J-D

Just your opinion--and any comments you feel disposed to make.

judge

They could be, is the best I can say. As a former fundamentalist it really does not matter to me. It cant possibly make the slightest bit of difference IMHO.
That being said, I still have an interest in what is to me a mysterious topic. One which I will maybe never understand.
I dont find fundamentalists very convincing but I often dont find the arguements skeptics propose against the pure historical aspects very convincing either.

mountainman

I am voting on behalf of Emperor Julian who wrote
that it was expedient around the year of 361 CE
that he set forth the reasons by which he was
convinced that the fabrication of the Christians
was a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

The New Testament is a fourth century imperially
sponsored fiction designed to make the Greeks
gentiles (outsiders) in their own civilisation.

Jesus H. Christ and Bilbo Baggins are brothers-in-arms.
The new testament is a fabricated collage of fiction.
Any historical fact found in it is purely accidental.

How's your winter going J-D?

Splarnst

It depends on what mean by "historical statements." I mean, it could be as broad as, "Some Jews lived in Palestine in the first century," with which no one could possibly disagree with.

aa5874

The NT is essentially a compilation of fiction using the names of some well known historical figures like Pilate, Herod and Tiberius, but the events surrounding these characters in relation to Jesus, as found in the NT, cannot be shown to be true or likely to have occurred.

Toto

What's the point of this poll? Herod was King of Judea; Quirinius was governor of Syria - there's two accurate statements. That doesn't make the NT a source of reliable historical information.

DCHindley

Q: Do you think the historical statements in the New Testament are accurate?

A: It is as good a source as it is. Just keep in mind that not all sources are created equal.

"It" is not really a unity either. There are documents of different genres contained in it, and each genre has its own strengths and weaknesses as a source. On the face of it, there are purported biographical works (gospels), an apocalypse, a history (Acts), literary letters, and personal letters.

All of them seem to have been, at very least, selected and edited for publication. All of them present peculiar points of view that represent the agenda of the author.

Check out some (neutral academic oriented) web sites dedicated to history an you will see what I am talking about.

DCH

J-D

To see how people respond. Possibly in time that will assist me to frame a more specific question which will be of greater use to me.

J-D

I don't need to. I can already see what you are talking about.

Toto

The first most basic question is whether the various books of the Bible were intended to be history by those who wrote them. The answer is probably no for some (notably the gospels), and yes for others.

The second question might be whether the compilers of the Bible thought they were history.

You might then get into the question of what use a modern historian could make of the Bible, or the question of why modern religionists try to believe that the Bible is true history.