Is the Bible Really True?

[outhouse]

Go ahead and list a few details he states is similar, and I can debunk every single one and show you there was no connection what so ever.

Provided you have an open mind.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Those are good points. I don't think people typically think of that when discussing and debating the Bible.

 

[psychoslice]

it depends on what you mean by being true, I see the bible as a metaphor, a pointer, pointing to that which is beyond. I don't see the bible as being literally true, in fact personally I don't even believe that there ever was a Jesus Christ, again literally.

 

[maggie2]

And how many of those compare to Judaism in general?

How much of the Horus mythology Is common in all religions?


When you get down to the credible details, they have almost nothing in common. By cherry picking a few small claims that apply to all or most religions, does not make a credible similarity.


One example is a Dec 25 birthday. Well that was not added to jesus for a long time, and has nothing to do with early Christianity or its origins.

Same goes for the virgin birth. Why didn't Mark the first gospel use this? because it was not core or even part of the mythology used.

Matthew made the claim but it is also a Greek faulty interpretation that doesn't make it clear. Had this been core doctrine early on, it would have been much more clear

Not clear on your first question about Judaism. Can you clarify?

As to how much of the Horus mythology is common in all religions I truly don't know. However, I do know that there are more than a dozen risen savior stories, including Horus, so I guess Horus must be fairly common in older religions at least. I can't honestly comment on any of the newer religions because I haven't read much about any of them. Do you know of any? I'd be interested to take a look if you do.

As to December 25th being Jesus' birthday, from my reading Here's a quote from Wikipedia on the matter that indicates that the decision was made sometime in the 4th century...I would call that fairly early Christianity. While the month and date of Jesus' birth are unknown, by the early-to-mid 4th century, the Western Christian Church had placed Christmas on December 25.

Here's another quote about how it was decided that Jesus' birth should be celebrated on December 25th. This too is from Wikipedia.

One theory to explain the choice of 25 December for the celebration of the birth of Jesus is that the purpose was to Christianize the pagan festival in Rome of the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti means "the birthday of the Unconquered Sun", a festival inaugurated by the Roman emperor Aurelian (270–275) to celebrate the sun god and celebrated at the winter solstice, 25 December.[67][68] According to this theory, during the reign of the emperor Constantine, Christian writers assimilated this feast as the birthday of Jesus, associating him with the 'sun of righteousness' mentioned in Malachi 4:2 (Sol Iustitiae).[67][68]

An explicit expression of this theory appears in an annotation of uncertain date added to a manuscript of a work by 12th-century Syrian bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi. The scribe who added it wrote: "It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day." [69] This idea became popular especially in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Seems to me that the decision was made somewhere prior to the fifth century, which to me, at least, seems to be fairly early in the Christian story.

As to the virgin birth, I'm not sure what your statement is implying. However, I disagree that the virgin birth was not core to Christianity. How could Jesus be the son of God if he wasn't born of a virgin? I think that's pretty central to Christian beliefs. And again, many of the other risen savior stories also include a virgin birth. That seems like a fairly common theme to me.

And as to the virgin birth being unclear, I'm not sure how much more clear it could be. If you read Matthew 1:23 it states clearly: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel. Can you explain what is unclear about that?

Here is a quote from Wikipedia regarding the virgin birth.

The virgin birth was universally accepted in the Christian church by the 2nd century and, except for some minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the 18th century. It is enshrined in the creeds that most Christians consider normative, such as the Nicene Creed ("incarnate of the Virgin Mary") and the Apostles' Creed ("born of the Virgin Mary"), and is a basic article of belief in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches. Muslims also accept the virgin birth of Jesus.

Apparently the virgin birth was well established by the 2nd century, certainly making it part of early Christianity. Additionally, here is a quote from Luke 1:26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary."

Does that give you some further information on the comments you made?

 

[outhouse]

which to me, at least, seems to be fairly early in the Christian story.

That has nothing to do with the origin of he movement.

The movement was already formed when these elements were added.

What similarities does your boy posit?

 

[maggie2]

Go ahead and list a few details he states is similar, and I can debunk every single one and show you there was no connection what so ever.

Provided you have an open mind.

You know, Outhouse, when I started this thread I simply said that I was reading a book I found interesting. I did indirectly indicate that I thought the author's point of view had merit. I thought I made it clear in my post that I was interested in discussing the pros and cons of the book and the thesis rather than having a debate about it. It really doesn't matter to me whether others agree with the book or not, I just wanted to get a range of opinions on the topic.

In my earlier years I belonged to a fundamentalist group and was taught that the Bible was real and that it must be taken literally. The problem was, in my heart I couldn't believe in the God of the Bible who would kill infants and women and whole populations without a second thought. This group said that they had all the answers and that you had to believe as they did or you were going to hell. Somehow that just didn't sit right with me and my inner compass couldn't accept what they said. Consequently I began to take a long hard look at what I believed and why. That was almost thirty years ago now and since that time I have read extensively on the topic of faith, various religions, spirituality, and many other topics that relate to faith. My explorations have helped me clarify what I do not believe as well as what I do believe. And I think one of the most important thing I believe is that faith is strengthened by doubt and allowing ourselves to freely explore our faith.

Over that same period of time I have come to believe that all religions have both good and bad sides to them, as do all of us as human beings. I choose to look at both sides of the coin rather than just one side as I want a complete story. That search has led me to a place where I believe that no one and no religion has all or even most of the answers. All are imperfect and flawed. I have also developed a distaste for anything that smacks of fundamentalism, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other faith. Why? Because as we can see in the world at the moment, it is causing untold harm to innocent people. It segregates us rather than unites us and I find that very unholy.

So I don't really have any interest in crossing swords with you on the topic of this particular book. From looking at your other posts it seems to me you have made up your mind about the subject and there is not much use in arguing with anyone whose mind is made up. I prefer to keep an open mind and be willing to explore possibilities. I have found that a faith that is willing to bend and change when I acquire new knowledge that sits right with my heart is a far healthier way to live and so I choose that path. I don't expect others to follow my path but I do expect that they respect my journey as I respect theirs. I have no interest in converting others to my way of thinking because I think we all need to find our own path.

 

[outhouse]

So I don't really have any interest in crossing swords with you on the topic of this particular book.

Its not about crossing swords, its about getting to the truth here, or as close as possible.

From looking at your other posts it seems to me you have made up your mind about the subject and there is not much use in arguing with anyone whose mind is made up

Well I know things most do not from literally years of intense study. I debate with professors and scholars often.

But I debate these type guys daily in another forum, so I end up knowing this topic quite well.

I have a passion for this study, and would like you to see what really happened, as opposed to following someone creating pseudo history.

 

[outhouse]

I have also developed a distaste for anything that smacks of fundamentalism, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other faith

Agreed. It is humanities enemy.

That search has led me to a place where I believe that no one and no religion has all or even most of the answers

Agreed. They are guides, that can in moderation provide useful knowledge. Moderation Is the key word here.

 

[maggie2]

Its not about crossing swords, its about getting to the truth here, or as close as possible.



Well I know things most do not from literally years of intense study. I debate with professors and scholars often.

But I debate these type guys daily in another forum, so I end up knowing this topic quite well.

I have a passion for this study, and would like you to see what really happened, as opposed to following someone creating pseudo history.

I guess you missed my point when I said in my previous post that I had no desire to debate the pros and cons of this issue. You see, to me there are two different sorts of truth. For example, it is true that one and one usually make two. However, when there is one woman and one man, sometimes even the math is wrong, because sometimes, when a child is conceived, one and one make three. It is true that in America you spell honor as I just did. However, in England and Canada and other countries, we spell honour as I just did now.

So what is truth? I think there are many, many truths. And that is particularly so when it comes to our interpretation of history and those who came before us, including the people who are portrayed in the Bible. As far as the Bible is concerned, I believe there are truths in the Bible. For example, I believe it is a truth that we would do well to love our neighbors as ourselves. I believe it is a truth that we are well advised to help the poor. Those truths and many similar ones, to me, make up the wealth on knowledge contained in the Bible.

However, is it true that Jesus existed? From my perspective, that is questionable. I am not fully convinced one way or the other whether or not I believe He did. There are many who believe absolutely that He did indeed live. There are equally as many who believe He did not. Who is right? I think it depends on your point of view. There is plenty of literature out there to defend either and/or both views. I have no interest in debating this issue because it is not something that I have a strong belief in one way or the other. I'm still on the fence, and exploring the possibilities.

You say you have done years of intense study and that you debate professors often. I respect that. If that is what brings you pleasure and satisfaction then go for it with your current debating partners. I, however, have no desire to spar over the topic. You say that you have a passion for this study. I also have that same passion. However, I think we differ in our approach. It seems, at least from what you say, that you are interested in finding a universal truth, i.e., whether or not the Bible is true. I have no such need to prove myself or anyone else either right or wrong. I simply wish to explore ideas and possibilities and draw my own conclusions, trusting my God-given inner spirit to guide me.

And as to "Someone creating pseudo history," that could be said of any number of authors, including ones who insist that the Bible is true. No one has a monopoly on the truth, in my opinion. Therefore, I see no point in, nor will I participate in a debate about whether or not Harupr's thesis is true or not true.

You said that fundamentalism is humanities enemy. I fully agree with you on that. You also said that religions are guidelines and I totally agree with that. At least we agree on somethings!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is the Bible literally true? No. It's mythology. That doesn't mean it's "lies", though. In fact, I find the stories of the Bible more meaningful if they didn't literally happen and Jesus just as powerful even if he never physically existed (I lean strongly towards "no"). Allegory and metaphor are much more potent, spiritually, than literal history.

 

[outhouse]

There are equally as many who believe He did not.

Its actually not even close. The number of people that do not believe he existed is not even a fraction of a single percentage

Who is right?

I run with those who are well educated on any given topic.

When scholars I know say it is as close to fact as you can get he existed, I believe.


I started out not believing, and I studied, and studied more, and as I was doing so the evidence started pointing me in the other direction, so I studied more hoping to gain an edge to prove my point. Hell there was no turning back and I see the only way to explain the weak evidence we do have, is by a martyred normal man at Passover.

No one has a monopoly on the truth, in my opinion.

No, but education rules the roost.

 

[Kolibri]

No, but education rules the roost.

I do not think we need be excessively educated to have faith or truth. Balance, like in most things, is key. - and humility.

In that very hour [Jesus] became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved." - Luke 10:21, also Mt 11:25,26

 

[outhouse]

In that very hour [Jesus] became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved." - Luke 10:21, also Mt 11:25,26

Are you taking that way out of context? It could be viewed as promoting fanaticism and fundamentalism by means of promotion of ignorance.

Balance, like in most things, is key. - and humility.

And it takes education to know where the balance lies.

I do not think we need be excessively educated to have faith or truth

You cannot have truth without knowledge to know what is actually true.

Faith, that can be dangerous when combined with severe ignorance.

 

[Kolibri]

Are you taking that way out of context? It could be viewed as promoting fanaticism and fundamentalism by means of promotion of ignorance.



And it takes education to know where the balance lies.



You cannot have truth without knowledge to know what is actually true.

Faith, that can be dangerous when combined with severe ignorance.

I am not even sure real faith is possible w/o facts.

You are correct.

It just struck me is all when you said you run with those well educated in any particular topic. Often education can create pride in people when they look at the uneducated. The educated, in Jesus' day, "knew better". So they did not accept divine education and thus missed out on some of the joys that came from doing as Jesus instructed.

 

[outhouse]

It just struck me is all when you said you run with those well educated in any particular topic. Often education can create pride in people when they look at the uneducated. The educated, in Jesus' day, "knew better". So they did not accept divine education and thus missed out on some of the joys that came from doing as Jesus instructed.

Luke 10:21 has to do with the rejection of the disciples and Jesus in the villages of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.

But my personal take is that Jesus taught the poor Aramaic villagers and that is where he focused his attention. I think there was a sharp socioeconomic divide between Aramaic villagers in Nazareth and rich Hellenist in Sepphoris viewed as educated. Just a personal opinion.

I think that may have possibilities, if not just to reflect upon.

 

[Kolibri]

Luke 10:21 has to do with the rejection of the disciples and Jesus in the villages of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.

But my personal take is that Jesus taught the poor Aramaic villagers and that is where he focused his attention. I think there was a sharp socioeconomic divide between Aramaic villagers in Nazareth and rich Hellenist in Sepphoris viewed as educated. Just a personal opinion.

I think that may have possibilities, if not just to reflect upon.

I would have to agree considering Jesus words prior. Mostly I see Mt 11:25-27 and Luke 10:21-24 as a lesson to stay humble, because it is those that the Father favors.

 

[psychoslice]

Is the Bible literally true? No. It's mythology. That doesn't mean it's "lies", though. In fact, I find the stories of the Bible more meaningful if they didn't literally happen and Jesus just as powerful even if he never physically existed (I lean strongly towards "no"). Allegory and metaphor are much more potent, spiritually, than literal history.

Yea, I like that, and that is how I see it also.

 

[maggie2]

it depends on what you mean by being true, I see the bible as a metaphor, a pointer, pointing to that which is beyond. I don't see the bible as being literally true, in fact personally I don't even believe that there ever was a Jesus Christ, again literally.

Sorry, I meant to respond to this post earlier but I missed it. I agree with you. I also see the Bible mainly as metaphor. While I don't necessarily think the Bible is historically true, I do however believe it holds many wise truths that we can apply to our daily life as do many other books.

 

[psychoslice]

Sorry, I meant to respond to this post earlier but I missed it. I agree with you. I also see the Bible mainly as metaphor. While I don't necessarily think the Bible is historically true, I do however believe it holds many wise truths that we can apply to our daily life as do many other books.

Yes and that is how I see it also, arguing if it all happened or not to me is useless, I need to get to the core of what the words point to.

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

ING - This isn't correct. This is no different then the Muslims coming in and claiming the Qur'an has modern science facts, which of course it doesn't, nor does the Bible. You try to make modern science fit the Bible. Both of them have common sense things they could observe.

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.

ING - No they aren't. We have had this discussion here several times.

Job 26:7 says the earth is suspended upon nothing.

ING - It also mentions sentient pillars holding up heaven.

Ecclesiastes 1:7 accurately describes the water cycle

ING - That is an observation. They do not know how it works.

Ecc 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as circular or spherical.

ING - No sphere. The word means a scribed circle. Thus a flat pancake shape. And what about the heavens being like a tent to dwell in stretched out over the pancake? And held up with sentient pillars?

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Psalm 102:25,26 could be quoted to support the existence of entropy.

ING - Wishful thinking. Simple observation, - everybody dies, everything crumbles. And of course they think YHVH is eternal.

Psa 102:24 I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.

Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Psa 102:26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

Psa 102:27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

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.

EXPAND HIS POST

Again - simple observation, over thousands of years. You make it sound like the other nations didn't have such laws.

*