Biblical Historicity

[Philawallafox]

Let's stop derailing BrotherH's thread lol. (sorry Brother!)

This can be the new thread to debate the historical reliability of the bible. So far we're comparing and contrasting the Gospels.

Quote from: GuineaPig on Today at 06:38:00 AM
Except there was this city state called Rome, and they liked to keep records and stuff.

Yeah there was. So why would Luke have contradicted the Roman records if he was writing to a Roman official We don't have all of rome's records and there is already evidence to suggest that Luke was right anyway. Why is it so unlikely that he knew what he was talking about? He was a doctor, not some knucklehead.

Ready fire aim!

[rumborak]

You know, not that it really is my issue, but I find this artificial requirement for the Bible to be 100% literally and historically correct to be a sign of poor faith.
Even the CC abandoned the idea of literalism, and if there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that the CC doesn't give an inch in matters of faith unless it feels it is absolutely inevitable.
The Bible was written by men, each with their own aspirations that went into the manuscripts. How else could it be that Jesus' quotes in the gospels are of different wording? Or that John disagrees on the order of events?

Regarding the specific question, the Roman records are simple and plain beyond doubt. I'm sorry, I know you want your apostle to be the hero of the day, but it's one dude against Roman maps that thousands of people found their way by.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

Rumby, you definitely have a good head on your shoulders, but I've noticed in several threads that your knowledge of the RCC and how it relates to the other churches is really shakey at best. In matters of faith, RCC isn't just the most likely to give an inch-- many would claim they've already given several miles.

[rumborak]

PC, the fact that you consider the CC to have given in a mile is exactly my point.
Look at it, the CC sits on a huge stockpile of biblical manuscripts and employs a staggering amount of scholars, I believe whose piety is without doubt (if you think either the scholars or the Pope aren't pious enough, well...)
So, if there was a way to show literal and historical exactness of the Bible, it would have been a field day for the Catholic Church. They would have been the first to be able to show it (they've been at it for a looong time), and thus they could have said "Not only are we the original church, we also show you the literal truth of the Bible."

But they didn't. In fact, they went the other way, and officially admitted that the Bible can not be considered literally exact. Why would an organization of such magnitude admit something like this, when it could spell a lot of doubt on their own teachings? Simply because they saw exactly the same stuff in the manuscripts that we are discussing here. Mistakes, bad translations, plagiarism, the gospels are full of them.
The Protestant churches, at least some, seem to be stuck in a race against each other of who can dislodge their common sense the most in order to look the most pious. "Hah, I believe the Bible is literally true, despite of all the evidence that's presented!". "Hah, heathen, I believe the earth is flat and the flood happened!!"

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

Also, the willingness of the Catholic Church to step away from literalism and accept scientific authority on issues such as evolution, cosmology, etc. is a very positive step with regards to the education of its own members.  While still draconian in other measures, it's at least something that they can modernize on some issues and realize that the Bible is a book of faith, not a substitute for science or history.

[Perpetual Change]

Has the CC really abandoned literalism in every context, though? I'm sure their are certain things, like the existence of Jesus, that even scholars in the CC would be excited to historically validate. I'll admit I don't know if they've thrown in the towel in that respect.

[rumborak]

I think the CC shifted its focus on finding the underlying truth, the one that "permeates" the documents.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

The thing is, that's not actually what I'd consider "not giving an inch" in matters of faith. As you say, they've shifted their focus. Maybe the RCC　wants to keep up with a certain ideology, but it'd be a mistake to say that good scholarship doesn't exist from other Christian perspectives.

I'm not inclined to argue that everything the Bible says is historically accurate, mind you. But where historical lacuna exists, I don't see why the records kept in the Bible are inferior to any other ancient source. Plenty of ancient sources are of sketchy historicity, but that doesn't mean they're not important to historicity.  

[hefdaddy42]

I wouldn't be so quick to disregard it. Luke and Matthew both wrote their gospels within one generation of Jesus passing (they had to matthew was one of the 12 and Luke was probably one of the 120 you find in Acts 1)

Well, we don't know either of those things for sure. 

an historical discrepancy would have been obvious to the people of the time. If there is an apparent contradiction then it's much more likely that there's something we don't know than something he doesn't know.

Not really.  And the ancients didn't always care about "historical discrepancies."

So why would Luke have contradicted the Roman records if he was writing to a Roman official

We don't know that he was writing to a Roman official.

We don't have all of rome's records and there is already evidence to suggest that Luke was right anyway. Why is it so unlikely that he knew what he was talking about? He was a doctor, not some knucklehead.

We don't know that the author of Luke was a doctor, but I agree that he probably wasn't a knucklehead.

[j]

Look at it, the CC sits on a huge stockpile of biblical manuscripts and employs a staggering amount of scholars, I believe whose piety is without doubt (if you think either the scholars or the Pope aren't pious enough, well...)
So, if there was a way to show literal and historical exactness of the Bible, it would have been a field day for the Catholic Church. They would have been the first to be able to show it (they've been at it for a looong time), and thus they could have said "Not only are we the original church, we also show you the literal truth of the Bible."

This is a good observation, and coupled with what GuineaPig said, why I tend to hold the CC in higher regard from a biblical scholarship standpoint than most Christian sects.  They're often demonized by Protestants for obvious reasons--some theological, some residual and psychosocial--but the fact is they have the resources, scholarship, and history that no other single Christian group has.

I think that with regard to official teaching, they're ass-backwards on a lot of things, from theological stuff that has little backing to issues of perceived "morality", but in general, they definitely lead the pack on biblical scholarship.

The Protestant churches, at least some, seem to be stuck in a race against each other of who can dislodge their common sense the most in order to look the most pious. "Hah, I believe the Bible is literally true, despite of all the evidence that's presented!". "Hah, heathen, I believe the earth is flat and the flood happened!!"

  I do get this vibe a lot of times.  Mainstream Christianity in the U.S. seems to be almost exclusively about outward appearances, at least in the areas where I've lived.

it'd be a mistake to say that good scholarship doesn't exist from other Christian perspectives.

I agree, that would be a mistake.  But the point is, the CC has been around for so long and there have been so many theologians and thinkers throughout its history, that it has a lot of very fleshed out (and relatively diverse, in some respects) and well-founded theologies.  Not to mention that they have all the manuscripts and other historical resources as well, due to their longevity.

Of course there is plenty of good non-Catholic biblical scholarship too, but not from the type of people that pick up the bible and read it in a vacuum, which is what is encouraged in the majority of Protestant churches I have had any experience with.

-J

[Vivace]

Has the CC really abandoned literalism in every context, though? I'm sure their are certain things, like the existence of Jesus, that even scholars in the CC would be excited to historically validate. I'll admit I don't know if they've thrown in the towel in that respect.

Actually there are plenty of books and historians who HAVE historically validated the existance of a man named Jesus for which the Bible speaks about. And also let's not forget, the New Testemant is a series of letters, mostly by a single man by the name of Paul who never met Jesus but met and talked with those people who did. There is historical evidence for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, etc who all wrote letters and books about Christ. Million dollar question is, why can't these letters be taken as historical documents that tell of a real man named Jesus? There are also Roman letters which collaberate Christ's execution. Granted these documents are 2000 years old but they have certainly gone through enough study and research to at least give them some credit. I'm quite surprised that just because these letters just happen to be in some book people don't want to believe in, the letters themselves that were written "before" the Bible even existed must be considered fairy tales. I'm not saying just because someone wrote a letter means the letter is 100% true, what I am saying is that I call foul when it comes to people taking the New Testament letters and dismissing them outright but accepting documents older than these as historically accurate. That is we will believe in documents that tell of an Emperor named Pontius Pilate but we won't believe in documents that tell of a man named Jesus Christ.

[bosk1]

There is historical evidence for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, etc who all wrote letters and books about Christ. Million dollar question is, why can't these letters be taken as historical documents that tell of a real man named Jesus?

I'm not sure what you are objecting to.  They are historical documents that tell of a real man named Jesus.

Paul . . . never met Jesus 

Well, actually, he did meet Jesus, but that's a different issue.

[rumborak]

I think people trying to dismiss all that is in the gospels are stupid. I am pretty sure there was a man named Jesus, and I'm pretty sure the basic stuff about him is correct too, that is, his teachings, his crucifixion etc.
But then other stuff can be reasonably dismissed. The resurrection section was a good example of that; it doesn't exist in the oldest fragments, it is of different literary style, and overall it feels tacked on anyway. I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that Jesus did not rise from the dead to talk to the apostles.

I personally, as a non-believer, find it actually refreshing to read the Bible under the starting point that the more outrageous stuff was tacked on. Because frankly, those parts of the gospels (especially in John) make me feel somebody is trying to sell me something. That is, it seems to me the writer is adding the flashy stuff to convince me of what he's writing there.
When read without the flashy stuff, I find I actually appreciate Jesus much more than with it. Because then there is a clear figure that stands out that has outstanding morals and excellent teachings. The flashy stuff, IMHO, only muddies the waters and makes it an unconvincing sales pitch. Not only that, I find a lot of believers get blinded by the flashy stuff and lose what (IMHO) Jesus was really about.

rumborak

[sirbradford117]

I think people trying to dismiss all that is in the gospels are stupid. I am pretty sure there was a man named Jesus, and I'm pretty sure the basic stuff about him is correct too, that is, his teachings, his crucifixion etc.
But then other stuff can be reasonably dismissed. The resurrection section was a good example of that; it doesn't exist in the oldest fragments, it is of different literary style, and overall it feels tacked on anyway. I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that Jesus did not rise from the dead to talk to the apostles.

I personally, as a non-believer, find it actually refreshing to read the Bible under the starting point that the more outrageous stuff was tacked on. Because frankly, those parts of the gospels (especially in John) make me feel somebody is trying to sell me something. That is, it seems to me the writer is adding the flashy stuff to convince me of what he's writing there.
When read without the flashy stuff, I find I actually appreciate Jesus much more than with it. Because then there is a clear figure that stands out that has outstanding morals and excellent teachings. The flashy stuff, IMHO, only muddies the waters and makes it an unconvincing sales pitch. Not only that, I find a lot of believers get blinded by the flashy stuff and lose what (IMHO) Jesus was really about.

rumborak

Your opinions are well-thought out Rumby, even though as a believer I disagree.  May I point out one sticking point from your post:  without Christ' resurrection, Jesus is nothing.  The "flashy stuff" is what convinces the Christian.  He could have been the best moral teacher to have ever lived, but without his rising from the dead, defeating death and bringing new life to believers, none of it really matters.

[rumborak]

I don't see that at all really. He would still be the son of God, he would still lead people into the kingdom of God through him. And he would still have died for our sins.
I know the resurrection has been woven into the theological fabric as a supposed necessity for one's salvation, but I don't see how it's actually necessary at all. I find Jesus stands strong enough on his own, without resurrection and parting of skies etc.

I do get your point though about "The "flashy stuff" is what convinces the Christian." That's obviously the reason why it was tacked on in the first place, to convince/persuade people with it. It's lamentable that people only listen to something when the fireworks go off alongside of it, but it also has the effect that people miss the message.

rumborak

[Adami]

Your opinions are well-thought out Rumby, even though as a believer I disagree.  May I point out one sticking point from your post:  without Christ' resurrection, Jesus is nothing.  The "flashy stuff" is what convinces the Christian.  He could have been the best moral teacher to have ever lived, but without his rising from the dead, defeating death and bringing new life to believers, none of it really matters.

That's a pretty sad thing.

[sirbradford117]

I know the resurrection has been woven into the theological fabric as a supposed necessity for one's salvation, but I don't see how it's actually necessary at all. I find Jesus stands strong enough on his own, without resurrection and parting of skies etc.


rumborak

So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death?  Perhaps just the strength of his miracles??  Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.

[Adami]

So basically you're saying that if there isn't a savior or reward involved, there's no point to being good moral people?

[rumborak]

So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death?  Perhaps just the strength of his miracles??  Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.

I dunno dude, but isn't that a statement of the bankruptcy of your faith? That is, you will only believe in Jesus if he lays down the gauntlet? Christianity is supposedly about unconditional faith; looks like a giant condition on your willingness to believe there.
And again, I'm not particularly surprised. I think the wonders and miracles are really the selling point for many Christians out there.

rumborak

[j]

Well, it's the miracles and rising from the dead that would separate him from just being a good teacher and a stand-up dude.  That's the stuff that *requires* faith, IMO, and it's one of my problems with Christianity.

There have been a lot of great teachers throughout history.  But most people don't worship them.

I like the moral code that Jesus preached.  I think it's one of the best, practically speaking, that anybody could choose to live their life by, and I generally try to follow it for the most part.  But I don't consider myself a Christian, because faith is supposed to be such a central part of it.  And the things that require faith are the things that are the most "out-there" for a relatively skeptical dude like me: the resurrection and all the performing of miracles, etc.

-J

[sirbradford117]

So basically you're saying that if there isn't a savior or reward involved, there's no point to being good moral people?

No, not in the least.  I can be a good, moral person without Christ.

So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death?  Perhaps just the strength of his miracles??  Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.

I dunno dude, but isn't that a statement of the bankruptcy of your faith? That is, you will only believe in Jesus if he lays down the gauntlet? Christianity is supposedly about unconditional faith; looks like a giant condition on your willingness to believe there.

rumborak

I am a believer because of the whole package, not conditional on any one aspect.

[Ħ]

So basically you're saying that if there isn't a savior or reward involved, there's no point to being good moral people?

No, not in the least.  I can be a good, moral person without Christ.

So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death?  Perhaps just the strength of his miracles??  Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.

I dunno dude, but isn't that a statement of the bankruptcy of your faith? That is, you will only believe in Jesus if he lays down the gauntlet? Christianity is supposedly about unconditional faith; looks like a giant condition on your willingness to believe there.

rumborak

I am a believer because of the whole package, not conditional on any one aspect.

1)  Actually, being a Christian means that you admit that you aren't a moral person.  I can't tell you how sick I am of "holier-than-thou" types. 

2)  The only person who's faith was perfect was Christ's.  Our faith is shoddy at best, and is rarely unconditional.  Which is another reason why we suck.

[Philawallafox]

So basically you're saying that if there isn't a savior or reward involved, there's no point to being good moral people?

If there isn't a saviour involved there is no Christianity. Living a moral and good life is extra curricular.

So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death?  Perhaps just the strength of his miracles??  Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.

I dunno dude, but isn't that a statement of the bankruptcy of your faith? That is, you will only believe in Jesus if he lays down the gauntlet? Christianity is supposedly about unconditional faith; looks like a giant condition on your willingness to believe there.

rumborak

Christianity hinges solely on Christ's resurrection. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead he din't defeat death. If he didn't defeat death he didn't demosntrate his power above sin. If Jesus is not more powerful than sin then what we believe is for nought. This is why we believe in the historicity of the bible. It says Jesus defeated death and came back to life. Ergo he defeated death and came back to life. Let's get back to the topic people.

[Ħ]

So basically you're saying that if there isn't a savior or reward involved, there's no point to being good moral people?

If there isn't a saviour involved there is no Christianity. Living a moral and good life is extra curricular.

So what else could it be that shows He has the power to defeat death?  Perhaps just the strength of his miracles??  Anybody can teach cool things and not be a Savior.

I dunno dude, but isn't that a statement of the bankruptcy of your faith? That is, you will only believe in Jesus if he lays down the gauntlet? Christianity is supposedly about unconditional faith; looks like a giant condition on your willingness to believe there.

rumborak

Christianity hinges solely on Christ's resurrection. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead he din't defeat death. If he didn't defeat death he didn't demosntrate his power above sin. If Jesus is not more powerful than sin then what we believe is for nought. This is why we believe in the historicity of the bible. It says Jesus defeated death and came back to life. Ergo he defeated death and came back to life. Let's get back to the topic people.

1 cor 15 ftw.

[rumborak]

Christianity hinges solely on Christ's resurrection.

Ok, let's hear it.

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead he din't defeat death.

Yup, I follow.

If he didn't defeat death he didn't demosntrate his power above sin.

Err, no comprende. Please expound; I do not see a correlation between mastering death and the power over sin.
Besides, I believe the term is "he died for our sins", not "he got resurrected for our sins".

rumborak

[Adami]

If he didn't defeat death he didn't demosntrate his power above sin.

Err, no comprende. Please expound; I do not see a correlation between mastering death and the power of sin.
Besides, I believe the term is "he died for our sins", not "he got resurrected for our sins".

rumborak

I had to think about it for a minute, but it made sense. He died for their sins, he took the punishment. Then coming back from the dead would mean was able to rise above the price of sin, or sin itself.

[rumborak]

The price of something is not the same as the thing itself. He might have overcome the price of sin, but that is, if anything, more bothersome, since he never paid it after all. In my humble opinion, the only way to truly pay the price for the son of God would be to completely die; that is, giving up his seat next to God. I mean, look at it; his death lasted a mere 3 days, then he is alive again and ascends to the seat next to God. I dunno, but where is the sacrifice?

rumborak

[Adami]

The price of something is not the same as the thing itself. He might have overcome the price of sin, but that is, if anything, more bothersome, since he never paid it after all.

rumborak

I dunno, you'll get to hear what paul says about it in a little while I'm sure.

[Ħ]

Suppose you are doing some research, and you stumble along the fact that this single individual named Jesus was bodily resurrected (just play along, even if you disagree).  So you think, how did this guy get resurrected?  And how is there any way I can achieve this resurrection as well?

So, the natural place to get this question is to ask Jesus how he did it.  Since he's obviously not around anymore, we have to dive into the past to see what he has already said.  We see that he says he is the Son of God, and that he died for the sins of all mankind, and that he endorses the Old Testament.  Those are crazy claims, but if this guy rose from the dead, defying everything we know about life and death...then he earns at least some credibilty on the issue of life and death.

So, while we don't instinctive know about "sin" or how sin causes death, we can find out.

And rumby, he DID pay it.  No one said he didn't.  He paid it, and rose as evidence that it was paid.  If he rose without it being paid, he would have just died again...

[rumborak]

So, say I consciously take the blame for somebody else's heinous murder, and end up getting life in jail for it. But, I go in, knowing that my big buddy will get me out in three days anyway. Did I sacrifice anything?

rumborak

[Ħ]

So, say I consciously take the blame for somebody else's heinous murder, and end up getting life in jail for it. But, I go in, knowing that my big buddy will get me out in three days anyway. Did I sacrifice anything?

rumborak

That's a theological question in which I am interested in the answer to as well.

But we are talking about history...we don't necessarily need to know why something happened the way it did, but what actually happened.  Once we figure out what, than we can ask why.

[ehra]

I always took the whole "eternal life" / "saved from death" thing to just mean that you get to spend the rest of eternity chilling up in Heaven. Why does Jesus have to physically come back to life to "cheat death"?

[rumborak]

So, say I consciously take the blame for somebody else's heinous murder, and end up getting life in jail for it. But, I go in, knowing that my big buddy will get me out in three days anyway. Did I sacrifice anything?

rumborak

That's a theological question in which I am interested in the answer to as well.

But we are talking about history...we don't necessarily need to know why something happened the way it did, but what actually happened.  Once we figure out what, than we can ask why.

Err, the thread started out with the discussion that the resurrection part was tacked on, and was very likely not part of the original manuscripts. If anything, historical evidence points against it.

BTW, in these discussions, many of which come down to "who was Jesus actually, and what did Paul add on later? ", i always have to think of this scene :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=EJvRdwqctn0

rumborak

[eric42434224]

great movie scene....makes me want to actually see the whole movie.

[Implode]

So, say I consciously take the blame for somebody else's heinous murder, and end up getting life in jail for it. But, I go in, knowing that my big buddy will get me out in three days anyway. Did I sacrifice anything?

Also, there was a lot of physical torture going on with Jesus.