Christian- 90% of us suck

[Faith No More]

How exactly do you decide what the 'sane' stuff is? Because I'd wager every non-literalist Christian would say "I don't believe the insane stuff", and yet would have vastly differing views.

And better yet, if it's littered with insanity, why trust the sane stuff at all?

[dennyg]

Just not the insane stuff.

How exactly do you decide what the 'sane' stuff is? Because I'd wager every non-literalist Christian would say "I don't believe the insane stuff", and yet would have vastly differing views.

The only thing that can't be scientifically or archaeologically vouched for that I believe is Jesus' resurrection. A lot of the Bible is early civilized man attempting to explain things way out of their league

---

And better yet, if it's littered with insanity, why trust the sane stuff at all?

Because a lot of it has been found to be historically accurate

[robvalue]

Are you aware that the first account (from which other gospels were copied) of the ressurection is widely considered to be a forgery?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Mark wasn't even an eye witness in the first place, his whole gospel is entirely hearsay. (As are the rest of the gospels.) And the ressurection quite possibly didn't even make it into that, but was added on later to "help" the story.

Just thought you'd be interested

I've mentioned it to christians before on here, but forgeries don't seem to bother them at all.

As for accuracy, the only way we know any of it is true is by confirming it ourselves. It's an error to assume any other part of the book is also true by association, especially when so much of it is clearly false.

[Faith No More]

Because a lot of it has been found to be historically accurate

And a lot of it has been found to be inaccurate.

Regardless, how does historical accuracy equate to ideological legitimacy? Why would using times and places correctly mean that its supernatural claims are true?

[dennyg]

Are you aware that the first account (from which other gospels were copied) of the ressurection is widely considered to be a forgery?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Mark wasn't even an eye witness in the first place, his whole gospel is entirely hearsay. (As are the rest of the gospels.) And the ressurection quite possibly didn't even make it into that, but was added on later to "help" the story.

Just thought you'd be interested

I've mentioned it to christians before on here, but forgeries don't seem to bother them at all.

As for accuracy, the only way we know any of it is true is by confirming it ourselves. It's an error to assume any other part of the book is also true by association, especially when so much of it is clearly false.

According to THAT source the resurrection is in there. But I can give you all sorts of evidence for the authenticity of the NT if you'd like, though no doubt there are some minor additions here and there.
There are so many gospels though. The Council of Nicaea and a few other church meetings picked the four in the NT because they were the most consistent, not overly fantastical or secularized (Ex: one omitted gospel had Jesus flying, one hinted at a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene), and were not just words or only a portion of Jesus' life.
No gospel was put to paper until 20 years after Jesus' death at the earliest and only two can be accurately said to be authored by a disciple. But what gets lost is that oral storytelling was the norm then. Some people memorized the whole Bible/Quran. It's pretty crazy. So I think the story undoubtedly changed slightly before its transcription but not enough to make it largely inaccurate.
The two sources NOT in the NT considered very reliable by modern scholars are Q and the Gospel of Thomas.

Always interested

[Faith No More]

Twenty years is such a ridiculously long time to wait when your lord and savior has just been crucified.

[Whateverist]

With agreement on both sides concerning 90% of xtians, shall we discuss the degree to which we find the other 10% to suck?

[dennyg]

Because a lot of it has been found to be historically accurate

And a lot of it has been found to be inaccurate.

Regardless, how does historical accuracy equate to ideological legitimacy? Why would using times and places correctly mean that its supernatural claims are true?

It doesn't necessarily. But it's much more reliable if it gives a correct history, which the NT and some of the OT does.
Ex: if you find a Jewish Temple at a dig site with the inscription Solomon on it, which only the Bible/Torah mentions, that adds validity to other claims. Like Solomon, David and a whole host of Jewish kings, as well as towns not mentioned in other texts, have been uncovered. They've even found non-Biblical references to Goliath recently. For at least 2000 years the OT was the only mention of him. Things like this add credibility.

In the case for Jesus having some sort of supernatural ability, that actually has some non-Biblical evidence as well. Some rabbinical records from the time Jesus is said to have been alive talk of him as a 'magician.' They hated Jesus and ultimately forced Pontius Pilate to kill him, but that suggests they believed in his supernatural powers. They attributed it to witchcraft and not divinity is the only difference.
That extra-Biblical reference to Jesus having powers is, to me, the most compelling argument for him actually being what he claimed to be

---

With agreement on both sides concerning 90% of xtians, shall we discuss the degree to which we find the other 10% to suck?

Well tbh I only think hardcore fundamentalists who reject modern science and think dinosaurs were on Noah's ark suck. Too many actually think that, but it's probably more in the 30-40% range.
I'm fairly certain the Catholicism has accepted evolution, a 13 million year old universe, and even is pro-gay rights now. So it's only Protestants who think God penned the Bible himself that suck

[Faith No More]

It doesn't necessarily. But it's much more reliable if it gives a correct history, which the NT and some of the OT does.
Ex: if you find a Jewish Temple at a dig site with the inscription Solomon on it, which only the Bible/Torah mentions, that adds validity to other claims. Like Solomon, David and a whole host of Jewish kings, as well as towns not mentioned in other texts, have been uncovered. They've even found non-Biblical references to Goliath recently. For at least 2000 years the OT was the only mention of him. Things like this add credibility.

In the case for Jesus having some sort of supernatural ability, that actually has some non-Biblical evidence as well. Some rabbinical records from the time Jesus is said to have been alive talk of him as a 'magician.' They hated Jesus and ultimately forced Pontius Pilate to kill him, but that suggests they believed in his supernatural powers. They attributed it to witchcraft and not divinity is the only difference.
That extra-Biblical reference to Jesus having powers is, to me, the most compelling argument for him actually being what he claimed to be

Undoubtedly, any extra-biblical support for the bible's claims is going to be scientifically controversial to say the least, but I think the legitimacy of that evidence isn't a worthwhile debate. What I want to know is that why would the claims of someone that comes from a time and place that is rife with superstition and irrationality hold any significance at all? We didn't even start developing a good process to interpret the reality around us until the time of the Enlightenment, so why should someone believe a claim written down 1600 years prior?

[robvalue]

If you apply your normal scientific scepticism to the bible, do you think that the supernatural claims regarding jesus would stand up?

What makes you think any supernatural claims should be taken seriously, ever?

I've studied the bible a lot, and my conclusion is there is barely any evidence jesus actually existed at all, let alone did anything supernatural.

But let's say the accounts are 100% accurate of what people believed happened. Is that good enough evidence to say it actually happened? What evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude, for example, that I am jesus?

Sorry for the hard line of questions! If it's not what you're into, then I'll happily change the subject