Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-23-2005, 07:34 PM

Norma,

Nothing in the Bible was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. Even if we did have an eyewitness account (which we don't) it would not follow that such a person necessarily had any personal credibility.

SLUGFly · 01-23-2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, and the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

By Tacitus (55-115 ce) in The Annals, XV:44

It's possible he was constructed... but it's far more likely that a living character was exploited after his death.

newtype_alpha · 01-23-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norma98026

Their credibility, together with the Bible's accurate portrayal of human character and historical events, plus the way the Bible all fits together as an integral whole, parts of which were written over the span of hundreds of years, point to its validity as a historical document.

This is the first time I've seen this argument and I have to see it's got me shaking my head in wonder.

Accurate portrayal of human character?? If by the overwhelming propensity for arrogance and selfishness exhibited by the "chosen people" then yes, I would say so. If by "everyone is a sinner" or "all our works are filthy rags" then I would strongly disagree. That is neither accurate nor objectively true.

Also, I don't see how the different parts "fitting together" point to its validity. The entire process involved a very elaborate and rigidly controlled editing process, and even then the personal opinions of many of the writers did not escape the biases of their competitors. The OT prophets were constantly at odds with the priesthood; many of the prophets pushed for a less legalistic view of the Torah and challenged the primacy of the prieshood and monarchy. The priesthood retaliated by concocting false prophecies and false statements in the names of the prophets to reduce their credibility and maintain theological control of the religion, and they were mostly succesful in their efforts until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the anihilation of Sanhedrin.

If you think about it, Jesus would have just been a footnote in the Talmud if Pagan Rome had scattered the Levitical prieshood to the winds.

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-23-2005, 11:53 PM

It's also not remotely accurate about historical events.

norma98026 · 02-04-2005, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greyline

No, Norma, the bible says it was written by people who walked and talked with Jesus and that it's God's message to the world. What you need is corroborative evidence before you can make these claims about the bible.

This is largely true, which is why we assess any information based on:
(1) the reliability of the source
(2) the corroborative evidence for the information.

We would be unwise to assess the truth of any piece of information based on only one source. We look for supporting evidence, and we look for bias in the source. Regarding science, there are literally thousands of scientific journals out there, where scientists publish their "information" for all to read so that others can independently replicate those results and provide additional evidence to support (or not support) each piece of information. So while I can't be an expert in all fields of science (or even one), I do know the procedures involved for a scientific theory to become well-supported.

The bible is one source, a self-confessed biased one, and has no supporting evidence that it's the word of God.

You make some interesting points, greyline, but you haven't shown me that the Bible was written by unreliable sources. There's a whole field of study devoted to the reliability of ancient documents, which shows that the Bible has been handed down to us as it was written. It is a reliable document, the accuracy of which has been corroborated by recent archeological discoveries. Whether it's the word of God or not is another topic.

Seems to me that many things in reality do not necessarily have corroborative evidence, yet they are true. Reality is true because it is. It's not true because someone else verifies that it's true. For example, no one can verify what I am thinking or even that I think at all (no comments, please!), yet I know that I have thoughts. Just ask me.

However, there is external corraborative evidence to the geography and historical events of the Bible. If we look at any ancient history book, we can recognize many of the names in the Bible as well as the places. (Examples: Israel, Egypt, Jerusalem, Jericho, Babylon, Xerxes, Nebucchadnezzer, Herod, Caesar Augustus.)

As for bias, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think you're saying that if someone sees an event and believe that it happened, they are biased. By that definition, any eyewitness account of a car accident would have to be thrown out of court because the witness believes what they saw.

Could you explain how bias enters in? Thanks.

By the way, it's not me who made the claim that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says that throughout. (See the writings of Moses, Isaiah, John, etc.) It wasn't my idea. The fact that I believe it to be God's message to us doesn't have any bearing on whether it is or not.

Norma in Seattle

Amaleq13 · 02-04-2005, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norma98026

There's a whole field of study devoted to the reliability of ancient documents, which shows that the Bible has been handed down to us as it was written.

Even if we assume this is true, aren't you confusing consistent copying of the text with confirmation of the contents?

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-04-2005, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norma98026

You make some interesting points, greyline, but you haven't shown me that the Bible was written by unreliable sources. There's a whole field of study devoted to the reliability of ancient documents, which shows that the Bible has been handed down to us as it was written.

Not true. Not even close to true. And even if it were true, the fact that a book has been accurately copied does not mean that it's truthful.

Quote:

It is a reliable document, the accuracy of which has been corroborated by recent archeological discoveries.

What discoveries are you referring to?

The over all "accuracy of the Bible" as a reliable historical record has been decsively and repeately debunked by mountains of historical, documentary, archaeological, geological and astronomocal evidence. Indeed almost any historical claim in the Bible which can be checked against evidence has been falsified. There may be a few stray bits of incidentally authentic place names or kings but that's about as far as it goes. Even those references often have mistakes in them.

Quote:

Seems to me that many things in reality do not necessarily have corroborative evidence, yet they are true. Reality is true because it is. It's not true because someone else verifies that it's true. For example, no one can verify what I am thinking or even that I think at all (no comments, please!), yet I know that I have thoughts. Just ask me.

However, there is external corraborative evidence to the geography and historical events of the Bible. If we look at any ancient history book, we can recognize many of the names in the Bible as well as the places. (Examples: Israel, Egypt, Jerusalem, Jericho, Babylon, Xerxes, Nebucchadnezzer, Herod, Caesar Augustus.)

You're going to have to do better than place names. For one thing, the Bible gets a lot of things wrong about them (anachronistic dates, flat out wrong geographical placements, conquests that never occurred) but the mere mention of an authentic place name is absolutely meaningless as to establishing historicity. The standard analogy here is Troy. People used to think it never existed. Schliemann proved it was real. Does that mean that Everything in the Iliad has now been historically validated?

To reduce this even further, just take a look at popular culture now. How many movies, books and television shows are set in real cities or countries? Is Kangaroo Jack a factual documentary because Australia is a real continent?

Quote:

By the way, it's not me who made the claim that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says that throughout. (See the writings of Moses, Isaiah, John, etc.) It wasn't my idea. The fact that I believe it to be God's message to us doesn't have any bearing on whether it is or not.

This is an utterly circular and fallacious argument. You're saying the Bible is the word of God because the bible says so. By this standard I can prove that my own posts are the word of God.

This post is the word of God!

See. I just did it.

Vorkosigan · 02-05-2005, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Without the resurrection, Christianity is personally worthless. With the resurrection, however, there's at least one dimension out there we have yet to experience.

So should I read this to say that Christian ethics in and of themselves are not worth adopting if the Resurrection is not also true?

greyline · 02-05-2005, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norma98026

You make some interesting points, greyline, but you haven't shown me that the Bible was written by unreliable sources. There's a whole field of study devoted to the reliability of ancient documents, which shows that the Bible has been handed down to us as it was written.

As others have just pointed out, just because it has been copied fairly accurately does not mean the original writers were telling the truth. That's the point I was making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by norma98026

Seems to me that many things in reality do not necessarily have corroborative evidence, yet they are true. Reality is true because it is. It's not true because someone else verifies that it's true.

You're getting a bit esoteric. If you want to show that the bible accurately reflects historical events, there's no need to get into a philosophical discussion about "What is reality?"

Regarding historical and scientific events: no, there's nothing that most people call "real" that has no corroborative evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by norma98026

As for bias, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think you're saying that if someone sees an event and believe that it happened, they are biased. By that definition, any eyewitness account of a car accident would have to be thrown out of court because the witness believes what they saw.
Could you explain how bias enters in? Thanks.

Eyewitness evidence often is thrown out of court, because it's known to be generally quite unreliable. To answer your question: the "bias" of biblical authors comes from their desire to write down things that support the point their trying to push. The Hebrews wanted a glorious history where a mighty God kept coming to their rescue and helping them win righteous battles, and so that's the history they wrote. Paul wanted to create a new church, and so he wrote with that goal in mind. It's pretty clear he knew nothing much about the "gospel story" of Jesus, ie. the basic biographical details of Jesus' birth, ministry and death (since the gospels hadn't yet been written). He was writing persuasively, not factually.

Killer Mike · 02-05-2005, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

Was there a single man at the center of the stories of Jesus, like a real grain of sand at the center of a pearl of myth? Or was Christ never more than a fictitious character a la Paul Bunyan, built upon by many preachers and writers in the period from 100 BC to 100 AD?

Of course we don't have adequate evidence for certainty either way; hence the third option, which I'm sure will receive the majority of votes. But I'm asking for *opinions* here; and if you wish to comment on reasons for your opinion, please do.

IMO, Jesus is entirely myth, and though it's possible that many of the sayings and parables came from only a small handful of individuals, no single person was the historical template for the Jesus of the Gospels, or of Paul. My opinion rests on the fact that Jesus follows precisely the pattern of myth formation seen throughout history- early tales are nebulous and imprecise (Paul implied that Christ was unknown to the world) and details about the man Jesus emerged only as the legend grew. The differing genealogies are particularly damning, as they indicate that different groups of Christians developed their own Christologies with no common source (i.e. a real human Jesus.)

As a 14-year-old boy, reading the Bible for the first time, I was struck by the disagreements among the Gospels, and even more by the Christ described in the letters of Paul, which seemed vastly different from the Christ of the Gospels. When I read the works of Wells, many years later, it was like a great light dawning; the internal errors of the NT were explained so neatly that for a while I went around trying to explain it to various Christians. Need I say that none wanted to listen?

added- I realized I left out an option for the resident literalists (if any.) Salieri & co., if you want to note your belief in the whole nine yards, go ahead- but I don't want this to become yet another pulpit for your beliefs, so let's avoid such arguments in this thread. Start your own if you wish. J.

I think we must keep in mind the difference between the historical Jesus and the mythological Jesus. That there was a man named Jesus who preached and had a small gathering of followers I believe is of little doubt anymore. Scholars from all the top rated universities around the world (Harvard, Yale, Brown, Hebrew University, etc..) will teach that Jesus did exist, had a ministry, and was crucified. But like many historical figures stories circulated and eventually they came to be written down. The Gospels are neither biographies or historical narratives, rather reflections of some of these stories. They contain myth and legend. Fro example, It is unlikely that Jesus was ever even buried in a tomb, as described in the Gospels!! This is because it was common practice for the Romans to let the body hang on the cross for days, allowing the body to decay. This was done to intimidate and remind people of the penalty for not following Roman authority.
For those looking for a scholarly summary of modern scholarship in this field, I would recommend the PBS Series "From Jesus to Christ". It is a four part, four hour long video series that takes you from the time of Jesus to the Gospels, and to the political events that helped Christianity to survive and grow. Scholars from Harvard, Yale, etc.. are interviewed.

View Poll Results: Was there a single, historical person at the root of the tales of Jesus Christ?
No. IMO Jesus is completely mythical.	99	29.46%
IMO Yes. Though many tales were added over time, there was a single great preacher/teacher who was the source of many of the stories about Jesus.	105	31.25%
Insufficient data. I withhold any opinion.	132	39.29%
Voters: 336. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-23-2005, 07:34 PM	#261
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Norma, Nothing in the Bible was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. Even if we did have an eyewitness account (which we don't) it would not follow that such a person necessarily had any personal credibility.

01-23-2005, 11:53 PM	#264
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	It's also not remotely accurate about historical events.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.