Bible-fact, fiction,or mythology?

[T.Rex]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

If you believe in history then you must believe that Jesus Lived.

This shows that it is impossible to discuss with you.
So I will discuss with the other readers of this thread.

How one can "believe in history" ?
History is made of texts (and then of photographs).
It is evident that texts (and even photographs ; remind Staline) do not, cannot not, say all the truth. Because describing exactly what happened during 1 minute in a town, event a small town, would require thousands of thousands books, recording exactly where each person and object was at this exact time, recording exactly what each person said. Even this would not be the truth, since we cannot know what exactly people wanted to say, because languages are not exact, and because people do not exactly say what they mean to say.
Children should learn at school that "History" is only a vague idea of what exactly happened in the past, including many mistakes.
We know Napoleon lived in the past. Are we sure he really discovered himself his Geometry theorem ? Or is it only a nice story ? (See: Wikipedia)
Historians do no believe in books. They gather as much books and other documents as they can. Then they compare and study them, trying to be closer to the truth by knowing things about authors. As an example, at the same time Jesus is supposed to be born in Palestine, Romans were in France (Gaule at that time). Romans wrote that Gaulians were barbarians. Recent studies of artefacts are providing a better understanding of what seemed to be people living in France at the time Caesar invaded the country. We suspect Romans authors to have exagerated about the barbary of Gaulians, because it was useful: "Gaulians are barbarians, no problem to kill them and to take their lands !", they said.
About Jesus, only Christians books are talking about him. No other kinds of books say a word about him. True Historians would say: "We have not enough proofs about this (nice) story". Also, it appears that all the books talking about him have been written many years after the time he was supposed to be living. So, either they have fully invented this story, or they have modified, enlarged, some very real small story, or -more probably- they mixed several nice stories and some true stories, plus their own (good) ideas.

Now, in this thread, people are mixing several things: In the Bible appear true facts that happened at that time, and also ideas about a God and a son of God. It is well known that it is a very good idea to mix true things with lies. It is easier then to fool idiots.

Religion can be a very dangerous weapon, you know. Like Communism.

Allez, bonne nuit. Demain je retourne à l'Hôpital ...

Tony

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by T.Rex

About Jesus, only Christians books are talking about him. No other kinds of books say a word about him. True Historians would say: "We have not enough proofs about this (nice) story".

There is at least 2 mentions of Jesus in the works of Flavius Josephus (there are those that say that they are less than solid) and the Koran also mentions him.

Things like pieces of "The True Cross" and the Shroud of Turin are not things that I would point to for support. The Shroud is not authentic, as it does not match the record.



In my list a few posts ago in the 4th bullet point I brought out something that no one seems willing to specifically deal with. Let's get down to brass tacks.


BTW, I hope things go well for your wife.

[jinydu]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

In my list a few posts ago in the 4th bullet point I brought out something that no one seems willing to specifically deal with. Let's get down to brass tacks.

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Long before plate techtonics and seismology, the Bible refered to a future the spliting of the Mount of Olives, with displacement toward the north and the south, along with a corresponding elevation of Jerusalem. It is now known that the Jordan sits in a rift valley and that a perpendicular fault splits the Mount of Olives and that runs into a ring of faults that run around Jerusalem.
The prediction of what would happen to Jerusalem in AD70 (the utter demoltion of the temple).

A few questions come to mind then:

1) Could there have been an earthquake in that area earlier in history that would have indicated to the people in that region that they were in an earthquake-prone region?

2) Was the "Mount of Olives" the real name used for the location at the time, or was it interpreted to correspond to that location, after modern science discovered the fault?

3) Was there a specific and unambiguous date attached to the predictions? The Middle East has been a war-prone region for many millenia. It would have been, and still is, entirely predictable that more wars would occur in the future.

Another important point is that, unlike scientific theories such as quantum mechanics, the Bible does not have one structure where every statement necessarily follows from a collection of axioms. The verification of historical claims in the Bible does not support the supernatural claims, any more than I can write a paper presenting a new scientific theory and support it by adding the (correct) fact that I was wearing a green shirt on Aug. 9, 2006. It is a gigantic and illogical leap to go from claiming to have proved that a person named Jesus once lived to claiming to have proved his divinity.

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Since I believe that God wants us to grow and progress, I also believe He will answer sincere prayers and direct our lives as much as we allow Him to.

But what if two different people claim to have prayed and received guidance to follow two different religions, each of which claims that the other is false? Which religion is right? Better yet, what if a third person claims to have prayed and not received a response?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by jinydu

But what if two different people claim to have prayed and received guidance to follow two different religions, each of which claims that the other is false? Which religion is right? Better yet, what if a third person claims to have prayed and not received a response?

Do the same thing you'd do if three people told you three different things on any other topic. First, go with the ones you trust. Second, verify it for yourself if possible (since you can't measure anyone's sincerity/diligence except your own).

[retina]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

The rule book we are talking about needs no proof.

So why do you then post a topic asking whether it is fact or fiction? Since without needing proof you would not care whether is it true or false or a mixture.

Surely you have sought some proof to verify your beliefs? I find it difficult to believe that anyone can blindly follow without at least some internal desire to find proofs to validate their belief.

[T.Rex]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

There is at least 2 mentions of Jesus in the works of Flavius Josephus (there are those that say that they are less than solid)

When was it written ?

and the Koran also mentions him.

Too late.

Do you know about a book/text talking about Jesus and written less than 10 years after Jesus is supposed to die ?

T.

[T.Rex]

Originally Posted by jinydu

But what if two different people claim to have prayed and received guidance to follow two different religions, each of which claims that the other is false? Which religion is right? Better yet, what if a third person claims to have prayed and not received a response?

Good questions !
T.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by jinydu

But what if two different people claim to have prayed and received guidance to follow two different religions, each of which claims that the other is false? Which religion is right? Better yet, what if a third person claims to have prayed and not received a response?

In order to be credible, claims of fact (I prayed and received guidance from
G*d) need to be:

(1) Reproducible
(2) Tangible
(3) Available to show to others

Religions fail these requirements. If you can find 3 people who claim
contradictory things as fact, then clearly you are not dealing with fact.

A.C. Clarke

Religion is believing what you know isn't true.
Religion is psychopathology.
Religion is irrational.


I will add my 2 cents worth.

Religion and racism have been the two most evil things in all of human
history.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

In order to be credible, claims of fact...

Religion and racism have been the two most evil things in all of human
history.

Because someone claims divine intervention, it does not mean that it happened. I look to claims like this with a critical eye.


I would put forth that (most of) the harm that Mr. Silverman is refering to is by those that use religion has a cover/label/banner/etc. Jihadist that wish to kill others use the name of a religion, but have left many of the fundamentals behind. I would suggest the the Spanish Inquizition is a similar thing; those that did those things claimed to be Christian, but left behind fundamental teachings (love and mercy). The Crusades are still one more example of the misuse of religion.

I dislike people attempting to paint all religions, all Christians, etc. with the same overly large brush. I have no part in those that do evil in the name of religion. I am committed to a path of peace, personal moral living, love and mercy toward all, doing to others what I would hope that they would do to me, obeying the laws of the land, and other such things. I will not: take up arms against others, attempt to cause laws to come about to control others, force my will on others, assist in evil, and other such.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

In order to be credible, claims of fact (I prayed and received guidance from
G*d) need to be:

(1) Reproducible
(2) Tangible
(3) Available to show to others

Religions fail these requirements. If you can find 3 people who claim
contradictory things as fact, then clearly you are not dealing with fact.

A.C. Clarke

Religion is believing what you know isn't true.
Religion is psychopathology.
Religion is irrational.


I will add my 2 cents worth.

Religion and racism have been the two most evil things in all of human
history.

R.D. Silverman,

I might be one of those fellows whose posts you have blocked, and you might have missed my earlier reply to these ideas (in another thread) but I'll repeat them again now.

First, not all credible claims have to be reproducible. For example, I can claim that my hair was cut within the last week. There is absolutely no way I can "reproduce" anything to demonstrate my claim. However, I can give some evidence for my claim (I'm not a liar, my wife can back me up, my hair is shorter than in recent photographs, etc...). None of these evidences reproduce my "hair-cutting" experience, but they do lend credence to it.

Second, not all aspects of credible claims can be shown to others. The fact that I remember getting a speeding ticket with my cousin cannot be "shown" to anyone (at least with our current technology--maybe someday we can look inside people's minds). There is evidence for this occurance (namely, a record of the ticket, people who also remember it happening, etc...) but I still cannot "prove" that I actually remember the incident. But most rational people would accept me at my word, and give my claim credibility.

Third, you said that if you can find 3 people claiming contradictory things as fact you are not dealing with fact. Well, if I found an evolutionist, an intelligent-designist, and a biblical innerantist, all of who disagree with how life developed on the planet, would that mean evolution is not a pretty good theory anymore? Do I really have no recourse in this matter? Of course I do. Disagreement, in and of itself, does not end discussion. It merely means that further exploration is necessary to find the truth. In the case of evolution I should investigate the claims of the parties, look at the evidences they present, and so forth. In the case of religion, shouldn't the same principle apply?

Finally, I'll just disagree with you that religion and racism are the two most evil things in the world. (I'd put child abuse above both of them.) Personally, I've found great happiness and peace from religion.

Best wishes,
Zeta-Flux

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Because someone claims divine intervention, it does not mean that it happened. I look to claims like this with a critical eye.


I would put forth that (most of) the harm that Mr. Silverman is refering to is by those that use religion has a cover/label/banner/etc. Jihadist that wish to kill others use the name of a religion, but have left many of the fundamentals behind. I would suggest the the Spanish Inquizition is a similar thing; those that did those things claimed to be Christian, but left behind fundamental teachings (love and mercy). The Crusades are still one more example of the misuse of religion.

I dislike people attempting to paint all religions, all Christians, etc. with the same overly large brush. I have no part in those that do evil in the name of religion. I am committed to a path of peace, personal moral living, love and mercy toward all, doing to others what I would hope that they would do to me, obeying the laws of the land, and other such things. I will not: take up arms against others, attempt to cause laws to come about to control others, force my will on others, assist in evil, and other such.

Uncwilly,

I agree. I also think that people tend to overattribute wars to religion. When evil people rule they will use whatever means they can to get people to follow them: whether it be through intimidation, indoctrination, or using the name of God.