Adam

Based on that PBS TV show, the category for the Bible (or would it be just the Synoptic gospels in this case) should be "history". History always has its dark corners and debatable points, but no one involved just dismisses it as fiction or myths from centuries past. But no one here has suggested "history". Oh, that's because this is FRDB.

Doug Shaver

Nobody has attacked it with an argument that would change your mind.

You may suppose that whatever fails to change your mind cannot be a rational argument. Some of us have different suppositions.

steve_bnk

I do not get your point.

The OT is the surviving sum of an ethnic culture. The OT from a hman perspective is a study in religion, psychology, and human civilization.

Jewish history is no more a dark corner than Egyptian, Incan, or Persian history.

It is irrational to cloud the study of the Abrahamic tradition with a religious disdain.

Toto

Oh yes they do, unless there is actual evidence to corroborate the myths.

That's because we know something about history.

sotto voce

Not as novels.

They are not fundamentally different. One can choose to believe in Zeus and Poseidon, or not. One can choose to believe in the single deity represented in 66 books, or not.

One must not be presumptuous. That is not the scientific way, or the democratic way.

Who decides who is devout? How might one distinguish between the devout and, say, the duped, or even the demon-possessed?

Steve Weiss

No one dismisses the Bible as fiction? Guess again. Many do, especially since laws punishing same have been repealed or are uninforced in more civilized countries. I'm sure that many Hindus and Buddhists view the Bible as fiction as well, just as Christians don't accept the religious works of Eastern religions.

You mention history as a standard for the Bible. Firstly, there is little to recommend the Bible as accurate history, and secondly, much of history cannot be separated from mythology. All of history, especially ancient history, must be taken with a very large grain of salt. Even in contemporary times there are unresolved issues. Examples: Who shot John Kennedy? Did President Roosevelt know about the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance? Etc. The more critical the mind, the less likely to swallow the writings of authors known and unknown.

Steve Weiss

I didn't ask how the Homer wouldn't be classified.

How does one determine what the doctrine of a religion is? Certainly not by quizzing its membership or taking a vote. One consults the written works that are authorized by the respective religions and its theological leadership. People may depart from those doctrines and thus read themselves out of said religious denomination and go off to form another one. That's why there are in excess of 30,000 Christian sects today.

Steve Weiss

One may not presume factualty and correctness. That must be validated and verified. You've got cart and horse reversed. Every book, the Bible included, is subject to question and analysis, and until that scrutiny has been performed one cannot assert authenticity.

sotto voce

And yet, they are increasingly celebrating the birth of Jesus...

... while there is little or no reciprocation. Maybe everyone thinks the same way.

But is it? Do people read the Bible out of historical interest? Or do they read it because they believe that it has relevance to the way they live their lives in the here and now?

Proof?

Who wanted him dead? The same sort of people who forced millions to be baptised?

Did some in the USA assist the Nazis, and intend to ally with them after their victory?

You got it. You don't know where this could lead.

sotto voce

But readers need to know how absurd the OP is, nevertheless.

Did anyone ask that?

When changing the subject, the god in vogue seems to be Mercury.

:wave: