We Believe In It But Is It Historical?

SneakySneaky

SneakySneaky

Trooper
Ok so some of us believe in the Big Book, but how much do we know about it? Few of us have ever read it, and even fewer researched about its historicity. I'd like your info on whether it's a historical document ( and the proof of course ) and your opinion on whether historicity has got to do with our belief in it and whether you have to believe, in order to call yourself Christian. I'd like your opinions mainly on the historicity of Jesus. Keep rockin'
 
I don't believe in it, but I have read quite a bit of it. All I can say is that it offers a fair amount of information on the ancient Hebrews and it's probably the primary written source on them. Apart from that, it does not offer much historical information.
 
There already is a thread about this, no? ::
I believe the morals and lessons the Bible teaches us, but we must realise that not every incident should be taken literally. The book was written decades after the events took place so folklore/exxageration may have kicked in to spice up the stories.

the fact is, it doesn't matter if we take the stories with a pinch of salt, or as fact, the Bible still offeres us an idealistic way to live our lives. the same can be said for some other religious books. We could live our lives like Zen monks, and still get to heaven, that is what the Bible teaches (I think) [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/cool.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"B)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"cool.gif\" /]
 
Whether or not it's a historical document or not is inconsequential from a religious standpoint. Religion, especially one like Christianity, requires faith. Faith, by definition, means you accept that there is no way to actually prove what it is you believe. (That's what makes faith such an important tenet of Christian belief, it requires you to believe in the divinity of Christ even though you can't prove it. In colloquial terms, it means you have to "go out on a limb.")

As for the Bible being a historical document, I'm not so sure I agree with Perun. Yes, it's a great source for information on the ancient Hebrew and whatnot. Leviticus, for example, can be used by historians in the same way as the law codes of ancient Babylon.
The New Testament, however, also reflects a great deal about the periods in which it was written. The gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John) can be seen as reflections of life in the Roman Empire from a non-Roman perspective.

Like any other primary source, the historian must read the Bible critically and interpret what it says within its proper context. One must always consider who created the source, why it was created, and what it reflects about its auhor. (that seems abstract, I know)

Jesus was a real person. That much we can be sure of from the records. He grew up in Nazareth, and was executed by crucifiction for pissing off some local religious officials. His divinity (or lack thereof) is a matter of personal faith, and is not a matter for historians.

(yes, I am both a historian and a Christian. I seperate my faith from my work.)
 
[!--quoteo(post=129236:date=Feb 18 2006, 04:55 PM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Feb 18 2006, 04:55 PM) [snapback]129236[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Whether or not it's a historical document or not is inconsequential from a religious standpoint. Religion, especially one like Christianity, requires faith. Faith, by definition, means you accept that there is no way to actually prove what it is you believe. (That's what makes faith such an important tenet of Christian belief, it requires you to believe in the divinity of Christ even though you can't prove it. In colloquial terms, it means you have to "go out on a limb.")

As for the Bible being a historical document, I'm not so sure I agree with Perun. Yes, it's a great source for information on the ancient Hebrew and whatnot. Leviticus, for example, can be used by historians in the same way as the law codes of ancient Babylon.
The New Testament, however, also reflects a great deal about the periods in which it was written. The gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John) can be seen as reflections of life in the Roman Empire from a non-Roman perspective.

Like any other primary source, the historian must read the Bible critically and interpret what it says within its proper context. One must always consider who created the source, why it was created, and what it reflects about its auhor. (that seems abstract, I know)

Jesus was a real person. That much we can be sure of from the records. He grew up in Nazareth, and was executed by crucifiction for pissing off some local religious officials. His divinity (or lack thereof) is a matter of personal faith, and is not a matter for historians.

(yes, I am both a historian and a Christian. I seperate my faith from my work.)
[/quote]
Don't you think that blind faith makes you vulnerable to religious propaganda? And tell me please what proof there is of the existence of Jesus. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sleep.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"-_-\" border=\"0\" alt=\"sleep.gif\" /]
 
Bsh.org gives us a good quote on the subject: http://bash.org/?406373 [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":D\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /]
Seriously, I don't believe all the miralces that are described. Or they're all inerpretations of a more or less ordinary happening...

As far as I know, Jesus was a noted historicall figure, even in Roman documents... Although, at the time there were many leaders of Hebrew insurections, all calling themselves Messiahh, so I guess it's hard to be sure.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129247:date=Feb 18 2006, 10:14 PM:name=Black Ace)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Black Ace @ Feb 18 2006, 10:14 PM) [snapback]129247[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]

As far as I know, Jesus was a noted historicall figure, even in Roman documents... Although, at the time there were many leaders of Hebrew insurections, all calling themselves Messiahh, so I guess it's hard to be sure.
[/quote]
There is no Roman document that contains anything about Jesus. The peculiarity with this is that the Romans kept very good archives of their legal prosecutions and there is no trial mentioned of a man called Jesus. I once said that to a theologist and his awnser was that, as you said, at the time there were many so called Messiahs that the Romans didn't give that much credit to Jesus' trial. But his trial was no odinary trial. According to the gospels there was all this fuzz about who they were to execute. Jesus or Barnabas? Surely such a trial would have been recorded.
 
SneakySneaky, may I direct you to this thread? If you read it through and consider that it's only a few weeks old, you may understand that most of us don't really want to go through all of this again.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129246:date=Feb 18 2006, 04:49 PM:name=SneakySneaky)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SneakySneaky @ Feb 18 2006, 04:49 PM) [snapback]129246[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Don't you think that blind faith makes you vulnerable to religious propaganda? And tell me please what proof there is of the existence of Jesus. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sleep.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"-_-\" border=\"0\" alt=\"sleep.gif\" /]
[/quote]


I'm not talking about "blind faith." I'm talking about making a personal choice about whether or not you wish to believe in something for which you have no concrete proof. It requires careful consideration of what you think to be the fundamental truths of human existence. "Blind faith," on the other hand, would be belief devoid of reasoning (for example, the people who insist the Bible is to be taken literally with absolutely no toleration of scientific and historical facts.)

As for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the figure whom Christians such as myself believe to be Jesus Christ), there are tax and census records recording the existence of such a man, as well as the record of his execution by the Roman authorities. (We even know the names of the two dudes who were crucified alongside Him, though it escapes me at the moment.)

And I find it hard to believe that a religion centred on one man (Son of God or not) could spring up as quickly as it did (with apostles already doing their thing), without the person for whom it was named actually having been alive at some point.

Whether you believe in His divinity or not, it's hard to deny the fact that there was a guy named Jesus who roamed around Judea preaching circa 30-40 A.D. He pissed some temple officials off, who had the Roman authorities (Pontius Pilate) dispose of him in the customary manner. (Back then the Romans were quite happy to execute anyone who disturbed the status quo.)
 
[!--quoteo(post=129250:date=Feb 18 2006, 03:51 PM:name=Perun)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Feb 18 2006, 03:51 PM) [snapback]129250[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
SneakySneaky, may I direct you to this thread? If you read it through and consider that it's only a few weeks old, you may understand that most of us don't really want to go through all of this again.
[/quote]
Bingo. Exactly. Thank you.
Most of us are tired of this topic. At least, I am.

That's the only reason I can't be bothered to respond to the Duke's numerous gross mistakes. He's right about one thing: a man did exist who was the basis for "Jesus". He's wrong about nearly everything else. Maybe later, I'll care enough to explain. But not now.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129236:date=Feb 18 2006, 10:55 AM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Feb 18 2006, 10:55 AM) [snapback]129236[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Religion, especially one like Christianity, requires faith. Faith, by definition, means you accept that there is no way to actually prove what it is you believe. (That's what makes faith such an important tenet of Christian belief, it requires you to believe in the divinity of Christ even though you can't prove it. [/quote]

Doesn't that seem problematic to you? If one of the tenets of your religion is that you aren't supposed to think rationally and critically about it, doesn't that seem...uh, well, stupid?

I'm sorry. I don't mean to offend, but I honestly just can't get it through my head how someone could say something like that (i.e. "my beliefs don't require, or even admit of justification") with a straight face. Why, after all, do you believe in the divinity of Jesus and the rest of Christian mythology? Don't tell me that you believe it "on Faith" because "faith" is not a reason for believing something. As you acknowledged above, to say that you believe something on faith, is a shorthand way of saying that you believe it for no reason at all. But then I repeat my question: why would you believe something for which you have no reason to believe?

Now, I'm not claiming that I have a reason for believing everything I do. But if you ask me why I believe something and I can't come up with a good answer, then that will lead me to rethink my beliefs on the matter and it may very well lead me to eventually rejecting that belief. That's how its supposed to work isn't it? Beliefs should always be sensitive to evidence and argument, otherwise it's make-believe.
 
I don't know about you others, but this is getting rather boring to me. We've already debated extensively about whether a bloke named 'Jesus' existed or not, drawing upon Roman and jewish texts. Whether he was the son of God is a completely different matter, one which is almost completely based upon belief and not much else.

Faith is a strong belief, mainly based without proof, therefore most Christians' belief in God is not based upon the teachings of the Bible, and wondering whether or not it all happened or not.
 
Ahhh, evangelical atheism. The religion which thrives on its adherent's own smug sense of supiority.

SMX, please point out these so-called "gross mistakes." If I have indeed errored, I will gladly concede the point to you. But if you're going to make such an acusation without bothering to back up what you say, then I suggest you keep your thoughts to yourself. Reasoned discourse has no room for such sophmoric behavior.

You know what...Screw it. I'm not going to bother anymore. I don't mean you have to believe what I believe, I just hoped you'd be able to graps the concepts I was trying to convey.


Remember children, arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
 
To post a question like this is not much good if you are not willing to follow up on the answers and do some research yourself. This is a HUGE field of study with countless books, articles, documents, etc. available to the curious. There are those who have dedicated their lives to the study of the Bible, and yet it is not hard to find Bible “experts” every where you go, who will tell you what they “know” until you want to throw-up!

The streets and shopping malls are full of such “experts”, who are very opinionated on the subjects of the Bible and Jesus. Funny thing is, if you ask them a few simple questions, they suddenly get real confused! Try it sometime. Here are some good questions to start with:

What are your views on eschatology? ::
Can you name the Synoptic Gospels?
What is the Pentateuch? Who wrote it?
What are the scrolls of the Megilloth?
What is the Apocrypha?
What were the original languages of the Bible?
Can you name a deuterocanonical book?
What is the difference between higher criticism and textual criticism?
What can you tell me about the Dead Sea Scrolls?

And so, I salute you for admitting that:

“…how much do we know about it? Few of us have ever read it, and even fewer researched about its historicity.”

Well said! You are absolutely right!

It amazes me how few people will turn to real expert opinion on the Bible. If they have a question about science or technology, or history, or any subject you care to imagine, they will seek out the scholars and the academics. But, if you ask them about the Bible, guess what?! They already know it all!

The Bible’s historical reliability is well established with scholars, and the burden of proof is really on the doubter. Skeptical Bible critics have been attacking the Bible for generations upon generations and they haven’t made any progress yet! Archaeology has proven wrong so many of the skeptics’ theories and beliefs.

For example: For many years the existence of the Hittites (a powerful people in Abraham’s time) was claimed by Bible doubters to be pure myth. But today the critics are silenced. Archaeology has unearthed abundant evidence for the Hittites! Modern criticism also theorized that writing was unknown in the days of Moses (therefore early Old Testament books were written long after the events they describe and thus they embody only legends handed down by oral tradition). However, within the past century, hundreds of thousands of books, written on clay and stone tablets, antedating Moses by centuries and even by millenniums, have been uncovered. Proving that the very earliest Biblical events could have been recorded by contemporary writers.

If you are honestly interested in the subject, there are a number of excellent books that cover the topic quite thoroughly. They are also widely available and reasonably priced. I would suggest:

The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (ESSENTIAL! - Check out all his books!)

Halley’s Bible Handbook by Dr. Henry Halley (ESSENTIAL!)

Examine the Evidence by Ralph O. Muncaster (Lots of good short books by him!)

The Facts on Why You Can Believe the Bible by John Ankerberg & John Weldon (Lots of other good books by these authors)

Scientific Facts in the Bible by Ray Comfort

The Complete Book of Bible Answers by Ron Rhodes

Biblical Archaeology by John H. Sailhamer

How We Got the Bible by Neil R. Lightfoot

Any book by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (Serious Scholar!)

The Bible For Dummies by Jeffrey Geoghegan, PhD & Michael Homan PhD



I would also recommend the following links:

http://www.josh.org/apologetics/

http://www.evidenceofgod.com/

www.bibleevidences.com/

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html

http://www.lhvm.org/

http://www.christianbook.com/ ---- (Buy books here!)

http://www.gty.org/index.php

http://www.livingwaters.com/

http://aomin.org/

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/




Now to provide some answers (just an introduction)……..

First of all, historical events can not be proven like you can prove mathematical equations or probabilities. They must be evaluated based on the evidence.

Legal evidence, rather than analytical or statistical evidence, is used to confirm historical events. Eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence are all we have available to us to evaluate history (exactly the same types of evidence used in our legal systems).

Evaluation of the historical evidence is achieved by:
1. Careful study of the eyewitness testimony (written records, Biblical or Extra-Biblical),
2. Verification of the accuracy of that testimony (through Archaeology),
And
3. The circumstantial evidence (by way of Archaeology).

In other words, all we can do with any historical event is study the extant documents/records, establish their veracity, and look for any other evidence that supports or illuminates the issue.

This analysis of the Biblical record has been going on for thousands of years now and the evidence for the Bible’s historical reliability and accuracy is well established with scholars of every stripe.

By the way, the Bible is not a book! It is a collection or library, if you will, of 66 different documents written by at least 40 different authors, from many different lands, under varying circumstances. The Bible contains mostly books of history, supplemented by actual correspondence, poetry/literature, and prophecy. So, as you can see, it is an incredible collection of historical documentation!

Anyway, let’s look at a few quotes from real experts that throw light on the subject:

“Unlike other books that claim to be Scripture (such as the Book of Mormon), the Bible’s accuracy and reliability have been proved and verified over and over again by archaeological finds produced by both believing and non-believing scholars and scientists. This includes verification for numerous customs, places, names, and events mentioned in the Bible.”
-----Ron Rhodes (President of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries)

“Thus far, no historical statement in the Bible has ever been proved false on the basis of evidence retrieved through archaeological research.”
-----Keith N. Schoville (Associate Chairman of the Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies at the University of Wisconsin)

“To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”
-----John Warwick Montgomery (Ph.D. (Chicago), D.Theol. (Strasbourg, France), M.Phil. In Law (Sussex, England), and author of over 140 books and journal articles.)

“It can be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”
-----conclusion of Nelson Glueck (Jewish specialist in ancient literature) after an exhaustive study

“Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition of the value of the Bible as a source of history.”-----William F. Albright (Ph.D., Litt.D., archaeologist, well-known scholar)

“No other work from Graeco-Roman antiquity is so well attested by manuscript tradition as the New Testament. There are many more early manuscripts of the New Testament than there are of any classical author, and the oldest extensive remains of it date only about two centuries after their original composition.”
-----William F. Albright (author of over 1,000 publications on archaeological, biblical, and Oriental subjects)

“Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 A.D.”-----William F. Albright (one of the world‘s foremost biblical scholars)

“The Bible is supported by archaeological evidence again and again. On the whole, there can be no question that the results of excavation have increased the respect of scholars for the Bible as a collection of historical documents.”-----Millar Burrows (University of Yale archaeologist)

“In addition to illuminating the Bible, archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts.”-----Joseph Free (Ph.D., professor of archaeology and history, Bemidji State College)

“Some 5700 ancient copies of the New Testament are in existence today, with some portions estimated to be within 50 years of the original. This is far superior to any other ancient text, most of which have less than a dozen copies written at least 1000 years after the autographs.”
-----Ralph O. Muncaster (former Bible skeptic, professor at Vanguard University of Southern California)

“…in the Old Testament we have a true historical account of the history of the Israelite people.”-----Robert Dick Wilson (The man who mastered 45 languages and dialects! Outstanding authority on ancient languages of the Middle East.)

“There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history.”-----Sir Isaac Newton

“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I were sitting as a juror upon its authenticity, I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor.”
-----Alexander Hamilton


And that’s just scratching the surface! There are volumes and volumes written on these subjects (biblical historicity, biblical archaeology, and biblical reliability). I could not possibly lay out all the evidence here. Nor, am I qualified. Get the books referenced above and check out the facts for yourself!

You should research the Dead Sea Scrolls. This archaeological bonanza has helped to establish the reliability of the Old Testament as an accurate preservation of the original texts down through time! You could spend years and years studying this subject alone!

And archaeology will continue to confirm the Biblical record. There have been so many ancient documents unearthed that there are not enough qualified scholars to translate and study them all! The years ahead will be exciting times of discovery as more knowledge is brought to light to verify the Biblical record!

Honestly, most people’s doubts about Bible accuracy/reliability/historicity come from nothing more than ignorance about the facts of Biblical archaeology and the study of the transmission and preservation of the Biblical text. Investigate it!

I haven’t even touched on the historicity of Jesus! I will have to touch on this later if anyone is still interested. I have made this post so long as it is, and I am sure many will not read it all because of the length.

If I may just say that common sense tells us that Jesus existed. How could a myth have had so much impact on this world and its peoples? No serious scholar would deny that Jesus was a real, historical person. I can provide some evidence for this in another post if anyone is interested. But you can get all the information right now by buying Josh McDowell’s The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. This book thoroughly covers all the points of interest. If you really honestly want to investigate the historicity of the Bible and Jesus, then this book is an essential reference work! He goes into much detail on the bibliographic superiority of the Bible manuscripts over all other ancient documents as alluded to in quotes above.


WRITTEN WHILE LISTENING TO RUSKIN'S PRISONERS over and over and over again! ::
UP THE IRONS!!!! MAIDEN RULE!!! ::
 
Wow! That was a long post! ::

But it's very interesting, though. Are you a theologian or something?
 
First. Anyone who thinks that this has been discussed before ( which it hasn't, religion yet again turned out to be atheism vs christianity rather than Bible authenticity ) and feels "tired", well DON'T POST!! Second, maidenmiq I've also done some research about this subject and let me tell you one of the many historical controversies in the Bible. According to Luke Jesus was born at the time of the census of Quirinius. This took place in 6 A.D. Yet Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of KIng Herod, who died in 4 B.C. Luke even contradicts himself, stating that John and Jesus were miracusly conceived six months apart in the reign of Herod, but still portrays Mary with child at time of the census of 6 A.D, creating one of the rarely mentioned miracles of the New Testament- a 10- year Pregnancy! Quoted from "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.
 
Excellent post, maidenmig, it was a very enjoyable read. And thanks for all those references too. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/smile.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"smile.gif\" /]
 
Fine, SneakySneaky. You want to have someone investigate how historical the Bible is?

Granted, I haven't read the complete book. There are certainly passages that are historical, but given the fact that many books have been written long after the time depicted, many, many parts are ahistorical.

Just one example: The book of Daniel.

It contains the story of Belshazar, the writing on the wall and how the Babylonian Empire fell to the "Medes and Persians". In the book, Belshazar is described as the last Chaldaean king, and his empire was taken over by a certain Darius (aka "Darius the Mede").

From all sources we have -and those are not as few as you may think- the historical turn of events can be reconstructed as such: The Chaldaean (Neo-Babylonian) Empire fell into decline after the death of Nebukadnezzar II. It remained allied to the Medes since the destruction of the Assyrian Empire. The Mede Kingdom was later taken over by the Persians under Cyrus the Great, who in 539 BC, took over the Babylonian Empire and crowned himself king of Babylon. The king of Babylon at that time was Nabonidus, who was generously retired and went to the Arabian desert where he wanted to do archaeological excavations. A Persian named Gobryas was named governour of the empire, and Cyrus shortly afterwards passed the title "King Of Babylon" to his son Cambyses.

Now, you could try to identify Darius the Mede with one of the named personalities: Cyrus or Gobryas. However, Cyrus is mentioned later on in the Bible and plays a very prominent role (The 'Lamb of God'). Darius is described as an ultimate ruler, so it is unlikely that he is simply a governour. It is also unlikely that Darius the Mede is in fact Darius the Great, a Persian king who ruled from 522-486 BC, mainly because he ruled after Cyrus and he also gets prominent mention in later books of the Bible (he is the one who allows the Jews to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem). Some historians believe Darius the Mede to be in fact a Mede king who took over Babylon before the Persians did, but there is absolutely no other evidence of such an event; moreover, it is certain that Cyrus took the Babylonian empire from the Babylonians. As for Belshazar, there is no other evidence of a Babylonian king of that name. It must be noted that the chronologies of Persian, Mede and Babylonian rulers of that age are known completely.

So, I personally believe these events described in the Book of Daniel are fictional and only inspired by historical events.

Some of my sources are:
Herodotus, Histories, I, 188 ff
Maurice Meuleau, Mesopotamien in der Perserzeit in: Fischer Weltgeschichte Band 5, Griechen und Perser

And of course the Bible, Book of Daniel.

By the way, great post, maidenmig. I totally agree with you on many points, but as my post above stated, not everything in the Bible is a historical record. However, everything in the Bible can be a source of mindset or contemporary view of history.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129269:date=Feb 19 2006, 01:05 AM:name=maidenmig)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(maidenmig @ Feb 19 2006, 01:05 AM) [snapback]129269[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
If I may just say that common sense tells us that Jesus existed. How could a myth have had so much impact on this world and its peoples? [/quote]


A story need not be true in order to have an impact on the world and society; it is sufficient that people believe it. Up until quite recently, it was widely belived, across the Western world, that mental illness was a sign of demonic possession. This had a great impact on many areas of society and yet it was a myth. The Nazi's believed that jewish blood was in some sense "impure" and "corrupted" and that it had to be exterminated like an infestation. This belief also had a great impact on the world and its peoples and yet it too was a myth. Perhaps the story of Jesus has had a greater impact that either of these examples, but I don't see why that makes it any more likely to be true.

But more importantly, I think there is a great deal of confusion in debates about the so-called "historicity of the Bible." The guiding question is usually stated thus: is the Bible historically accurate or reliable? But what reason is there to think that there will be a simple answer to this? The old testament claims makes reference to the Hittites which we now know to really have existed. What do we conclude? We certainly can't conclude anything about the divinity of Jesus or redemption through grace. Perhaps all we can safely conclude is that the Bible is historically accurate in its claim that the Hittites existed (roughly) when and where they did. But is the Bible historically accurate full-stop? I think that's the wrong question to ask.

I think it is extremely important to separate questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible from questions about -- what we might call -- the foundations of Christianity: i.e. the truth of its central tenets. All too often, people will rest their own personal religious beliefs (both christian and anti-christian) on something vaguely called: the historically reliability of the Bible. But whether the Bible is right about the existence of the Hittites or the Jewish enslavement in Egypt is quite irrelevant to the divinity of Jesus and redemption through grace. You can believe the former and reject the latter.

Perhaps no one here is making such a mistake. But then why is there so much interest in the historical reliability of the Bible? Why aren't there threads on the historical accuracy of Homer or of _Mein Kampf_?
 
Anyone of you know anything about the Gnostics? According to some historical books they're the ones who adapted ancient Pagan mysteries (Egyptian, Greek , Persian etc.) to the Jewish mythology of the Messiah. Now, because the Hebrews weren't ready to accept this new religion of the Gnostics, the latter had to make the story of Jesus look true, so that's how we've got historical references with contradictions. The story of Jesus was not meant to be taken literally. Besides, many have said that Christian mythology has many things in common with other Pagan religions. Btw, thanks maidenmig for those books you recomended. I'll try and get some of them. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/smile.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"smile.gif\" /]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top