Is the Bible True?

[clem456]

And it would help this discussion if you read the quote I was responding to, the man I was speaking to was not using that definition of prophecy. They said the bible has prophetic qualities, and claimed that “if the bible says things will happen and then they happen it would testify that the source of these claims is reliable”. So if you say that the prophecy isn’t used to predict the future then fine, just don’t claim that the bible is true because is can predict the future

Catholic sense of prophecy:
newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm

 

[ericc]

Real history is corroborated by multiple sources, not one source that uses itself as its own proof. Once you have a lot of corroborating evidence, you can reasonably conclude that such-and-such event happened. You don’t get that with the books of the Bible.

I can not say for ISIS. I don’t know what they believe. But early Christians die for their religion because they believe it to be true. Prove it that Christian martyrs are stuff of legends only. You keep on bringing up that Christianity is the stuff of legends. Yet you never supported your allegations with any credible source that can be verified. Unless you do, forumers here may think that you made these up. So for the sake of your credibility, please do support your statements.

I will be traveling for a week and may only have occasional access to internet.I will not have most of my supporting materials with me. So I may delay in responding. I hope to see your supporting sources by that time so that we can continue going through the credibility of your sources versus mine.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Catholic sense of prophecy:
newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm

again I am not dealing with the catholic sense of prophecy I am dealing with the claims that the bible tells the future and therefore it is a legitimate source information.

 

[clem456]

again I am not dealing with the catholic sense of prophecy I am dealing with the claims that the bible tells the future and therefore it is a legitimate source information.

I understand that.

Can you at least give the bible the credit due a work of literature? Have you ever read a novel that you really liked, something you identify with? A novel is a work of literature. Is it a legitimate source of information? The better question is “is it true” in any way? Any author will tell you that if a novel does not have a strong element of truth, people cannot identify with it. If it does not have a strong identification with truth, it cannot enter a dialogue with it’s reader. That truth is outside of rigid factualism.
Which brings us to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism robs the truth from a work of literature and self absorbs it.

The bible is not a science or history textbook. A science textbook can be held to rigid standards of accuracy, you can prove true/false. A work of literature like the bible is not intended to be read that way. The literature of the bible was never intended to “proved”.
Reading it is more like entering a dialogue with a person than reading a textbook.

It is easy to disprove and discredit the bible in a fundamentalist way, but in the process you throw away a work of literature that we believe is inspired.

If you do not believe it is inspired that why do you bother to discuss it? You can simply disregard it and read something else. I’m curious why you are here and why you think this is important when you disregard it.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

I understand that.

Can you at least give the bible the credit due a work of literature? Have you ever read a novel that you really liked, something you identify with? A novel is a work of literature. Is it a legitimate source of information? The better question is “is it true” in any way? Any author will tell you that if a novel does not have a strong element of truth, people cannot identify with it. If it does not have a strong identification with truth, it cannot enter a dialogue with it’s reader. That truth is outside of rigid factualism.
Which brings us to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism robs the truth from a work of literature and self absorbs it.

The bible is not a science or history textbook. A science textbook can be held to rigid standards of accuracy, you can prove true/false. A work of literature like the bible is not intended to be read that way. The literature of the bible was never intended to “proved”.
Reading it is more like entering a dialogue with a person than reading a textbook.

It is easy to disprove and discredit the bible in a fundamentalist way, but in the process you throw away a work of literature that we believe is inspired.

If you do not believe it is inspired that why do you bother to discuss it? You can simply disregard it and read something else. I’m curious why you are here and why you think this is important when you disregard it.

Well you say true in any way, what do you mean by that? True in that it connects with the reader or teaches lessons(which I find to be bad lessons) or do you mean literally true? Because if you are saying the facts and events in the bible are fictional but the lessons are not then sure I’ll give that to you but if you are trying to say we shouldn’t look at it in a literal way but believe the events in the book happened then we have a problem.

 

[clem456]

Well you say true in any way, what do you mean by that? True in that it connects with the reader or teaches lessons(which I find to be bad lessons) or do you mean literally true?

The lessons could be bad if you read them through fundamentalist eyes.
For a Christian, all of scripture must be read through the eyes of Christ. If a particular passage seems to violate Christian principles as personified in Christ, they cannot be read in literalist fashion that takes ancient words and stories and applies them literally today.
For instance, the command to put the ban on other races cannot be taken in a literalist fashion because they violate respect for human life. It is an error to read these passages as condoning the slaughter of innocents.
Look at Christ…he goes to a sacrificial death rather than kill his persecutors. That is the lens we read these passages through.
He sets captives free, gives sight to the blind, heals the leper.

 

[SonOfMan]

I have shown you a few non-biblical sources. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger.

Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, born Gaius Caecilius or Gaius Caecilius Cilo (61 – c. 113), better known as Pliny the Younger

Titus Flavius Josephus (/dʒoʊˈsiːfəs/;[1] 37 – c. 100)

Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (/ˈtæsɨtəs/; Classical Latin: ˈtakɪtʊs]; c. AD 56 – after 117)

All of these people were born years after Jesus’ death, that doesn’t count as contemporary. They would have no direct interaction with Jesus. Their words on Jesus amount to hearsay, passing along what they heard, not what they saw.

I am still waiting for your sources of:

a)scholars that claim Josephus text on Jesus isn’t authentic.
b) the legend of Jesus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum_2

The Testimonium has been the subject of a great deal of research and debate among scholars, being one of the most discussed passages among all antiquities.[100] Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the Testimonium.[101] While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text.

At best, it may be partially authentic. Not a strong reason, however, Antiquities of the Jews was written in 93-94 AD, Josephus being born in 37 AD, and Josephus not believing in Jesus as the Christ. What he’s written is only a rehashing of what he’s heard and what people claim, not about what he experienced or saw.

We do have stories of different un-connected cultures about the Flood. Isn’t that surprising?

It’s not surprising. Considering the Flood never happened, the fact that so many different cultures wrote about it leads to one very reasonable conclusion; The story was passed along and borrowed.

Even if we can prove biblical events through archaeology digs, would that help you?

These biblical events are actually being disproven by archaeology; No mass exodus of the Jews, no global flood, no order from King Herod to kill all male infants, etc.

Then disclose which early Christians and Church Fathers hold these heresy beliefs. Which beliefs were not held for thousands of years? Details please. Where did you get these information?

For example, Origen and his belief of the “Universality of the Redemption and the Final Restoration.”

newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

I can not say for ISIS. I don’t know what they believe. But early Christians die for their religion because they believe it to be true. Prove it that Christian martyrs are stuff of legends only. You keep on bringing up that Christianity is the stuff of legends. Yet you never supported your allegations with any credible source that can be verified. Unless you do, forumers here may think that you made these up. So for the sake of your credibility, please do support your statements.

The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom is a 2013 book by Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. Moss’s thesis is that the traditional idea of the “Age of Martyrdom”, when Christians suffered persecution from the Roman authorities and lived in fear of being thrown to the lions, is largely fictional. There was never sustained, targeted persecution of Christians by Imperial Roman authorities. Official persecution of Christians by order of the Roman Emperor lasted for at most twelve years of the first three hundred of the Church’s history. Most of the stories of individual martyrs are pure invention, and even the oldest and most historically accurate stories of martyrs and their sufferings have been altered and re-written by later editors, so that it is impossible to know for sure what any of the martyrs actually thought, did or said.

 

[ericc]

All of these people were born years after Jesus’ death, that doesn’t count as contemporary. They would have no direct interaction with Jesus. Their words on Jesus amount to hearsay, passing along what they heard, not what they saw.

That’s why I asked you: Are you a historian? Must one be a living witness to write accurate history? Why can’t we trust the accounts of others if they are verified to be trustworthy sources?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum_2

At best, it may be partially authentic. Not a strong reason, however, Antiquities of the Jews was written in 93-94 AD, Josephus being born in 37 AD, and Josephus not believing in Jesus as the Christ. What he’s written is only a rehashing of what he’s heard and what people claim, not about what he experienced or saw.

Errr…your source is wikepedia? So you would accept my responses from such type of sources as well?

It’s not surprising. Considering the Flood never happened, the fact that so many different cultures wrote about it leads to one very reasonable conclusion; The story was passed along and borrowed.

Which one is more surprising? Peoples experiencing it and writing about it vs peoples never experiencing it and un-connected with each other and writing about the same story? Your process of conclusion is extraordinary.

These biblical events are actually being disproven by archaeology; No mass exodus of the Jews, no global flood, no order from King Herod to kill all male infants, etc.

So what? There is no tape recording of any of these events so your conclusion is that they didn’t happen? Are you concluding as a historian or are you just applying layman thinking?

For example, Origen and his belief of the “Universality of the Redemption and the Final Restoration.”

newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

And he was branded an heretic later on and his writings went out of favor. But this is only the writing of one person. Which other Church Fathers held these heresies and NOT branded a heretic? You claim multiple Church Fathers holding on to heresies for thousands of years. Where is the proof? You also need to differentiate the opinions of individuals vs what the Church actually teaches.

The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom is a 2013 book by Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. Moss’s thesis is that the traditional idea of the “Age of Martyrdom”, when Christians suffered persecution from the Roman authorities and lived in fear of being thrown to the lions, is largely fictional. There was never sustained, targeted persecution of Christians by Imperial Roman authorities. Official persecution of Christians by order of the Roman Emperor lasted for at most twelve years of the first three hundred of the Church’s history. Most of the stories of individual martyrs are pure invention, and even the oldest and most historically accurate stories of martyrs and their sufferings have been altered and re-written by later editors, so that it is impossible to know for sure what any of the martyrs actually thought, did or said.

This book is written in 2013 about events 2000 years ago. According to you, not a contemporary. So why should I hold this book with any credibility at all? Reviews of her book indicated that she admitted that there were martyrdoms but perhaps not to the extent that is provable by evidence. But scarcity of ancient evidence is to be expected.But you don’t have to look very far today. Christians are still targeted for persecutions today. Christians beheaded by ISIS, subtle or obvious discrimination and attacks in Muslim dominated countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. And these are not legends.

 

[clem456]

Quote:
The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom is a 2013 book by Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. Moss’s thesis is that the traditional idea of the “Age of Martyrdom”, when Christians suffered persecution from the Roman authorities and lived in fear of being thrown to the lions, is largely fictional. There was never sustained, targeted persecution of Christians by Imperial Roman authorities. Official persecution of Christians by order of the Roman Emperor lasted for at most twelve years of the first three hundred of the Church’s history. Most of the stories of individual martyrs are pure invention, and even the oldest and most historically accurate stories of martyrs and their sufferings have been altered and re-written by later editors, so that it is impossible to know for sure what any of the martyrs actually thought, did or said.

While I do not give this point of view a bit of credibility, I think it should illustrate to Catholics the folly of trying to use the historicity of scriptures as the provable starting point for our faith.
It is easily swept aside by someone who does not believe.

 

[Cyberseeker]

SonOfMan:

Antiquities of the Jews was written in 93-94 AD, Josephus being born in 37 AD, and Josephus not believing in Jesus as the Christ. What he’s written is only a rehashing of what he’s heard and what people claim, not about what he experienced or saw.

Get real son. I was born in 1946, and I’m quite satisfied believing what people said about Hitler dying a few years earlier than me. You are making an issue where there is no issue!