Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[*Deidre*]

Some of it, I am. Aren't you?

[discipulus]

Some of it, I am.

"How can you believe, when you receive glory from others and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"

[*Deidre*]

Some of it, I am.

"How can you believe, when you receive glory from others and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"

Do you believe everything you read, discipulus?

Why don't you believe that Islam is "truth?"

[Minimalist]

Yes, that might be fun.
The topic could center around "how does one distinguish between an actual biography and a mere fable?"

I mean, there are ancient bios out there that we all accept without pause, so might be worthy of exploring. Philosophy section?

That's a very good question dear..especially when Plutarch was writing of mythological characters like Theseus and Romulus.

Of course, even Plutarch never bothered with the alleged "jesus." He died around 120 AD and apparently the whole jesus-thing hadn't gotten rolling by then.

[Fromper]

I guess the difficulty I personally have with the authenticity of the bible, other than the obvious issues with it, is that there is truly no independent evidence or verification of authorship or dating of the books included in the bible. Even historians are guessing, surmising. If you have ten "scholars" in the room, you'll get ten different answers. Even if they're subtly different.

So, that's one of the main problems I have with taking the Bible as a reliable history marker. (Putting aside the religious aspect of it for a moment)

Then you should be a historical skeptic with regards to every piece of ancient literature, not just the Bible.

I'm reminded of the Civil War class I took in college. On the first day, our professor pointed out that the Civil War was the first war in human history where the majority of the soldiers were literate, and left us literally thousands of diaries to study, so we really know what it was like for them. In earlier conflicts, it was mostly just the leaders, and sometimes only the winners, who left behind any sort of written account of what happened, so history books are full of self serving propaganda from the winners of various wars.

[discipulus]

"How can you believe, when you receive glory from others and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"

Do you believe everything you read, discipulus?

Why don't you believe that Islam is "truth?"

The Quran claims that Jesus never actually died from His crucifixion. This is flat out incorrect. Not only that, but the Quran claims to be the word for word dictation of God to Muhammad in Arabic. Since God cannot lie, it follows that therefore, the Quran is not the word of God.

So one reason ( I have several ) is that the Quran cannot be the Word of God because it got that (Jesus' death) wrong.

[Tonus]

Then you should be a historical skeptic with regards to every piece of ancient literature, not just the Bible.

I would expect that most people are. We take many historical claims at face value because we would be willing to accept changes to the narrative that would follow from new discoveries or knowledge. I doubt that many people, theists included, believe many of the fantastic claims in ancient literature. It's one thing to find an ancient parchment that tells us that there was a king and his nation waged war against another and conquered it because his war strategy worked very well. Without corroboration the story may be exaggerated or even completely false, but it doesn't describe anything we would believe to be impossible or highly improbable.

An ancient text that tells of a king who slew the fire-breathing dragon that threatened his people will be met with skepticism, even if there are other scrolls that tell the same or similar story. It describes something that people today would consider impossible or highly improbable (the existence of fire-breathing dragons).

We know of many religious tales and legends from the past, but even theists do not accept all of them. Even if they refer to a person that could reasonably have existed, the claims are met with doubt. We cannot prove that Vespasian did not perform miracles, or that Alexander the Great's army was not led to an oasis by ravens (at least one writer attributed it to snakes, perhaps this is their version of the purple/red issue). This is not reason enough to accept those claims.

[discipulus]

Then you should be a historical skeptic with regards to every piece of ancient literature, not just the Bible.

I'm reminded of the Civil War class I took in college. On the first day, our professor pointed out that the Civil War was the first war in human history where the majority of the soldiers were literate, and left us literally thousands of diaries to study, so we really know what it was like for them. In earlier conflicts, it was mostly just the leaders, and sometimes only the winners, who left behind any sort of written account of what happened, so history books are full of self serving propaganda from the winners of various wars.

And to be charitable, I can grant what you say is true.

But what follows?

That the above necessitates being historical skeptics?

No.

It means we need to endeavor to sift through the propaganda to come to the truth.

[Minimalist]

http://www.fullbooks.com/Co-Aytch-.html

Co. Aytch by Sam Watkins - First Tennessee Regiment. Interesting little book. Free download.

[discipulus]

Then you should be a historical skeptic with regards to every piece of ancient literature, not just the Bible.

I would expect that most people are. We take many historical claims at face value because we would be willing to accept changes to the narrative that would follow from new discoveries or knowledge. I doubt that many people, theists included, believe many of the fantastic claims in ancient literature. It's one thing to find an ancient parchment that tells us that there was a king and his nation waged war against another and conquered it because his war strategy worked very well. Without corroboration the story may be exaggerated or even completely false, but it doesn't describe anything we would believe to be impossible or highly improbable.

An ancient text that tells of a king who slew the fire-breathing dragon that threatened his people will be met with skepticism, even if there are other scrolls that tell the same or similar story. It describes something that people today would consider impossible or highly improbable (the existence of fire-breathing dragons).

We know of many religious tales and legends from the past, but even theists do not accept all of them. Even if they refer to a person that could reasonably have existed, the claims are met with doubt. We cannot prove that Vespasian did not perform miracles, or that Alexander the Great's army was not led to an oasis by ravens (at least one writer attributed it to snakes, perhaps this is their version of the purple/red issue). This is not reason enough to accept those claims.

Your qualm is with miracles.

If God exists, then He can also do miraculous things.

The question is, does God exist?

***************

What reason do we have to dismiss miracles as impossible?