Is the Bible Really True?

[Kolibri]

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.

The Bible is not a science book, and there things in there that we can not explain with science as of yet. And even if we could, we could not explain how it got triggered at the exact timing that it did.

However there are things that point to the writers being inspired with the truth about how things work, often before science caught up with it.

Examples that come to me off the top of my head are:

Genesis 1:3-31 list steps (as seen from the surface of the earth) of the earth developing into what it is now. These steps are in the order that science says they would have to be.
Job 26:7 says the earth is suspended upon nothing.
Ecclesiastes 1:7 accurately describes the water cycle
Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as circular or spherical.
Psalm 102:25,26 could be quoted to support the existence of entropy.
Many of the individual laws in the Mosaic Law code were medically sound instructions - such as the required burial of human waste, and the mandatory washing after being exposed to a dead body, quarantines, and destruction of garments and buildings that could not be cleansed from a 'leprosy' that might have been a type of mildew or mold.

There are likely others I am not thinking of at the moment.

 

[Neo Deist]

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

Thats where i get my information from.

Just for the record, the Gospels (which are the most important part for Christianity) were NOT written by eyewitnesses. They were written decades after Jesus' death by authors who heard the stories from eyewitnesses. That makes the gospels told by a 3rd party...which is hearsay.

Hearsay can be accurate or inaccurate.

 

[Kolibri]

Just for the record, the Gospels (which are the most important part for Christianity) were NOT written by eyewitnesses. They were written decades after Jesus' death by authors who heard the stories from eyewitnesses. That makes the gospels told by a 3rd party...which is hearsay.

Hearsay can be accurate or inaccurate.

While the gospel by Luke in particular was all 3rd party, it seem that the other 3 were at least partially eyewitness accounts. I tend to forget that Paul gets defined as an apologist because of his letters defend Christianity. I do not typically include him though, as his experiences are a part of the Bible canon itself and of those he is an eyewitness. By saying that the Bible is not written by apologists, I am positive @Pegg means that the books were written by honest individuals that lived in the 1st Century - it was not the work of 2nd Century (or later) imposters.

 

[Pegg]

Just for the record, the Gospels (which are the most important part for Christianity) were NOT written by eyewitnesses. They were written decades after Jesus' death by authors who heard the stories from eyewitnesses. That makes the gospels told by a 3rd party...which is hearsay.

Hearsay can be accurate or inaccurate.

Then you might as well call every single news report, every piece of information about history and every biography hearsay too.

If i want someone to write down my story, and they write it down based on the information i give them, it is firsthand information.
And Matthew, Mark and John are all firsthand accounts. They were the eyewitnesses and were with Jesus during his 3 year ministry. The only writer who was not a witness himself was Luke. He collated the information from many different eyewitnesses and wrote his account in the same way a reporter writes about a particular event. They gather information from witnesses and relay the information. So in my view, that is firsthand.

 

[Pegg]

While the gospel by Luke in particular was all 3rd party, it seem that the other 3 were at least partially eyewitness accounts. I tend to forget that Paul gets defined as an apologist because of his letters defend Christianity. I do not typically include him though, as his experiences are a part of the Bible canon itself and of those he is an eyewitness. By saying that the Bible is not written by apologists, I am positive @Pegg means that the books were written by honest individuals that lived in the 1st Century - it was not the work of 2nd Century (or later) imposters.

apologitics means "speaking in defense" by the use of available information.
In the case of bible apologetics, the available information is the bible. Thats what i mean when i say the bible was not written by apologists. It was written by the eyewitnesses and it is the source material used by apologists who came much later when they were giving a defense of Christianity.

 

[Neo Deist]

While the gospel by Luke in particular was all 3rd party, it seem that the other 3 were at least partially eyewitness accounts.

Nope, all 3rd party.

 

[Neo Deist]

Then you might as well call every single news report, every piece of information about history and every biography hearsay too.

Do you know how many times the news is wrong? I'm a CSI Officer and cringe every time I hear about a story that the news has totally butchered. Not to mention they try and spin stories based on their political affiliations.

If i want someone to write down my story, and they write it down based on the information i give them, it is firsthand information.

It is first hand info for you. As soon as you repeat it to someone else, you re-telling the story becomes 3rd party.

And Matthew, Mark and John are all firsthand accounts. They were the eyewitnesses and were with Jesus during his 3 year ministry.

Afraid not. The author of the Book of Matthew is anonymous. He draws heavily on the Book of Mark, and his writings try so very hard to make Jesus fit the prophecies. Theological scholars pretty much agree universally on this.

The Book of Luke as well as Acts appear to have the same, anonymous author, based on writing style. Both refer to the Book of Mark for source info.

The Book of John, the Epistles of John and Revelation all appear to have the same anonymous author. Once again, modern theological scholars have pretty much ruled out the Apostle John as being the author.

If you know something that dozens upon dozens of PhD's, who are actually fluent in the biblical languages, don't know...then by all means do share, and cite your source. Until then, all four gospels shall remain authored by anonymous writers, decades after Jesus' death.

 

[Simplelogic]

I agree that there were many gods who came before Jesus who all had the same life cycle, i.e., born of a virgin, born in a stable, baptized, crucified, resurrected.



From what little research I have done it is my understanding that the early church decided to use pagan concepts to attract pagans to the new Christian religion. I don't think Paul's concepts were particularly pagan, I do think they were closely related to the Gnostic view of Christianity, however. And I certainly agree that these earlier gods were indeed worshiped on these dates.



I would disagree with you that the Jesus story has been re-branded to fit the same narrative as the ancient sun-gods. Why? Because in the history of the early church that I have read, and that includes probably half a dozen books, there is plenty of information showing that the early Christians did not want any comparison made between Jesus and those ancient gods. So if that is the case why would they re-brand the Jesus story to fit them?

Again, from my reading, I have concluded that while the early church did not want any part of paganism, they did want to convert the pagans and so some of the leaders chose to adapt the pagan holidays to the Christian story. I'd be interested in reading any information you might have that indicates that the Jesus story was re-branded. Can you point me to some material that will help me to see this point of view?

I appreciate your views and respect where you are coming from. However, I do disagree with your conclusions.

I would love to discuss this more with you if you want to. It seems like you are creating a bit of a straw man with some of your premises. Namely that the story of the Nazarene was a myth altogether. This is a giant reach imho which dismisses not only the Biblical accounts but the Quran and many non scriptural sources such as Josephus as well as Roman history.

The "re-branding" of Jesus' story can be proven. The mere fact that Jesus came to be worshipped as a man-diety attests to this. Jesus never taught this concept. Also, the fact that Jesus is worshipped on sun god holidays shows that later attempts were made to equate Jesus with these sun god stories.

Let me know if you want to discuss further.

 

[outhouse]

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.

What your missing tough, Is that there is almost a complete consensus on this. Those that oppose this idea are pathetic because they will not provide a replacement hypothesis, they are not creating history, they are only deconstructing it.

Remember most mythicst are uneducated bloggers, yes there is a handful literally out of thousands of scholars that do have a real education.

But every replacement hypothesis to explain the evidence has been pathetic.

Not one has a leg to stand on, and if you get down to it, and see what they propose, it leaves you shaking your head in disbelief

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. "

He is a atheist philosopher with an agenda, and has little historical training and is not a biblical scholar.

That's my point, its pathetic because he is not trained in the field to even make comments he has no education in.

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."

I have debated with him I believe, and his buddy Tom I have debated with for years, whom worked on a book together.

They were easy to refute, as they just tear down evidence like a creationist. I like Tom he has improved over his earlier carrier and now takes it like a champ and is actually quite civil.

But his and Thomas replacement hypothesis is laughable.

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

Again most are.

 

[outhouse]

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

They considered him to be many things, but he was viewed as being here and teaching.

They built his whole image as a spiritual but as being there, just running around in spirit form.

 

[Ouroboros]

What your missing tough, Is that there is almost a complete consensus on this.

What you're missing is that this is not what I'm talking about.

You're saying "almost", which is a much better qualifier than "no one" or "everyone." My point, which was my point, and still is my point, is that not all, not everyone, not no one, but it's more appropriate to use qualifiers.

Remember most mythicst are uneducated bloggers, yes there is a handful literally out of thousands of scholars that do have a real education.

And that's what I was saying. There are a few. Doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean that I agree with them. I just don't agree with expressions like "there is no one." If there are a few, then say there are a few, not say there are no one.

But every replacement hypothesis to explain the evidence has been pathetic.

Not one has a leg to stand on, and if you get down to it, and see what they propose, it leaves you shaking your head in disbelief

What you don't know is that I debated against Murdock followers in the past and think they're basically a new type of fundamentalists. So I'm not a whole-cloth mythicist, not at all.

He is a atheist philosopher with an agenda, and has little historical training and is not a biblical scholar.

That's my point, its pathetic because he is not trained in the field to even make comments he has no education in.

I have debated with him I believe, and his buddy Tom I have debated with for years, whom worked on a book together.

They were easy to refute, as they just tear down evidence like a creationist. I like Tom he has improved over his earlier carrier and now takes it like a champ and is actually quite civil.

But his and Thomas replacement hypothesis is laughable.

Again most are.

Ok. So all of them, 100%, without a doubt, every single one that even suggests anything mythical or introduction of any pagan tradition in the Christian belief are all pathetic uneducated losers.

That solves it. Right?

You see, there's a difference between "everyone" and "most".

 

[outhouse]

but I disagree that

That's fine, if you study more, you will see the errors more clearly.

The Pagan Christ" is trash

Yes. Complete trash.

. Have you read the book?

Nope, I don't waste time on garbage.

If so what makes it trash?

It does not reflect real history. It is known pseudo history.

There is no Egyptian origin for the movement.

The movement flourished in the Diaspora in Hellenistic communities, who had worshipped Judaism for centuries, and wanted to divorce cultural Judaism.

My sentence above is not up for debate , that is what happened. Hellenistic Judaism divorced cultural Judaism as monotheism became popular in the Roman Empire

And if you have not read the book then how can you call it trash when you don't know what it contains?

There is plenty of criticism from very credible scholars that more or less laugh him off stage so to speak.

If you have done any research into this, you would see he has no leg to stand on.

 

[Ouroboros]

They considered him to be many things, but he was viewed as being here and teaching.

They built his whole image as a spiritual but as being there, just running around in spirit form.

Sure. But did they not get influenced at all by pagan beliefs? Did any of the heretics get influenced by any pagan belief?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think the bible is a book that people believe to be true, but in actuality it has no substance or application that makes it so.

Its just writings from long ago by people long dead.

 

[outhouse]

What you don't know is that I debated against Murdock followers in the past and think they're basically a new type of fundamentalists. So I'm not a whole-cloth mythicist, not at all.

I knew you were not

Oh and I agree they are fundies, funny too

Ok. So all of them, 100%, without a doubt, every single one that even suggests anything mythical or introduction of any pagan tradition in the Christian belief are all pathetic uneducated losers.

Your taking me out of context.

So far, no work has EVER been produced by ALL of them, that has been credible, and their "work" in total has been pathetic.

Their problem is no scholar states the books were not written using mythology and the problem with pagan practices, is they were adopted over hundreds of years and did not really influence the early text we have.

Im sorry but no one has credibility if they deviate from the Hellenistic divorce from cultural Judaism. Judaism was factually the foundation of this movement. To posit a pagan origin is laughable

 

[outhouse]

But did they not get influenced at all by pagan beliefs?

What I would say on this, is show me examples in the gospels that demonstrate pagan influences.

No scholar with credibility would ever state pagan influence did not take place later as the movement defined itself in time.

But we are dealing with the origin of the movement, not the evolution of the movement correct?

Did any of the heretics get influenced by any pagan belief?

We know they did.

 

[outhouse]

Sure. But did they not get influenced at all by pagan beliefs? Did any of the heretics get influenced by any pagan belief?

And to show you some of the pagan beliefs, we could start with "son of god" as that was first the Emperors title before Jesus.

The star at birth is probably a pagan concept, speaking in front of large crowds mirrors the pagan Emperors actions.

There are many different examples, but not one effects the foundation in Hellenistic Judaism. They are all built and used around this historical core.

To state these people did not worship Jesus and God first and foremost through Judaism, that used mythology and rhetoric to adapt the new religion to the Hellenist in the Diaspora by slowly adopting pagan concepts over centuries to make this movement appealing to all, simple has no credibility.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your taking me out of context.

No, I think this discussion started because you took me out of context.

I didn't dispute the historical Jesus, but I was only arguing that it's unbalanced when people use absolute qualifiers in their descriptions about the scholar support.

Go back and see what and who I responded to first that you picked up on. You're arguing a point that wasn't part of what I was talking about.

So far, no work has EVER been produced by ALL of them, that has been credible, and their "work" in total has been pathetic.

Ok. So there's no truth to anything they say? Does this mean then that the Gospel stories are 100% literal true? Does it also mean that 100% of all credible historians agree that the Bible stories are historically accurate?

Their problem is no scholar states the books were not written using mythology and the problem with pagan practices, is they were adopted over hundreds of years and did not really influence the early text we have.

But, you're suggesting that historians that speak of these things are pathetic losers and uneducated, all of them. There are no gray zones here if we use "all" and "none". No gray areas of middle grounds of the concepts if we have to either exclude everyone or include everyone.

My view is that there was a Jesus, but there was a lot of influence from people's previous beliefs and views when they wrote the stories. Their previous beliefs were pagan, so pagan ideas would have influenced the stories when they were written. That doesn't mean that all of it was influenced by pagan belief, but a large part came from the cult itself and its Jewish background. So it's a mixed bag. But it's hard to discuss mixed bags when we're down to "everything" or "nothing" in the conversation. We have to get rid of that nasty "All" and "None" first before we can find the true middle.

Im sorry but no one has credibility if they deviate from the Hellenistic divorce from cultural Judaism. Judaism was factually the foundation of this movement. To posit a pagan origin is laughable

I agree with that. I'm quite certain it had roots in the Jewish faith, not the pagan. But I also do believe that it was heavily influenced by pagan belief (of various kinds) as soon as it start spreading to the romans. When it was just Jewish, it was something else, but when it was Roman, it changed. People added allegorical views and comparisons, which can be seen in the wide spread of "heretical" views so soon. It had barely been released to romans and you have hundreds of cults with different beliefs, many with pagan aspects, like the Docetism, not very Christian-Orthodox type, but still, the influence can be seen by this.

 

[outhouse]

I think the bible is a book that people believe to be true, but in actuality it has no substance or application that makes it so.

Its just writings from long ago by people long dead.

We know they did not believe it all to be true, the context of how they viewed it, is up for debate. Like today, you probably had many different interpretations.

But we know when they compiled all the books together, they did not care about the contradictions from one book to the next.

They were important books each with its own merit.

 

[leibowde84]

Chistianity is not a myth. Its very much real. Jesus was very much an historical person and the mark he left on history is very much real.

If they are calling Christianity a 'myth' they need to go back to school and learn what myth actually means.

I think that those who dimiss arguments by doing nothing more than calling them "ignorant" or "stupid," failing to provide any substantive evidence for their position and making debatable claims as if only foolish people would doubt them should go "back to school."