My Journey From Being an Atheist to an Agnostic to an Calvinist Christian

[bhsmte]

Some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, others are not. It doesn't have to be, and it's not as a matter of fact, that historians treat the Bible either as an entirely abstract work which is meant to convey theological concepts OR as a piece of history containing nothing else but facts about the world(s) it is meant to describe.

Also, who determines and makes final judgment on which parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which aren't?

 

[Scipio]

Also, who determines and makes final judgment on which parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which aren't?

Historians.

This was not a question about how we ought to interpret the Bible more generally (my answer to that question would be the standard Catholic answer). But rather how historians view the bible - this was your original point which I took up.

 

[Faith Unites]

Exegis will help with that as well

 

[bhsmte]

Historians.

This was not a question about how we ought to interpret the Bible more generally (my answer to that question would be the standard Catholic answer). But rather how historians view the bible - this was your original point which I took up.

Historian's work can determine which parts of the bible are historically credible, but many people take portions of the bible literally that are not historically credible.

From a theological standpoint, that wouldn't leave you with much.

 

[Scipio]

Historian's work can determine which parts of the bible are historically credible, but many people take portions of the bible literally that are not historically credible.

From a theological standpoint, that wouldn't leave you with much.

Many people do take portions of the bible literally that aren't historically reliable. But trace our discussion and you'll see that all I am doing is disputing your claim that historians do not treat the Bible as a historically reliable document. My response was that it depends which parts of the bible you're referring to. Some are regarded as reliable others aren't.

 

[bhsmte]

Many people do take portions of the bible literally that aren't historically reliable. But trace our discussion and you'll see that all I am doing is disputing your claim that historians do not treat the Bible as a historically reliable document. My response was that it depends which parts of the bible you're referring to. Some are regarded as reliable others aren't.

Lets take the NT as an example. Most objective historians will state; there are bits and pieces that are historically accurate, but as a whole, the NT is not considered a historically credible group of writings, but instead a work of theology.

Considering the authors of the gospels are anonymous, they were written 40-70 years after Jesus lived and it has been shown, verses have been added and or edited from the oldest available copies, it creates a bit of a problem. Add in, there are little to no contemporary writings to look to, the credibility issue grows.

This is why the bulk of the work must be taken on faith and there is nothing wrong with that, for those that choose to do so.

 

[Faith Unites]

I think out goes without saying that Biblical interpretation presents a multitude of problems (it is a large reason that the Catholic Creeds were established in the first place). On top on these interpretations you also run into problems with continuatinism. Many cults have been created using the Bible and some of them have even turned into religions. However, these are not immovable obstacles. In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.

 

[Faith Unites]

I think you may be overstating some of the problems with the New Testament text. Even Bart Ehrman agrees that 90 to 95% of the NT is error free and only about 1% of the errors are anything significant and even then they do not effect the doctrine. You hardly need to take the text on faith. You need faith with its message but you don't need faith in its overall historical credibility.

 

[bhsmte]

I think you may be overstating some of the problems with the New Testament text. Even Bart Ehrman agrees that 90 to 95% of the NT is error free and only about 1% of the errors are anything significant and even then they do not effect the doctrine. You hardly need to take the text on faith. You need faith with its message but you don't need faith in its overall historical credibility.

I am familiar with Ehrman's work.

The problem here is, we are talking about two different things. One is, is the text an accurate reflection on what man put to paper. The other question is, is what man put to paper, credible from a historical perspective.

I would agree with your percentages regarding text, but I would ask you to also explore what Ehrman's opinion is on historical credibility of that same text. If you do, this is what you will find out, he believes parts of the NT are historically accurate, but much of it is not credible from a historical perspective. Ehrman's position is; the NT is a work of theology, not a work of accurate history.

Man can write whatever he desires in a book, determining the historical credibility of the same, is a different story.

 

[Faith Unites]

You can't prove miracles from a historical standpoint (there is simply no avenue to do so). This is something that will never be overcome. However, it is safe to say that the apostles believed that Jesus was resurrected. So while we may never be able to prove that a resurrection ever occurred, we can say that the authors believed it happened. Now there are really only a few conclusions from this point. !) it happened 2) mass hallucination 3) they made the whole thing up. Each point presents its own set of problems for our logical linear minds.

 

[BL2KTN]

You can't prove miracles from a historical standpoint (there is simply no avenue to do so). This is something that will never be overcome. However, it is safe to say that the apostles believed that Jesus was resurrected. So while we may never be able to prove that a resurrection ever occurred, we can say that the authors believed it happened. Now there are really only a few conclusions from this point. !) it happened 2) mass hallucination 3) they made the whole thing up. Each point presents its own set of problems for our logical linear minds.

Or 4) even the apostles are loosely based on real people, but aren't historically accurate in the bible.

 

[Faith Unites]

Or 4) even the apostles are loosely based on real people, but aren't historically accurate in the bible.

You might have a hard time getting scholars to stand beside that one. Ancient antiquity didn't really provide room for Christianity to spread based on false witness. 40-50 years is hardly enough time for legend to develop.

 

[BL2KTN]

You might have a hard time getting scholars to stand beside that one. Ancient antiquity didn't really provide room for Christianity to spread based on false witness. 40-50 years is hardly enough time for legend to develop.

The sad thing is you're not joking.

Scholars already recognize the apostles - as recorded in the four canonized gospels - are loosely based on reality. Take Judas for example... in each later-written gospel, he becomes more and more evil. In Mark he's an apostle fulfilling a prophecy; by John he's like Satan himself at the Last Supper. There were Jewish gospels, which were almost definitely more accurate, but they were destroyed and gentile gospels were canonized which pretend to be from historical observers (but they're not, and it's obvious because they screw up Jewish traditions over and over and over, geography over and over and over, etc).

 

[KnowtheSilence]

You might have a hard time getting scholars to stand beside that one. Ancient antiquity didn't really provide room for Christianity to spread based on false witness. 40-50 years is hardly enough time for legend to develop.

50 years after the Persian Wars, Herodotus wrote that the temple at Delphi defended itself with magic weapons and lightning, and that a flood wiped out a party of Persian soldiers who desecrated a statue of Poseidon. Historically accurate?

 

[Faith Unites]

The sad thing is you're not joking.

Scholars already recognize the apostles - as recorded in the four canonized gospels - are loosely based on reality. Take Judas for example... in each later-written gospel, he becomes more and more evil. In Mark he's an apostle fulfilling a prophecy; by John he's like Satan himself at the Last Supper. There were Jewish gospels, which were almost definitely more accurate, but they were destroyed and gentile gospels were canonized which pretend to be from historical observers (but they're not, and it's obvious because they screw up Jewish traditions over and over and over, geography over and over and over, etc).

Not sure what you are talking about here. What Jewish Gospels are you referring to? (I'm genuinely curious) There are no doctrinal differences in the variances. Historians also agree that these variations actually make it more credible.

 

[Faith Unites]

50 years after the Persian Wars, Herodotus wrote that the temple at Delphi defended itself with magic weapons and lightning, and that a flood wiped out a party of Persian soldiers who desecrated a statue of Poseidon. Historically accurate?

The oldest corroborating text is like 700 years after the fact.

 

[BL2KTN]

Not sure what you are talking about here. What Jewish Gospels are you referring to? (I'm genuinely curious) There are no doctrinal differences in the variances. Historians also agree that these variations actually make it more credible.

I like that you say "historians also agree," as if it is a monolithic group.

No. No, historians do not agree that variations make it more credible. That Judas kills himself in a multitude of ways in the various New Testament writings does not make them more credible - it makes at least one of them wrong. That Jesus has three different accounts of his last words does not make them more credible - it makes at least two wrong. That one has Jesus condemn all divorce and one has Jesus condemn all divorce except when adultery occurs does not make them more credible - it makes them contradictory and stupid (according to Jesus, you may beat your wife to a pulp and she has no recourse, but you kiss another woman and she can leave you). It is ridiculous.

Jewish-Christian gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bhsmte]

I like that you say "historians also agree," as if it is a monolithic group.

No. No, historians do not agree that variations make it more credible. That Judas kills himself in a multitude of ways in the various New Testament writings does not make them more credible - it makes at least one of them wrong. That Jesus has three different accounts of his last words does not make them more credible - it makes at least two wrong. That one has Jesus condemn all divorce and one has Jesus condemn all divorce except when adultery occurs does not make them more credible - it makes them contradictory and stupid (according to Jesus, you may beat your wife to a pulp and she has no recourse, but you kiss another woman and she can leave you). It is ridiculous.

Jewish-Christian gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are correct regarding what historians look for to give credibility to a story.

They don't want the stories to be word for word the same (which actually parts of the gospels are), they want the stories to corroborate each other, without being identical. The gospels runs into trouble on both accounts, because the gospels differ on some important points. Also, the addition of verses to Mark, so it corresponds with the other gospels, doesn't help either.

 

[Cearbhall]

You might have a hard time getting scholars to stand beside that one. Ancient antiquity didn't really provide room for Christianity to spread based on false witness. 40-50 years is hardly enough time for legend to develop.

Twelve is a symbolic number in the Bible, and we know that the gospels weren't written by any of the men in this group. It's entirely possible that the scribes were lacking this information. I doubt people spent time memorizing the hometowns and parentage of twelve men and passed this information on for generations without error.

 

[Faith Unites]

Greco roman biographies did not have to live up to the same standards as our biographies today. If you look at Plutarch's work you will see countless contradictions. However, often times people assume that the Bible is contradicting itself when in reality enough exegesis has not taken place to understand how and what is actually being said. The so called contradictions of the death of Judas is not a contradiction at all. LNC is not broken here. Judas hanged himself and then Judas fell down. Also, Paul talks about divorce in 1 Corinthians and references the exception in Matthew. It is quite possible that Mark does not feel the need to comment on this exception because it is so well known. Jesus never says its okay to beat your wife, thats ridiculous.