and lifelike, archaeologists discovered, were reflective of a period long after the one that Albright had pinpointed. They were reflective of the mid-first millennium, not the early second." I realize this quote refers to the Old Testament and we are discussing Jesus. However, the Old Testament is used to support the New and so I think this has at least some relevance.

Check out the writings of Godfrey Higgins (1771 - 1834), an Englishman who learned several languages, researched extensively and became an expert on mythology, religion and ancient Egypt.

Another author you might want to check out is Gerald Massey (1828 - 1907). Another Englishman. As a fairly young man he became interested in Egyptology and wrote on the subjects of mythology, religion and Egyptology. He, too, was considered an expert in these subjects.

You can also check out the writings of Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880 - 1963). An American who studied these topics and also became an expert on them. His writing, however, is sometimes dry and can be boring as some of it is quite cumbersome.

And finally, if you go to Amazon there are many current day authors who write on this subject, many who have spent years researching the topic.

Further, with regards to the Harper's article, the Biblical Archaeological Review, in responding to the article had to agree with much of what it said. This magazine is solidly Christian but they had difficulty refuting the article as it was written.

I'll direct you to another current day scholar, Rev. John Shelby Spong, the Episcopal bishop of Newark, NJ from 1979 to 2000. He has done thorough research and has come to the same conclusion as Harpur, the author of The Pagan Christ, the book I originally spoke of.

I think those are some excellent places to start if you would like to find more information on the topic.

And again, I am still trying to figure out how this all relates to people with axes to grind with Christianity.

 

[outhouse]

"The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur

Im sorry but its trash

And finally, do you believe the Bible to be true?

Define true? Pretty subjective there. Its a guide for many that is true.

Historically speaking, no it is not in many places.

 

[Ouroboros]

The historian Michael Grant (whom I don't think was a Christian) pointed out years ago that no professional historian has ever accepted the "Jesus myth" theory.

I could agree that most professional historians don't accept the whole-cloth Jesus-myth theory, but a few of those who are proponents are historians, at least I think so.

The evidence for the existence of Jesus is as good as that for Pythagoras or Confucius, and no-one questions their existence.

I'm glad that you used Pythagoras and Confucius as examples rather than Caesar.

I think that's a better comparison you made there. There's very little of evidence to support either one of those two. Luckily our eternal life isn't hanging by a thread based on their assumed existence.

In Antiquity, none of the critics of Christianity ever said "this Jesus you worship never existed."

Wait, wasn't there one critic? I think the term "apologist" came from some early Christian writing a counter argument based on someone else claiming that Jesus didn't exist. I have to look it up, but I have a feeling there was at least one.

Also, wasn't there a few Christian cults in the early years that considered that Jesus was only a spiritual person? I need to look that one up too!

With that being said, I do think there was someone who stirred up enough to cause the birth of the Jewish cult.

 

[outhouse]

Wait, wasn't there one critic?

Nope, not one.

Not one of the movements enemies even claimed he did not exist.

Also, wasn't there a few Christian cults in the early years that considered that Jesus was only a spiritual person?

Yes, spiritual in nature, but still existing and taught.

They ranged in belief from fully human to all spiritual.

Which is expected when your creating someone to compete with the Emperors divinity who was first the "son of god"

 

[outhouse]

I could agree that most professional historians don't accept the whole-cloth Jesus-myth theory,

Its about unanimous he was historical.

Only a handful of real scholars even claim this. Most are uneducated bloggers who focus on tearing down history, the same exact way a YEC tears down evidence for evolution.

I speak from experience because I know and debate most of them, less Price and Carrier.


Most don't even have the education in creating history, and don't know or understand the process of creating history.

Price does but he is easily to refute his 3 pillars.

Carrier is not biblically trained, and tries to use subjective math to weigh the evidence and fool the uneducated mythicist into buying his books.

The rest are rather pathetic.

 

[Ouroboros]

Its about unanimous he was historical.

Only a handful of real scholars even claim this. Most are uneducated bloggers who focus on tearing down history, the same exact way a YEC tears down evidence for evolution.

I speak from experience because I know and debate most of them, less Price and Carrier.

Sure.

My point was there's a difference between "no one" and "few", just as there is a difference between "everyone" and "most".

He said "The historian Michael Grant (whom I don't think was a Christian) pointed out years ago that no professional historian has ever accepted the "Jesus myth" theory."

That means, G.A. Wells, Michael Martin, and several other mythists are not professional historians, or... it should have said "few" or "very few". I just raise my eyebrow sometimes for absolute qualifiers in claims like that. I try my best to use qualifiers like "most" or "few" or "little" or "many" (relative terms), but try to avoid "not a single one" or "every single one" (absolute terms).

Most don't even have the education in creating history, and don't know or understand the process of creating history.

Price does but he is easily to refute his 3 pillars.

Sure. But that wasn't my point. If Price is one (1), than 1 is more than 0. No one means 0 (zero), few can cover one or more (1+). Qualifiers, that's all I'm asking for.

Carrier is not biblically trained, and tries to use subjective math to weigh the evidence and fool the uneducated mythicist into buying his books.

The rest are rather pathetic.

I don't agree.

First of all, I don't agree with the mythists completely. I think they're taking it way too far, but you do have some well educated people in the list of mythists though. To generalize them all as pathetic might be taking it a bit too far the other way.

Just to name one of them:
"Michael L. Martin (born February 3, 1932) is an American philosopher and Professor Emeritus at Boston University.[2] He obtained his PhD from Harvard University in 1962.

Martin specializes in the philosophy of religion, though he has also worked on the philosophies of science, law, and social science. "

Or:
"Thomas L. Thompson (born January 7, 1939 in Detroit, Michigan) is a biblical scholar and theologian. He was professor of theology at theUniversity of Copenhagen from 1993–2009, lives in Denmark and is now a Danish citizen."

Not that I agree with what they stand for, but they're no amateurs nor pathetic bloggers.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope, not one.

Not one of the movements enemies even claimed he did not exist.

I think I know what who it was I was thinking of, Justin Martyr, a pagan who converted to Christianity, wrote some apologetic material comparing Jesus to the pagan religion. He did it in defense of Christianity. He was a Christian, defending Christianity by comparing it to the pagan beliefs.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, spiritual in nature, but still existing and taught.

Doesn't docetism seem like a religion where Jesus wasn't considered a physical person?

From wiki:

In Christian terminology, docetism (from the Greekδοκεῖν/δόκησιςdokeĩn (to seem) /dókēsis (apparition, phantom),[1][2] according to Norbert Brox, is defined narrowly as "the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality." [3][4] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesusonly seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.

Well, kind'a, but not really.

 

[maggie2]

Im sorry but its trash



Define true? Pretty subjective there. Its a guide for many that is true.

Historically speaking, no it is not in many places.

Well, I'm sorry, but I disagree that "The Pagan Christ" is trash. Have you read the book? If so what makes it trash? And if you have not read the book then how can you call it trash when you don't know what it contains?

I agree with you that whether the Bible is true or not is subjective. I also agree that it is a guide for many and in some cases that includes me.