Jump to content

Historical Literature On Authenticity Of The Bible And Historical Account Of Christ’S Life, Death And Resurrection.


FreeThinkerNZ
 Share

Recommended Posts

This thread is for Gus (and of course our lurkers) after Gus invited us to consider the "historical literature on authenticity of the bible and historical of account of Christ’s life, death and resurrection."

 

Bring it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



Gus doesn't do evidence.  Remember?

I know, but he asked for this, and there are lurkers... we haven't talked about biblical historicity for a while.

 

I guess I couldn't just let an apologist act like they can prove that bible events actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X-post from the other thread:
 

 

"I have checked historical literature on the authenticity of the Bible and Christ's life. There are major disputes regarding most of the NT. Errors in translation and decisions in regards to what is canonical and what is not mean that there are many different versions of it, none of which are holy in my opinion. Jesus Christ did not exist as a single person. There is NO evidence that he did. There is very little evidence of any of the places mentioned in the Gospels and the whole story really falls apart when taken in the context of the historical times in which the events are said to have happened. Holy men, self-proclaimed prophets and rogue preachers were common fixtures in that time. There were many mythical characters who were thought to be gods that have much in common with Jesus Christ."

 

 

Recommendations:

JesusNeverExisted.com

 

Books By Bart Ehrman:

Misquoting Jesus

Forged: Writing in the Name of God

Lost Scriptures

 

General Video Resources:

Zeitgeist: The Greatest Story Ever Told [alternative view of the origins of Christianity. discusses parallels found in the Bible. discusses mythology.]

This Land Is Mine [a good and sadly accurate summary of much of the OT and the state of affairs in Israel today.]

 

Specific Video Resources:

Noah's Ark Is A Rip-off of a Rip-off of Another Rip-off

The Evolution of Jesus in the Bible

The Unreliable Birth Story of Jesus

 

I might edit this or add more in another post later. I think these would make good starting points for anyone looking for resources related to these topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is a faith based religion and not a historical based religion. That Mary was a virgin who conceived Jesus through some sort of mystical union with the Holy Spirit cannot be proved so it must be taken on faith. That Jesus performed various miracles cannot be proved and must be taken on faith is clear. That Jesus rose from the dead cannot be proved is clear and so it must be taken on faith. Bottom line is that Christianity is not subject to proof but is a religion of faith. Evidence is not the issue. Rather, the one and only issue is faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gus doesn't do evidence.  Remember?

 

In that case we should ponder the nothing.

 

Here it is:   {  }

 

Now wasn't that convincing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is a faith based religion and not a historical based religion. That Mary was a virgin who conceived Jesus through some sort of mystical union with the Holy Spirit cannot be proved so it must be taken on faith. That Jesus performed various miracles cannot be proved and must be taken on faith is clear. That Jesus rose from the dead cannot be proved is clear and so it must be taken on faith. Bottom line is that Christianity is not subject to proof but is a religion of faith. Evidence is not the issue. Rather, the one and only issue is faith.

I agree with you.  However, many of us found the pathway out by reading the bible and reading about the bible.  When I deconverted, I still thought parts of the bible were historical.  It was through reading ex-c threads about it that I discovered otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Christianity is a faith based religion and not a historical based religion. That Mary was a virgin who conceived Jesus through some sort of mystical union with the Holy Spirit cannot be proved so it must be taken on faith. That Jesus performed various miracles cannot be proved and must be taken on faith is clear. That Jesus rose from the dead cannot be proved is clear and so it must be taken on faith. Bottom line is that Christianity is not subject to proof but is a religion of faith. Evidence is not the issue. Rather, the one and only issue is faith.

 

I agree with you.  However, many of us found the pathway out by reading the bible and reading about the bible.  When I deconverted, I still thought parts of the bible were historical.  It was through reading ex-c threads about it that I discovered otherwise.

And I agree with you wholeheartedly. It was by coming to terms with the truth that so much of Christianity depends on faith that I was able to understand why faith is so important to the religion. If faith is the basis of anything, it is because the evidence is sorely lacking. That realization was my first step to seeing the lies of Christianity and ultimately leaving it. Faith versus evidence - I'll take evidence every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I don't know, FTNZ.  Gus has stated repeatedly that there is evidence of the existence of god, the historicity of the bible, and the historicity of jesus.  But he has also stated repeatedly that he cannot prove the existence of god et al. and has fallen back several times onto encouraging others to examine the "evidence" for themselves, rather than providing any for them to examine. 

 

If I had to guess, I'd say that Gus has read other apologists state that there is evidence, and he's maybe gone so far as to skim over some of the "evidence" for himself.  But I doubt you'll get much out of him on this thread other than some cut and paste and a few links. 

 

Naturally, if my prophecy proves incorrect, you all will have my permission to take me outside the city and stone me to death, as our loving heavenly father commanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, FTNZ.  Gus has stated repeatedly that there is evidence of the existence of god, the historicity of the bible, and the historicity of jesus.  But he has also stated repeatedly that he cannot prove the existence of god et al. and has fallen back several times onto encouraging others to examine the "evidence" for themselves, rather than providing any for them to examine. 

 

If I had to guess, I'd say that Gus has read other apologists state that there is evidence, and he's maybe gone so far as to skim over some of the "evidence" for himself.  But I doubt you'll get much out of him on this thread other than some cut and paste and a few links. 

 

Naturally, if my prophecy proves incorrect, you all will have my permission to take me outside the city and stone me to death, as our loving heavenly father commanded.

I think you're right, and I don't expect him to respond with anything.  I was responding to his claim that there is evidence for these things, because the evidence against biblical historicity is pretty impressive (to those with an open mind) and it's good for lurkers to see information about it.  Maybe Gus will cast his eye over this and some things will lodge somewhere in his mind for future reference.  You never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, so far none of the apologists have responded, FTNZ.

 

Oh wait....

 

 

Nah, that's just a bunch of crickets chirping....yelrotflmao.gif

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Gus, like other Xtians who visit here, come here to pick up what one of us says out of contest to make it appear to fellow Xtians that we don't know what we are talking about. bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X-post from the other thread:

 

 

"I have checked historical literature on the authenticity of the Bible and Christ's life. There are major disputes regarding most of the NT. Errors in translation and decisions in regards to what is canonical and what is not mean that there are many different versions of it, none of which are holy in my opinion. Jesus Christ did not exist as a single person. There is NO evidence that he did. There is very little evidence of any of the places mentioned in the Gospels and the whole story really falls apart when taken in the context of the historical times in which the events are said to have happened. Holy men, self-proclaimed prophets and rogue preachers were common fixtures in that time. There were many mythical characters who were thought to be gods that have much in common with Jesus Christ."

 

 

Recommendations:

JesusNeverExisted.com

 

Books By Bart Ehrman:

Misquoting Jesus

Forged: Writing in the Name of God

Lost Scriptures

 

General Video Resources:

Zeitgeist: The Greatest Story Ever Told [alternative view of the origins of Christianity. discusses parallels found in the Bible. discusses mythology.]

This Land Is Mine [a good and sadly accurate summary of much of the OT and the state of affairs in Israel today.]

 

Specific Video Resources:

Noah's Ark Is A Rip-off of a Rip-off of Another Rip-off

The Evolution of Jesus in the Bible

The Unreliable Birth Story of Jesus

 

I might edit this or add more in another post later. I think these would make good starting points for anyone looking for resources related to these topics.

For the Record, Bart Ehrman does believe that a person named Jesus did exist. He disputes that he was divine. I just listened to a podcast where Ehrman was interviewed about his book Did Jesus Exist (Here). Here is the podcast if you are interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehrman's works led me to question what I was being taught about Jesus and the NT in church. Regardless of his personal beliefs, I find his works to be a good starting point for inquiry and research. Jmho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehrman's works led me to question what I was being taught about Jesus and the NT in church. Regardless of his personal beliefs, I find his works to be a good starting point for inquiry and research. Jmho.

I agree with you. Just wanted to clarify that point. I enjoy his work and recommend him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the best books from a believer's point of view

is Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Gospels-Craig-Blomberg/dp/0830828079

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in serious doubt that you could comprehend the actual academic position of Dr. Craig Blomberg on anything… sorry. There are few who could and they would have to be very well versed in current New Testament theological scholarship. Ficino might… I'm struggling with it though.. it's pretty involved stuff.

 

http://www.normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/Blomberg/DenialOfMiracleStory.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in serious doubt that you could comprehend the actual academic position of Dr. Craig Blomberg on anything… sorry. There are few who could and they would have to be very well versed in current New Testament theological scholarship. Ficino might… I'm struggling with it though.. it's pretty involved stuff.

 

http://www.normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/Blomberg/DenialOfMiracleStory.htm

 

I admit, I can't climb all the academic ivory towers some have constructed

but I know this:

 

A lot of great thinkers (on both sides of this issue) have discussed

this and written thousands of papers and books for centuries.

 

To me, it all comes down to faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To me, it all comes down to faith.

 

 

Some of us reject willful ignorance and accept the truth even if it doesn't agree with our childhood indoctrination.  For us it all comes down to logic, reason, facts and evidence.  If your faith was Hindu then you would follow the Hindu gods because it would come down to faith for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

To me, it all comes down to faith.

 

 

Some of us reject willful ignorance and accept the truth even if it doesn't agree with our childhood indoctrination.  For us it all comes down to logic, reason, facts and evidence.  If your faith was Hindu then you would follow the Hindu gods because it would come down to faith for you.

 

 

 

You are free to reject what you want. 

 

I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IH rejects reality for his magical space sugar daddy.

 

Nothing new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am in serious doubt that you could comprehend the actual academic position of Dr. Craig Blomberg on anything… sorry. There are few who could and they would have to be very well versed in current New Testament theological scholarship. Ficino might… I'm struggling with it though.. it's pretty involved stuff.

 

http://www.normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/Blomberg/DenialOfMiracleStory.htm

 

I admit, I can't climb all the academic ivory towers some have constructed

but I know this:

 

A lot of great thinkers (on both sides of this issue) have discussed

this and written thousands of papers and books for centuries.

 

To me, it all comes down to faith.

 

 

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Well, it was more an audible snigger.

 

Thousands of papers and books for centuries, but it all comes down to faith.  What an inadequate way to approach a text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in serious doubt that you could comprehend the actual academic position of Dr. Craig Blomberg on anything… sorry. There are few who could and they would have to be very well versed in current New Testament theological scholarship. Ficino might… I'm struggling with it though.. it's pretty involved stuff.

 

http://www.normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/Blomberg/DenialOfMiracleStory.htm

Hey Ravenstar, are you "struggling with" Blomberg's book or with Geisler's attack on Licona and Blomberg, or both?

 

I read part of the Geisler blog post that you linked. Couldn't stand reading the whole thing. It's typical inerrantist stuff, of which I had my fill as an evangelical. The stance of Geisler et al boils down to a fancy version of Ironhorse's stance, i.e. make a faith/confessional commitment and then control all evidence from that commitment.

 

Like you, I'm not sure whether Ironhorse would side with the full-bore "everything assertion is historically accurate" inerrantists or with the slippery, "let's appeal to genre theory etc when we need it" types. IH may not comprehend what's at stake theologically, or care, since he walks by faith, not by sight, and certainly not by sifting evidential claims.

 

The Geisler thing is sort of laughable from the Catholic perspective, and probably from the Orthodox perspective, too. But that's another topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.