• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bible Is Not Historically Reliable

lukethethird

lukethethird

unknown member
Conscious thoughts said:
You are the only one who can change your mind :) Lot of soul searching might be what is needed, but you are the one who can do it :)
Click to expand...

No amount of soul searching will make fables from a religious text historically accurate regardless of actuall cities and rulers named within. As much as I enjoy fiction I won't delude myself into believing.
 
Augustus

Augustus

…
lukethethird said:
Change my mind.
Click to expand...

The OT is historically reliable for cultural narratives of Jewish communities.

The epistles are historically reliable for some issues of concern within early Christian communities.

The composition of the NT is historically reliable for the status of texts within early Christian communities

Etc.
 
AlexanderG

AlexanderG

Active Member
ChristineM said:
Places and some minor characters are known to be fairly accurate. Main players however have little or no independent evidence to verify them.
Click to expand...

Right? The Spiderman comics take place in New York. Is the existence of New York good evidence for Spiderman?

If you look at the roughly 50 gospels that were written (most of which weren't canonized), and place them on a timeline of the dates when they were written, you notice a trend of more and more legendary development, exaggeration, and miraculous claims as time progresses farther from the events in question. Additionally, the earliest gospels were written decades after Jesus' supposed death, and were themselves a record of the oral tradition as it was being told at that later date. It seems like a trivial matter to extrapolate backward for those decades of time, to the origin, and then arrive at an entirely mundane set of events that involved nothing supernatural.

This mundane origin is consistent with the observable trend of gospel development. It is also consistent with how narratives developed over time for every other religion, as well as for the mystical power of emperors, the amazing feats of the founders of martial arts schools, and many other popular folk characters like King Arthur, Paul Bunyan, Baba Yaga, and so much more.

Given all of this, which is more likely: That Christianity is the one true religion, and that Jesus rose from the dead, or that the core claims of Christianity developed and were patterned exactly like the thousands of other structurally identical myths that no one believes today? I look at the Bible and I see ancient human psychology, not divinity.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
AlexanderG said:
Right? The Spiderman comics take place in New York. Is the existence of New York good evidence for Spiderman?

If you look at the roughly 50 gospels that were written (most of which weren't canonized), and place them on a timeline of the dates they were written, you notice a trend of more and more legendary development, exaggeration, and miraculous claims as time progresses farther from the events in question. Additionally, the earliest gospels were written decades after Jesus' supposed death, and were themselves a record of the oral tradition as it was being told at that later date. It seems like a trivial matter to extrapolate backward for those decades of time, to the origin, and then arrive at an entirely mundane set of events that involved nothing supernatural.

This mundane origin is consistent with the observable trend of gospel development. It is also consistent with how narratives developed over time for every other religion, as well as emperors, the founders of martial arts schools, and many other popular folk characters like King Arthur, Paul Bunyan, Baba Yaga, and so much more.

Given all of this, which is more likely? That Christianity is the one true religion, and that Jesus rose from the dead, or that the core claims of Christianity developed and were patterned exactly like the thousands of other structurally identical myths that no one believes today? I look at the Bible and I see ancient human psychology, not divinity.
Click to expand...

I look at the bible and say where is the evidence. I see evidence of Egypt and Jerusalem, i see evidence of Pilate and David having existed. Like every goof fiction, a scattering of reality lends the work a little credibility
 
AlexanderG

AlexanderG

Active Member
ChristineM said:
I look at the bible and say where is the evidence. I see evidence of Egypt and Jerusalem, i see evidence of Pilate and David having existed. Like every goof fiction, a scattering of reality lends the work a little credibility
Click to expand...

There's also good evidence that this fiction wasn't even original. Scholarship generally recognizes that the bible parallels many Greek myths and stories that predated it, both in the old and new testaments. The new testament in particular was written down by Greeks as Christianity was spreading and becoming culturally Hellenized. Prior to that time, Homer's Iliad had long been a central tale in the Greek ethos, and you can see uncanny similarities to it in the characters, themes, and events later described in the new testament. Almost as if they wanted to normalize and popularize their religion using familiar, comfortable fabrications.

Here is a resource along those lines, if anyone is interested.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Augustus said:
The OT is historically reliable for cultural narratives of Jewish communities.

The epistles are historically reliable for some issues of concern within early Christian communities.

The composition of the NT is historically reliable for the status of texts within early Christian communities

Etc.
Click to expand...

All limited to particular times, of course. So, the OT is reliable about views from the period of kings, but it is anachronistic about previous time periods.

The epistles are not a good representation of the issues of the early Christian communities if taken alone.

And the NT doesn't include many of the texts from the early Christian communities that were seen as authoritative at the time.

So, the Bible gives a very specific slice of the existing ideas, even at the times it was written. It ignores or minimizes those ideas that the writers disagreed with.
 
Augustus

Augustus

…
Polymath257 said:
All limited to particular times, of course. So, the OT is reliable about views from the period of kings, but it is anachronistic about previous time periods.

The epistles are not a good representation of the issues of the early Christian communities if taken alone.

And the NT doesn't include many of the texts from the early Christian communities that were seen as authoritative at the time.

So, the Bible gives a very specific slice of the existing ideas, even at the times it was written. It ignores or minimizes those ideas that the writers disagreed with.
Click to expand...

As with any text from classical antiquity there are caveats, but to me, any texts that can tell you many things about people from the past are historically reliable.

Equating historical reliability with 'an objective narration of historical facts' seems to miss the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top