Jesus never existed?

[hefdaddy42]

I was referring more to:

@William Wallace: I think you are a very clever poster and tend to make good arguments but you are jumping on people in this thread when they try to establish an argument that goes against your point of view. The arguments may be weak but if someone is unable to believe in Jesus then you should let them be.

But what he was talking about doesn't necessarily have anything to do with believing in Jesus.

[Super Dude]

I know, I was talking about the condescending way in which he frames his arguments. I believe, as GP said, that:

the accepted view of the Books of Exodus and Joshua is that the events they recount are not historical, and instead present an origin myth for the Jewish people, and that any textual study of the Bible would not reveal this.

WW's response was to attribute the flaw in my argument to "whatever silly sources I rely on," thereby assuming my knowledge base is inherently fallacious and my argument null. In other words, he jumps on people in this thread when they try to establish an argument that goes against his POV. And it might not even be an issue of a weak argument; the conceits by which one or the other of us chooses to confront problems is different.

[hefdaddy42]

Well, that depends.  Do you, in fact, rely on silly sources?

[Super Dude]

What do you consider silly?

[Scheavo]

WW's response was to attribute the flaw in my argument to "whatever silly sources I rely on," thereby assuming my knowledge base is inherently fallacious and my argument null.

He tries to do that a lot. Only his sources are good and proper, everyone else is "silly" and basically "amateurish academia."

Basically, it's genetically fallacious.

[hefdaddy42]

What do you consider silly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

[William Wallace]

WW's response was to attribute the flaw in my argument to "whatever silly sources I rely on," thereby assuming my knowledge base is inherently fallacious and my argument null.

He tries to do that a lot. Only his sources are good and proper, everyone else is "silly" and basically "amateurish academia."

Basically, it's genetically fallacious.

I don't think so. Someone brings up an objection which no serious historian entertains, and I don't think it's out of place to point that out.

[Super Dude]

What do you consider silly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

Well that wasn't *very* silly, was it?

I love that skit, good on ya.

WW's response was to attribute the flaw in my argument to "whatever silly sources I rely on," thereby assuming my knowledge base is inherently fallacious and my argument null.

He tries to do that a lot. Only his sources are good and proper, everyone else is "silly" and basically "amateurish academia."

Basically, it's genetically fallacious.

I don't think so. Someone brings up an objection which no serious historian entertains, and I don't think it's out of place to point that out.

Who said that they haven't? Then again, what do you consider as the threshold separating 'serious' historians from 'amateurs?'

[Nekov]

WW's response was to attribute the flaw in my argument to "whatever silly sources I rely on," thereby assuming my knowledge base is inherently fallacious and my argument null.

He tries to do that a lot. Only his sources are good and proper, everyone else is "silly" and basically "amateurish academia."

Basically, it's genetically fallacious.

I don't think so. Someone brings up an objection which no serious historian entertains, and I don't think it's out of place to point that out.

It's ok if you want to point out a flaw in someones argument but the way you do it makes us think that you are being condecending.

[Scheavo]

WW's response was to attribute the flaw in my argument to "whatever silly sources I rely on," thereby assuming my knowledge base is inherently fallacious and my argument null.

He tries to do that a lot. Only his sources are good and proper, everyone else is "silly" and basically "amateurish academia."

Basically, it's genetically fallacious.

I don't think so. Someone brings up an objection which no serious historian entertains, and I don't think it's out of place to point that out.

I'm sure no serious historian entertains the idea that Jesus, as a normal human being, didn't exist. I'm not sure anyone here has even said otherwise.

But to say that "no serious historian" doesn't basically believe in the innerancy of the Bible is just fucking ludicrous. Your church recently had Dr. Richard Carrier debate the issue, whom has a Ph.D in ancient history, and has done a lot regarding Christian history. But I guess he isn't a serious historian? You see, your qualification for a "serious historian" is that they agree with you.

[William Wallace]

WW's response was to attribute the flaw in my argument to "whatever silly sources I rely on," thereby assuming my knowledge base is inherently fallacious and my argument null.

He tries to do that a lot. Only his sources are good and proper, everyone else is "silly" and basically "amateurish academia."

Basically, it's genetically fallacious.

I don't think so. Someone brings up an objection which no serious historian entertains, and I don't think it's out of place to point that out.

I'm sure no serious historian entertains the idea that Jesus, as a normal human being, didn't exist. I'm not sure anyone here has even said otherwise.

But to say that "no serious historian" doesn't basically believe in the innerancy of the Bible is just fucking ludicrous. Your church recently had Dr. Richard Carrier debate the issue, whom has a Ph.D in ancient history, and has done a lot regarding Christian history. But I guess he isn't a serious historian? You see, your qualification for a "serious historian" is that they agree with you.

Who said every historian believes in biblical inerrancy? Certainly not I. I was specifically criticizing Super Dude's claim that "...a theological text can only be read as legitimate history to such a limited degree, given their propensity to exaggeration and straight-up fabrication."
Fact is, the Bible has been very well reconstructed relative to other first century literature. Text critics know in most cases which readings of a given verse have been altered or embellished. With that kind of knowledge, it's easier to determine what the Bible originally said and how reliable the information recorded in it is. In other words, his attempt to cast doubt on the historicity of "theological" texts is nonsense.

By the way, I know Carrier and have read several of his books. Though I disagree with him, he is a serious historian and I have a lot of respect for him.

 

[Scheavo]

Well I'm confused, because you've made it out before as if the kind of studies of the Bible in question are your reason and proof for gods existence. Meaning, its descriptions of miraculous and metaphysical events are accurate.

And the historical claims of Jesus' miracles are the embellishments the rest of us are talking about. You can't really say these are purely historical claims, as their truth would be, as you are aware, quite profound. In my experience, you don't always seem to distinguish between this, and it comes off as if you think anyone who questions the historical veracity of these miracles is being historically ignorant - whether thats intentional or not.

[Vivace]

Well I'm confused, because you've made it out before as if the kind of studies of the Bible in question are your reason and proof for gods existence. Meaning, its descriptions of miraculous and metaphysical events are accurate.

One thing to point out here is there are plenty of arguments on the existence of God without referring to Scripture. Just look at Anselm of Canturbery and Thomas Aquinas who both give a very convincing argument in that regard. Now before people jump all over that statement like some do, remember, you follow a philosophy that might have an argument against this. However these arguments are mostly likely made "for" those very same arguments. Today's arguments about the existence of God, Jesus and etc, are certainly nothing new.

And the historical claims of Jesus' miracles are the embellishments the rest of us are talking about. You can't really say these are purely historical claims, as their truth would be, as you are aware, quite profound. In my experience, you don't always seem to distinguish between this, and it comes off as if you think anyone who questions the historical veracity of these miracles is being historically ignorant - whether thats intentional or not.

Why not? They are events of historical literature much the same the Greek Myths are or King Arthur. They may contain elements that cannot be proven through human reason but they still reveal the history of humanity in that particular time and place. This is exactly what the bible means to a "true" historian. The Bible is a book of literature from another time and another place that can be studied much the same as any text of literature that reveals the human element contained within that particular text. We cannot use human reason when it comes to the miracles but that was not the author's intention. The miracles are God's revelation. They tell us something about God and what He is trying to say to us. Human reason cannot come to God's revelation without Holy Scripture thus was revelation was necessary.

Inerrancy is only through the human element of recording. God didn't dictate the Bible, but inspired the Bible. If it was dictated that removes the human element of free-will. We must be able to express this revelation freely in our own way or else we can never come to understand any of it. However, when it comes to the revelation of God, there is no error. The Bible doesn't teach us how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.

The Bible can be read in two ways, from "the Bible as history" or "the Bible as literature". Most of the time people only discuss the Bible as literature, but this is purely a subjective way of looking at it. The Bible as history is an objective way that tell us about the form of the literary passage, why it is written in that way, what it tells us about the person who wrote, the reason he wrote it that way, etc. It also tells us about the intention of the author as well. What was the author's message here? This is how we can come to accurate interpretations of revelation. Johan Sebantian Drey said it well, "the history of salvation is within human history". Our own history, comes through the revelation and the miracles.

What I find interesting though is most people want to read the Bible as "literature" but tend to talk about it as historical. That is, it's just a book, but even from that standpoint, it's a point that belongs in the fiction section much the same as The Illiad does. Interestingly enough historians don't do this with the Bible and I find it interesting that most don't ask the question why? And no it's has nothing to do with politics or power.

[William Wallace]

Well I'm confused, because you've made it out before as if the kind of studies of the Bible in question are your reason and proof for gods existence. Meaning, its descriptions of miraculous and metaphysical events are accurate.

And the historical claims of Jesus' miracles are the embellishments the rest of us are talking about. You can't really say these are purely historical claims, as their truth would be, as you are aware, quite profound. In my experience, you don't always seem to distinguish between this, and it comes off as if you think anyone who questions the historical veracity of these miracles is being historically ignorant - whether thats intentional or not.

Fair enough. Let me clarify. This thread started as a discussion about the historical Jesus, and then trailed off into textual reliability. On the latter point, I know of few historians who would throw up their hands and say, "the text is hosed." Most would say we can get close to the original reading of the New Testament. So, that the authors meant to record Jesus as a miracle worker is undeniable. Whether or not Jesus actually was is an entirely different argument. I obviously think he was, but for reasons unrelated to this discussion.


My complaint in this thread has been that people attempt to cast doubt on the claims of Christianity by claiming that the text hasn't been reliably transmitted down through the centuries. That's false.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

It is clear that the Genesis creation account was not written as a scientific text to describe the creation of the Universe and specifically, the Earth.  The Genesis account has a lot in common with the Psalms and with Job, both poetic types of literature.  That said, no telling how much time elapses from "In the beginning" to "Let there be light".  The creation "story" in particular is pretty stylized and isn't written in nearly the same way some of the other "history" books in the Old Testament are written.

I don't see Genesis having much in common with Psalms or Job at all.

I agree that Genesis isn't a scientific text.  But it is a descriptive text, and it explicitly describes creation as taking 6 days.

In English it does, absolutely.  But the Hebrew word yom, which most mainline English translations translate into the English word "day" is used in a lot of various ways throughout the Old Testament.  It is translated in the book of Joshua as "an age" or "a period of time".  Likely in Genesis it is a literal day.

You're right in saying that the Genesis account explicitly describes creation as taking six days.  However, in my reading, I've found that it describes most explicitly the creation of the Earth and her inhabitants in those six literal days.

Genesis is indeed a descriptive/narrative text.  I should have been more clear in my initial post, in that the creation account itself has more in common with Job or the Psalms stylistically in the original Hebrew than it does even with the rest of the Genesis narrative itself.

Sorry for the confusion.

yom is definitely a word with some flexibility, but the primary meaning is "day" and the context in Genesis (the evening and the morning) clearly indicates day.  Any attempt to render it as something other than a normal 24-hour period is usually done by someone who wants to sell you something.  I mean, believe it or don't believe it, that's up to you, but the text says "day."

Yes, it specifically describes the creation of the Earth, but it doesn't differentiate between the Earth and anything resembling any wider Universe; the ancient Jews had no concept of such things, so that makes sense.

I still see no real similarities between the creation account and Job or the Psalms.  But to each his own.

All great points, and all points taken.  I don't have my thoughts or beliefs nailed down quite yet on creation, but I see the flexibility in those first two chapters of Genesis and just have to wonder what all of that could mean.

[Super Dude]

Well I'm confused, because you've made it out before as if the kind of studies of the Bible in question are your reason and proof for gods existence. Meaning, its descriptions of miraculous and metaphysical events are accurate.

And the historical claims of Jesus' miracles are the embellishments the rest of us are talking about. You can't really say these are purely historical claims, as their truth would be, as you are aware, quite profound. In my experience, you don't always seem to distinguish between this, and it comes off as if you think anyone who questions the historical veracity of these miracles is being historically ignorant - whether thats intentional or not.

Fair enough. Let me clarify. This thread started as a discussion about the historical Jesus, and then trailed off into textual reliability. On the latter point, I know of few historians who would throw up their hands and say, "the text is hosed." Most would say we can get close to the original reading of the New Testament. So, that the authors meant to record Jesus as a miracle worker is undeniable. Whether or not Jesus actually was is an entirely different argument. I obviously think he was, but for reasons unrelated to this discussion.


My complaint in this thread has been that people attempt to cast doubt on the claims of Christianity by claiming that the text hasn't been reliably transmitted down through the centuries. That's false.

Oh, there's nothing special about Christian scripture, I'm skeptical of all religious scripture.

Although I can see where you're coming from now, and I wasn't proposing anything so extreme as that, but even given that our ability to arrive at the truth is still limited. And I'm sure many historians would acknowledge that.

[William Wallace]

And I'm sure many historians would acknowledge that.

Me too.

[Scheavo]

Well I'm confused, because you've made it out before as if the kind of studies of the Bible in question are your reason and proof for gods existence. Meaning, its descriptions of miraculous and metaphysical events are accurate.

One thing to point out here is there are plenty of arguments on the existence of God without referring to Scripture. Just look at Anselm of Canturbery and Thomas Aquinas who both give a very convincing argument in that regard. Now before people jump all over that statement like some do, remember, you follow a philosophy that might have an argument against this. However these arguments are mostly likely made "for" those very same arguments. Today's arguments about the existence of God, Jesus and etc, are certainly nothing new.

And the historical claims of Jesus' miracles are the embellishments the rest of us are talking about. You can't really say these are purely historical claims, as their truth would be, as you are aware, quite profound. In my experience, you don't always seem to distinguish between this, and it comes off as if you think anyone who questions the historical veracity of these miracles is being historically ignorant - whether thats intentional or not.

Why not? They are events of historical literature much the same the Greek Myths are or King Arthur. They may contain elements that cannot be proven through human reason but they still reveal the history of humanity in that particular time and place. This is exactly what the bible means to a "true" historian. The Bible is a book of literature from another time and another place that can be studied much the same as any text of literature that reveals the human element contained within that particular text. We cannot use human reason when it comes to the miracles but that was not the author's intention. The miracles are God's revelation. They tell us something about God and what He is trying to say to us. Human reason cannot come to God's revelation without Holy Scripture thus was revelation was necessary.

They may be based upon some actual event, but that does not mean that such actual events occurred as they are passed down. People at the time would see a solar eclipse, and attribute it to some supernatural cause, and not the deterministic route of the moon around the sun. Also, if we want to use this kind of logic, then we are left in a position where we have to follow and accept many conflicting beliefs. Why not follow the Greek Pantheon? Or the Egyptian? They have myths as well, and they're most likely based upon some factual events. But they contradict each other on theological levels, give different creation stories, give different reasons and morals for life.

Also, the difference between the Iliad and the Odyssey and the Bible is that no one reads the Iliad or the Odyssey thinking its a work inspired by God (even though it claims to be inspired by the Gods in the beginning), and there aren't entire religions based upon the works. The difference is the attribution and the acceptance of God, supernatural entities, and supernatural events and miracles. If people read the Iliad and the Odyssey, and started forming a religion based upon it, and fighting against each other over the claims made in those books, you'd probably see them treated a lot differently.

[Scheavo]

My complaint in this thread has been that people attempt to cast doubt on the claims of Christianity by claiming that the text hasn't been reliably transmitted down through the centuries. That's false.

To be clear what my point is, it's not so much that the text itself has been changed, it's that human society and the human mind has changed, altering how that same text is understood and received. Today, living in a modern society, with modern comforts, with modern technology, fundamentally alters how we perceive the world, and it effect how we understand everything.

Someone in the 5th century reading the Bible is going to understand it differently than someone now reading the same Bible. It's not an issue of the text, it's an issue of the subject and the mind reading said text.

[Super Dude]

Although I would like to add, because this was part of what I was saying, is that a good thousand or two years (actually probably way more than that, but let's just assume that timespan) passed between the stories that would eventually become the Bible being created and told, and their actual being written down. And so in that same fashion, Torah b-al'peh (Oral Torah) probably also changed with the progression of the human experience and the normal distortions you can expect from people not possessing perfect memories or having an agenda in twisting something.

[William Wallace]

Study oral transmission in the first century.

[Super Dude]

You gotta go farther back than that, bud.

[hefdaddy42]

Although I would like to add, because this was part of what I was saying, is that a good thousand or two years (actually probably way more than that, but let's just assume that timespan) passed between the stories that would eventually become the Bible being created and told, and their actual being written down. And so in that same fashion, Torah b-al'peh (Oral Torah) probably also changed with the progression of the human experience and the normal distortions you can expect from people not possessing perfect memories or having an agenda in twisting something.

Where do you get these numbers?  Scholars normally date the time of the Exodus to somewhere between 1500-1300 BCE; they were most probably written down in something resembling their current form sometime between the start of the monarchy in the United Kingdom (1020 BCE) and the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (722 BCE).

[Super Dude]

Actually recent scholarship thinks the actual writing of the Pentateuch may have been during the Babylonian exile.

And to answer your question, I go to a predominantly Jewish university with a major called Near Eastern and Judaic Studies. And actually, since this semester I'm in a class with a professor whose expertise is Biblical and Mishnaic history, would y'all like me to ask him his professional opinion?

[Vivace]

Actually recent scholarship thinks the actual writing of the Pentateuch may have been during the Babylonian exile.

And to answer your question, I go to a predominantly Jewish university with a major called Near Eastern and Judaic Studies. And actually, since this semester I'm in a class with a professor whose expertise is Biblical and Mishnaic history, would y'all like me to ask him his professional opinion?

1250BC is the approximate date of Moses and the Exodus. 1850 is the approximate date of Abraham in Canaan. 587 being the exile of Israel. Why so precise? This is because of records that we have which mark this date as being an accurate time of this event. The other dates have ambiguous information that make it harder to determine the actual date. Also what professional opinion are we getting? That the Bible today does not have "exactly" what was written down or told before? I think it's obvious that over time elements might become altered but it does fascinate me in knowing that throughout history the Church has actually "guarded" the traditions and texts and teachings that have been passed down. It's kinda like imagining that Rome has guarded the information passed down about their Emperors. I do find it funny that people like to cast doubt on the history of the bible but fail to take that same doubt and cast it on other historical events in the same era.

[Super Dude]

Actually recent scholarship thinks the actual writing of the Pentateuch may have been during the Babylonian exile.

And to answer your question, I go to a predominantly Jewish university with a major called Near Eastern and Judaic Studies. And actually, since this semester I'm in a class with a professor whose expertise is Biblical and Mishnaic history, would y'all like me to ask him his professional opinion?

1250BC is the approximate date of Moses and the Exodus. 1850 is the approximate date of Abraham in Canaan. 587 being the exile of Israel. Why so precise? This is because of records that we have which mark this date as being an accurate time of this event. The other dates have ambiguous information that make it harder to determine the actual date. Also what professional opinion are we getting? That the Bible today does not have "exactly" what was written down or told before? I think it's obvious that over time elements might become altered but it does fascinate me in knowing that throughout history the Church has actually "guarded" the traditions and texts and teachings that have been passed down. It's kinda like imagining that Rome has guarded the information passed down about their Emperors. I do find it funny that people like to cast doubt on the history of the bible but fail to take that same doubt and cast it on other historical events in the same era.

Who said I didn't?

[GuineaPig]

Actually recent scholarship thinks the actual writing of the Pentateuch may have been during the Babylonian exile.

And to answer your question, I go to a predominantly Jewish university with a major called Near Eastern and Judaic Studies. And actually, since this semester I'm in a class with a professor whose expertise is Biblical and Mishnaic history, would y'all like me to ask him his professional opinion?

1250BC is the approximate date of Moses and the Exodus. 1850 is the approximate date of Abraham in Canaan. 587 being the exile of Israel. Why so precise? This is because of records that we have which mark this date as being an accurate time of this event. The other dates have ambiguous information that make it harder to determine the actual date. Also what professional opinion are we getting? That the Bible today does not have "exactly" what was written down or told before? I think it's obvious that over time elements might become altered but it does fascinate me in knowing that throughout history the Church has actually "guarded" the traditions and texts and teachings that have been passed down. It's kinda like imagining that Rome has guarded the information passed down about their Emperors. I do find it funny that people like to cast doubt on the history of the bible but fail to take that same doubt and cast it on other historical events in the same era.

It's not like historians actually believe that Rome was founded by brothers raised by wolves.  Most ancient historical texts and accounts are treated with heaps of skepticism.  Any basic ancient history class will teach you this, as large amounts of time will be devoted to assessing the inaccuracies, biases, and exaggerations of a writer like Plutarch, Tacitus, or Livy.  It's perfectly rational to doubt the history of the Bible where, in the case of something like the Exodus, there is nothing in the way of non-Biblical accounts or archaeological evidence.  The same skepticism is treated to many other events from historical accounts.

[rumborak]

Yeah, I can specifically say about German history that there's quite a few accounts of heroic battles (throughout the ages, not just the Big Wars) that were found to be plain fabrications.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

By the way, I compared the Christ-myth people to creationists, and one of them is all upset with me.

[The Dark Master]

Also, the difference between the Iliad and the Odyssey and the Bible is that no one reads the Iliad or the Odyssey thinking its a work inspired by God (even though it claims to be inspired by the Gods in the beginning), and there aren't entire religions based upon the works. The difference is the attribution and the acceptance of God, supernatural entities, and supernatural events and miracles. If people read the Iliad and the Odyssey, and started forming a religion based upon it, and fighting against each other over the claims made in those books, you'd probably see them treated a lot differently.

That section in bold is grossly inaccurate.  For thousands of years, the myths of the ancients formed the basis of their world view and they were taken very seriously.   What happened in the Iliad and the Odyssey was considered to be historical fact by the ancient Greeks for centuries, and such was the case various other ancient peoples throughout the world.  While philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle may have dismissed them as "Old wives tales", for the majority of the ancient people believed their gods and demigods to be very real.  Religion and, most especially, sacrifice was an integral part of life many millenia ago, and trust me, ancient cultures weren't sacrificing goats, bulls or in a few cases, other humans, to gods they didn't believe were real.  Furthermore, many of those ancient texts like the Norse Eddas, the Hindu Vedas, the texts of Zoroaster, and yes, Homer's poems, did indeed form the basis of "real" religions.  The ancient myths are treated as mere "literature" only by people of opposing theological viewpoints, typically those of the Abrahamic faiths or atheists, but make no mistake, to followers of those polytheistic belief systems, both past and present, they are much more then simply a bunch of old stories.

[Super Dude]

We're not talking about then, we're talking about now.

[Scheavo]

Also, the difference between the Iliad and the Odyssey and the Bible is that no one reads the Iliad or the Odyssey thinking its a work inspired by God (even though it claims to be inspired by the Gods in the beginning), and there aren't entire religions based upon the works. The difference is the attribution and the acceptance of God, supernatural entities, and supernatural events and miracles. If people read the Iliad and the Odyssey, and started forming a religion based upon it, and fighting against each other over the claims made in those books, you'd probably see them treated a lot differently.

That section in bold is grossly inaccurate.  For thousands of years, the myths of the ancients formed the basis of their world view and they were taken very seriously.   What happened in the Iliad and the Odyssey was considered to be historical fact by the ancient Greeks for centuries, and such was the case various other ancient peoples throughout the world.  While philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle may have dismissed them as "Old wives tales", for the majority of the ancient people believed their gods and demigods to be very real.  Religion and, most especially, sacrifice was an integral part of life many millenia ago, and trust me, ancient cultures weren't sacrificing goats, bulls or in a few cases, other humans, to gods they didn't believe were real.  Furthermore, many of those ancient texts like the Norse Eddas, the Hindu Vedas, the texts of Zoroaster, and yes, Homer's poems, did indeed form the basis of "real" religions.  The ancient myths are treated as mere "literature" only by people of opposing theological viewpoints, typically those of the Abrahamic faiths or atheists, but make no mistake, to followers of those polytheistic belief systems, both past and present, they are much more then simply a bunch of old stories.

Did the epics of the Iliad and the Odyssey form the basis for those religions, or was it a religiously inspired text? I don't ever remember hearing about it being the basis for the Greek religion, always thought it was a creation of the Greek religion.

As well as how we currently read them. They aren't read that way anymore, and if you read them today, you don't read them assuming they're completely accurate, and that they describe real events. Which of course, doesn't really make much of a difference because the genius of the work isn't religious.

[Super Dude]

Also, the difference between the Iliad and the Odyssey and the Bible is that no one reads the Iliad or the Odyssey thinking its a work inspired by God (even though it claims to be inspired by the Gods in the beginning), and there aren't entire religions based upon the works. The difference is the attribution and the acceptance of God, supernatural entities, and supernatural events and miracles. If people read the Iliad and the Odyssey, and started forming a religion based upon it, and fighting against each other over the claims made in those books, you'd probably see them treated a lot differently.

That section in bold is grossly inaccurate.  For thousands of years, the myths of the ancients formed the basis of their world view and they were taken very seriously.   What happened in the Iliad and the Odyssey was considered to be historical fact by the ancient Greeks for centuries, and such was the case various other ancient peoples throughout the world.  While philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle may have dismissed them as "Old wives tales", for the majority of the ancient people believed their gods and demigods to be very real.  Religion and, most especially, sacrifice was an integral part of life many millenia ago, and trust me, ancient cultures weren't sacrificing goats, bulls or in a few cases, other humans, to gods they didn't believe were real.  Furthermore, many of those ancient texts like the Norse Eddas, the Hindu Vedas, the texts of Zoroaster, and yes, Homer's poems, did indeed form the basis of "real" religions.  The ancient myths are treated as mere "literature" only by people of opposing theological viewpoints, typically those of the Abrahamic faiths or atheists, but make no mistake, to followers of those polytheistic belief systems, both past and present, they are much more then simply a bunch of old stories.

Did the epics of the Iliad and the Odyssey form the basis for those religions, or was it a religiously inspired text? I don't ever remember hearing about it being the basis for the Greek religion, always thought it was a creation of the Greek religion.

As well as how we currently read them. They aren't read that way anymore, and if you read them today, you don't read them assuming they're completely accurate, and that they describe real events. Which of course, doesn't really make much of a difference because the genius of the work isn't religious.

Unless the sudden hypothetical discovery of the other five volumes in the saga proves otherwise, it's the latter.

[The Dark Master]

Did the epics of the Iliad and the Odyssey form the basis for those religions, or was it a religiously inspired text? I don't ever remember hearing about it being the basis for the Greek religion, always thought it was a creation of the Greek religion.

The works of Homer and Hesiod are the oldest known works of the Greek mythic cycles, and while the mythologies contained within them may be derived from an already existent theological system (it is believed that virtually all Indo-European  polytheistic religions had some common theological source that is now lost), Homer and Hesiod doubtlessly defined theology to the Ancient Greeks  by entwining such mythology with actual events of  ancient Mycenaean Greek history.  That's not to say Homer's poems were held to be some sort of Bible in ancient Greek temples, but along with Hesiod's works, their sheer extent and thoroughness of the myths contained within indicates that they doubtlessly formed the basis of Greek theological thought between the 8th century BC and the Christian era.

As well as how we currently read them. They aren't read that way anymore, and if you read them today, you don't read them assuming they're completely accurate, and that they describe real events. Which of course, doesn't really make much of a difference because the genius of the work isn't religious.

Obviously, most people today to treat them as mythological literature, although there are pagan re-constructionist groups that take them much more seriously and believe that they do have at least some measure of historical and theological truth in them, so that really just depends on your personal spiritual inclinations. 

As for whether they are inherently religious texts, they are, above all else, texts of Greek history and culture, and in the ancient world, the line between national heritage and religion was not so clearly defined since a peoples history was so tightly bound to their national mythology.  I suppose you can argue that they aren't religious in the sense that their primary purpose isn't solely theological, but rather national.   As I said earlier, though, spiritual beliefs were very tightly bound to national identity back then, so the line between religious identity and national identity was virtually non existent.  National history and mythology were virtually inseparable, and to the ancients, they may not have cared to perceive any practical difference between the accounts of their ancestors and those of their Gods.

[Scheavo]

All of which just reaffirms the point I was making, that it's wrong for Vivace to say that the Bible is treated differently then other historical / religious texts of the time.