Do you think the bible is true?

[RadicusMaximus]

Do I think the bible is true?

No.

[Souret]

Areas of the bible are considered true such as the existence of a man called Jesus.
But I think a large amount was most likely meant to be take as fables rather than actual fact.

It's more to help people that give them facts.

[Yuna Lockhart]

Originally Posted by Souret

Areas of the bible are considered true such as the existence of a man called Jesus.
But I think a large amount was most likely meant to be take as fables rather than actual fact.

It's more to help people that give them facts.

I believe the same thing

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by Souret

Areas of the bible are considered true such as the existence of a man called Jesus.
But I think a large amount was most likely meant to be take as fables rather than actual fact.

It's more to help people that give them facts.

Indeed.

A lot of the Bible's stories are disturbing and speak of a vengeful and even evil God. Like when he made a bet with the devil against Job.

Fun fact: There's no reliable historic evidence that Jesus ever existed.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

Indeed.

A lot of the Bible's stories are disturbing and speak of a vengeful and even evil God. Like when he made a bet with the devil against Job.

Some of these things people believe in pertaining to God make me say that I'd rather go to Hell than to serve a God that would do such things.

[Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

Indeed.

A lot of the Bible's stories are disturbing and speak of a vengeful and even evil God. Like when he made a bet with the devil against Job.

Fun fact: There's no reliable historic evidence that Jesus ever existed.

Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[30][11] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[30] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[7]

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by Saiyan

Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[30][11] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[30] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[7]

Textual and archaeological evidence on a historical Jesus is sparse at best and questionable at worst. And the people you're quoting would likely hold a bias view due to the fact that they appear to be highly religious.

Quoting someone on Jesus does not make him so.

[Blind Uchiha]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

Textual and archaeological evidence on a historical Jesus is sparse at best and questionable at worst. And the people you're quoting would likely hold a bias view due to the fact that they appear to be highly religious.

Quoting someone on Jesus does not make him so.

And not providing quotations to prove otherwise makes your position weak. The observations of notable historians and archaeologists are key to historical debates. Unless you can provide counter-quotations or you possess other evidence which you have yet to provide, you have failed to disprove Jesus. You can't gloss over someone's evidence and not provide your own.

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by Blind Uchiha

And not providing quotations to prove otherwise makes your position weak. The observations of notable historians and archaeologists are key to historical debates. Unless you can provide counter-quotations or you possess other evidence which you have yet to provide, you have failed to disprove Jesus. You can't gloss over someone's evidence and not provide your own.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

He provided me with nothing to go on, except for the fact that he quoted a person's opinion. That is not evidence.

[Blind Uchiha]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

He provided me with nothing to go on, except for the fact that he quoted a person's opinion. That is not evidence.

Professional opinion is evidence. Both individuals are Professors at Oxford and Cambridge.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

Honestly, I don't even consider scholars to be reputable sources on the existence of Jesus. They're only people too unless they bring something to the table. He could have existed, he could not have. Arguing over whether something existed or is real, is like arguing about whether the color red or blue is superior.

[Muffintop]

A number of scholars and writers, known informally as "mythicists," insist there is no convincing evidence for a historical Jesus at all.

Not a single word about Jesus appears outside of the New Testament in the entire first century, even though many writers documented first-hand the early Roman Empire in great detail, including careful accounts of the time and place where Jesus supposedly taught. The little paragraph about Jesus that appears in Josephus' Antiquities (written after 90 CE) is regarded by liberal and conservative scholars to have been either entirely interpolated or drastically altered by a later generation of believers, probably by the dishonest Christian historian Eusebius in the 4th century. (Whichever view is right, they both agree that early Christians tampered with documents, a fact that must bear on the reliability of the New Testament writings.)

The handful of 2nd-century references to "Christ" are too late to be of much value. They are brief 2nd- or 3rd-hand accounts of what some people by that time believed had happened in their distant past, and none of them mention the name "Jesus." They are hearsay, not history.

The silence of Paul is also a problem. Paul wrote his letters many years before the Gospels, and it appears he was unaware of anything said in them about Jesus, except for some wording from a Last Supper ritual. Paul never met Jesus and never quoted the Jesus of the Gospels, even when that would have served his purposes. He sometimes disagreed with Jesus. He never mentioned a single deed or miracle of Jesus. If Jesus had been a real person, certainly Paul, his main cheerleader, would have talked about him as a man. The "Christ" in Paul's epistles is mainly a supernatural figure, not a flesh and blood man of history.

Mythicists notice that there are many pagan parallels to the resurrection story. The Greek god Dionysus was said to be the "Son of Zeus." He was killed, buried, and rose from the dead and now sits at the right hand of the father. His empty tomb at Delphi was long preserved and venerated by believers. The Egyptian Osiris, two millennia earlier, was said to have been slain by Typhon, rose again, and became ruler of the dead. Adonis and Attis also suffered and died to rise again.

The Persian god Mithra, revered by many Romans, was said to have been born of a virgin in a sacred birth-cave of the Rock on December 25, witnessed by shepherds and Magi bringing gifts. He raised the dead, healed the sick, made the blind see and the lame walk, and exorcised devils. Mithra celebrated a Last Supper with his twelve disciples before he died. His image was buried in a rock tomb, but he was withdrawn and said to live again. His triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter).

Anybody who was anybody in those days was born of a virgin and ascended to heaven. The Roman historian Suetonius, whose brief 2nd-century mention of "Chrestus" in Rome is sometimes offered as evidence of a historical Jesus (though few believe Jesus visited Rome, and "Chrestus" is not "Jesus"), also reported that Caesar Augustus bodily ascended into heaven when he died.

Christianity appears to have been cut from the same fabric as pagan mythology, and some early Christians admitted it. Arguing with pagans around 150 CE, Justin Martyr said: "When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)."

If early Christians, who were closer to the events than we are, said the story of Jesus is "nothing different" from paganism, can modern skeptics be faulted for suspecting the same thing?

Critics are not agreed on the degree of relevance of the pagan parallels to Jesus, and the number of true mythicists is a tiny minority among scholars, but it doesn't matter much. Even if Jesus did exist, that does not mean he rose from the dead.

The Jesus of history is not the Jesus of the New Testament. Many skeptics believe there might have existed a self-proclaimed messiah figure named Yeshua (there were many others) on whom the later New Testament legend was loosely based, but they consider the exaggerated miracle-working resurrecting Jesus character to be a literary creation of a later generation of believers. The Gospels, written many decades after the fact, are a blend of fact and fantasy--historical fiction--and although the proportions of the blend may differ from scholar to scholar, no credible historians take them at 100% face value.

The Christian goddess Sophia also bears a resemblance to Jesus.

[Blind Uchiha]

Originally Posted by Maikeru D. Shinigami

Honestly, I don't even consider scholars to be reputable sources on the existence of Jesus. They're only people too unless they bring something to the table. He could have existed, he could not have. Arguing over whether something existed or is real, is like arguing about whether the color red or blue is superior.

Why not? Scholars in a particular field naturally know more about that particular field than we amateurs. They naturally bring more to the table because they have studied more in that area than we have.

Also, that statement about the argument of existence is not true. Existence matters far more than color preference. Before humanity knew about the existence of radiation, people had suffered from radiation poisoning. If they knew it had existed, they likely would not have died. I could go on and on with diseases. Existence and the belief that a particular thing exists matters.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

Not saying that they are right or wrong Blind. Just saying that without something more, there are always skeptics. Some skeptics who even have the same reputability as the people who you are behind. Arguing over his existence as such will just lead to a back and forth arguing essentially making everyone chickens running around with their heads cut off.

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Originally Posted by Bacon

Tell me where the people who wrote the book of genesis got their information. Then maybe I will decide if the bible is not full of lies. Btw, I refuse to believe such a violent book holds any truth.

I know I'm about two years late to this reply but I wanted to lay it out there because a lot of people completely dismiss the bible because of this and because of genesis

Bacon, yeah the bible is full of extreme violence, yeah in the old testament god comes off like a demented sociopathic bully yes the wars and the murder are insane.

That however does not dismiss the veracity of a lot of the historical and military parts of the bible. Many of the kings, emperors and historical figures did exist..and did live and were in fact real this cannot be disputed and has been verified by numerous sources throughout the thousands of years

of course the "this planet is only six thousand years old and a demented child murdering lovecraftian horror (and yes I am calling the bibles rendition of god this..I'm not disputing the existence of a supreme being but anything that may exist that is kind enough to create such a massive and diverse universe wouldn't be so brutally insane and monstrous as god) created it in six days then took a nap" is utter and complete BS and science has long proven that

Originally Posted by Maikeru D. Shinigami

Not saying that they are right or wrong Blind. Just saying that without something more, there are always skeptics. Some skeptics who even have the same reputability as the people who you are behind. Arguing over his existence as such will just lead to a back and forth arguing essentially making everyone chickens running around with their heads cut off.

hey Meik just laying it out here..the name Jesus and Joseph were as common among the working class of Palestine in the Roman era as they are among the working class in the modern Era

if you drove over to the local home depot and yelled "Jesus eijo de jose!" you'd get about a dozen dudes who'd raise their hand

conversely if you were a middle class or upper class Roman citizen and you went into the ancient equivalent and shouted in Latin or Aramaic "Is there a Jesus son of Joseph"

the exact same number of people would raise their hands

so technically the scholars are correct..there were many Jesus's who lived during that era..were carpenters and had dads named Joseph..Historians have found many graves with such labels in the region throughout the centuries..no one has ever taken it to literally be the burial site of the messiah because his name in his social class was as common then as it was now.

As to the bible Jesus..actually Pontious pilot was real..Roman records show he did crucify a few Jewish cult leaders for sedition and treason, among them was one who went by the name of Jesus..and was of the lower class

does that make him bible Jesus? No..because bible Jesus has a lot more in common with a few dudes who were crucified about forty years to a hundred years earlier..(well at least the political ideals of their cults mesh more with Christianity)

one of them wasn't even a jew but a Zoarastian (sp?)

suffice to say there is strong evidence pointing to a cult leader claiming to be the king of the Jews from that region..there are still Roman estates baring murals likely done by Jesus and his family..

whether the leader from the bible was based on said cultist with a lot of those who were executed before him tossed in for added flavor..is a huge matter of debate