And the lack of actual historical records leads me to believe he wasn't even a little bit real.

The question I think is which part of scripture represent an historical fact, and which do not

Who has an answer?

My previous comment was not meant to infer the people or events did or did not occur, but how historically accurate is the writings where they appear.


Some things can be verified through archaeology, while some things cannot.

And kept being written by men!
Make up your own mind!

I don't think much of stuff that was written by one man or a group of men in thrall to a particular ideology. And these men have been known to be tortured if not following their on-land lord (not the one floating around). And these men have been known to change their minds - perhaps after penning some memorable parable.

YMMV. I know mine does.

historical, moral, political or any other point the society feels like making.

Some are based on long-forgotten, misremembered, or enhanced events; some are made from whole cloth, although that's not so easy to pull off.

The Flood is one that has been mentioned in folklore around the world, for thousands of years, so it's a little easier to try to trace its origins. Not by much, though. The well known Gilgamesh epic is around 4,000 years old, but the Epic of Atrahasis might be even older. Not easy to piece together all those broken clay tablets.

The point probably is that it makes little difference what is or isn't "true", it's the thought behind the story that's important.

Babe?

Johnny Appleseed, Kit Carson, Ronald Reagan. So many god-like heroes!

Fictional characters are usually metaphors for something. Voldemort, for example.

It's more like a community of practice, with rituals and traditions that create shared meaning.

Which religion do you participate in that is just "shared meaning"? I bet it isn't Abrahamic or Hindu or ...

Rather, I said it is a community of practice, which includes a lot of things, some of which are quite extreme to us. But we are not a part of those communities and don't want them anywhere near us.

Apparently discussing the motivations of fictional characters makes you a delusional literalist.

Something inconvenient, or contradictory to what you believe? Oh, that's just a metaphor. For instance, God didn't LITERALLY flood the earth and kill all but a handful of its inhabitants. No, it is a metaphor for cleansing.

The deal about the cleansing metaphor? It is eisegetical rot. Or did you mean what I said about how to go about determining what is literal or what is metaphorical?

All of it. All fairy tales, told eons ago.

The Babylonian Captivity for example.

Clearly.

Everything in the Bible, whether it actually happened or not, whether clearly metaphorical or not, is theological. It is telling you about what God wants. The only reason the Babylonian Captivity is in the Bible at all is that it has theological meaning. The Israelites believed it was punishment for their sins, and the end of it meant the end of the punishment.

Likewise the idea that water cleanses you from sin is really theological. It's telling you that God thinks your sins need to be cleansed.

Christians who don't believe Jesus was literally resurrected, still usually believe he taught that God wants you to follow the Golden Rule. Which is different than saying it's a just a good idea.

A historical kernel. There are historical kernels like this in the OT and NT, I'll not deny that. Far more is just old legends, passed down for generations.

The OP's question was about these events being real. Many people trying to validate the Bible use any archaeogical or historical reference they can find to try and portray it as a historically reliable document, including the mythical stories. You say you weren't doing that, but then why include that example in a discussion about whether its stories are actually true.

And try to figure out which things actually did happen and which didn't. Certain events can be confirmed, others seem plausible, some may be legends but contain accurate representations of the culture of the time, some have inaccuracies that make them doubtful, and then there are ones that clearly didn't happen.

So the intent was to answer the question, but I don't think it was the sort of answer MM was looking for, or maybe he wanted an answer from Christians. I am not a Christian.

It is it’s own subset of historians. Outside of this group that set of texts is pretty much useless.

And Ancient Chinese writings aren't much use to professors of American history.

oif the region that researches the same era, the same cultures etc, and that basically does not care much about the jewish and early christian texts.

If you study the broad history of Western Europe, you are mostly studying England, France, Germany, and a group of secondary countries like Spain and Italy that pop in and out. They don't really seem to care much about the history of Belgium. It's always been a bit player in region. I'm sure it has a very interesting history, and there must be people who specialize in it. It's just not of much broad interest compared to other nations.

So if you are studying the entire ancient Near East, you are mostly studying the great civilizations of Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Egypt etc. Israel was mostly just a piece of land that empires fought over. Not much interest on the regional scale. But a lot of people specialize in ancient Israel because it improbably turned out to have an outsize influence on later cultures. So it's of interest for its own sake. There are scholars who are interested in figuring out what was really going on in that little patch land. And in part, that means mining the Bible for clues and trying to match Biblical accounts with new discoveries. If this doesn't interest you, I can understand. But that doesn't make it an illegitimate exercise.

Likely, ancient people believed what was told in their oral and written legends happened just as it was told. Burning bushes, mauling bears who avenge mockers of bald BS artists, the sun standing still in the sky or what have you. But now, humans have far better tools for understanding the universe and what is in it. I find no reason to hang on to such nonsense.

You have that right.

The "literalists" are perfectly willing to take some words written on parchment (or blogs) and use them to try to control others.

What would dear Jesus do? He, without sin, without an earthly father. Obviously contemporary "Christian"/evangelical/repuglicons don't give-a-shit about Jesus.

I’m sure it’s been done somewhere.

One famous effort is the Jefferson bible, where Thomas Jefferson physically edited an existing bible and purposely removed all the hocus pocus he could find.

Academic theologians debate what an alleged Jesus might have said vs didn’t say using context and prose that has commonality.

Those that have studied the subject objectively on both the belief and non-belief side recognize various degrees of mythology are involved in the official record.

and behavioral teachings. Those are common to all religions and most social philosophies. All are logically and experientally derived. No hocus pocus mystical nonsense required.

Some researcher I knew once was going on an expedition to Nepal ( I think ) looking for the Ark. ( I think it’s in Wisconsin Dells, though).

Good question, I have not seen any poof of this virgin birth so it is myth.

There are many creation stories across the ages and the continents. They all are attempts to explain the unknown in terms that will comfort their flocks.

What is the truth? Budda knows?

Flavian Josephus refers to James the brother of Jesus.

Tacitus states that Jesus was executed during the time Pontius Pilate was in Judea.

Pliny notes that Christians worship Christ

I take these as evidence of Jesus existence. The Gospels were written by humans who had their own perceptions of Jesus. Like all historical writing we see through the author's eyes.

These are just recountings of other storied heard.

And I have heard that aliens have tried to contact us over and over. But we don't want to admit some new gods into the pantheon.

No eye-witness accounts. None.

His works are many but have few references to a Jesus, which is odd since supposedly this guy was performing miracles. He was born after Jesus so was not writing contemporaneously, and, most important, the works that included mentions of Jesus were translations by Christian monks, who obviously had an agenda.

Your other resources have issues too. Fact is there are no contemporaneous accounts of an actual supernatural Jesus, which is interesting because it was a literate society with many chroniclers whose works are available today. If there was a dude out there performing miracles and rising from the dead one would think they would write about it.

Philo and Gallio.

I know Philo was a philosopher whose writings included a couple of commentaries on religion, but I honestly haven’t read his works to know whether to expect more.

I am not aware of any writings by Gallio. If you locate any and happen to remember this note, please let me know

But who's counting.

I was aware of his background and should have noted accurately.

Do you think these posts are going to convince believers to become atheists or just show your intellectual superiority? Why does it matter so much to you?

I don't think I've ever seen you before. I ask questions because I can. Do youhavexanswers to them?

MineralMan already lets people believe what they want. His questions have no power to prevent anyone from doing so.

MineralMan asks a valid question. How do Christians decide which parts of the Bible to take literally, and which to interpret as metaphor, or allegory, or parable, or whatever? What do you think?

So far, though, nobody has offered an answer. Do you know?

If someone can tell me what is true and what is metaphor, I can look for information on the true stuff.

But there is no evidence that religion causes stupidity.

… the "world" was flooded and it was written about before the OT. I thought that God was credited as the father of Jesus - so there was a male involved. We've had Man-Gods since, like Elvis and Fabio. Thing are always being created... maybe universes are multiplying like rabbits and we're not in a position to see them?

Which ones are true? My question remains unanswered.

of the story, but the truth has long since been replaced by legend.

The core of the story involves a man-god a virgin birth and a resurrection. It is difficult to find any of that credible.

Lived near Nottingham. Nothing miraculous ever about him.

Long before Christ people sometimes went to great lengths to prevent people from escaping their graves. Heads were removed, heavy rocks were piled on bodies, and some were sealed in crypts to prevent escape. Seems to have been a much bigger problem back then and not hard to imagine some getting loose and running amok.

likely combined with those of other messiah claimants like Simon bar Kokhba. Such tales grow in the telling, with long known myths being woven into them.

Many might have had some name variant of Joshua. That ain’t “the core of the story”.

Just an itinerant revival preacher who got in trouble with the authorities. The miracles would be legendary elements or perhaps a marketing ploy that evolved the final story into something very different.

a plausible “story” to argue “well this could have happened” and then skips back to the actual “core story” now backed by an historical jesus.

There are a lot of secular scholars who are just interested in how Christianity developed, but are atheists. Bart Ehrman for example.

The “historical jesus” has next to nothing to do with the entity described in the gospels. Theists frequently use the plausibliity of a historical jesus to add credence to the absurd claims of their holy texts.

Yes there are people who don’t do that, but they are generally the exception.

Aside from that the claims for an historical jesus are weak. Which person was he exactly? Well we don’t know. There is zero physical evidence. There are no contemporary texts that refer to this person. There are no other documents that identify this person or the events of his life.


Compare the evidence for an historical jesus to the evidence for an historical socrates and jesus comes up short.

And even there, we are not 100% certain he existed.

Compare it to the evidence for an historical Thales of Miletus and it isn't too different from Jesus. We have no contemporary records of Thales. The records we do have were all written later and conflict with each other. So it's possible he didn't exist. Some have argued that.

If that's not good enough, there are plenty of other ancient people about whom we know almost nothing, just one or a few references to such a person. There are stories of wonder working rabbis in the Talmud. We think the rabbis probably did exist, but the works of wonder are just stories, like so many other ancient stories. You can say none of them ever existed, but there are 1,500 rabbis mentioned in the Talmud, so it seems strange to make up a huge number of nonexistent people to disagree with each other in your authoritative law book.

We think Sargon of Akkad existed, but there are no contemporary records and we have never found the City of Akkad. Sargon's name is found in king lists that were all written later and contain obvious fabrications. We have stories about Sargon that are likely fabrications.

You can dispute the existence of lots of ancient people if you want. Some people make an academic career out of disputing some historical fact or of proving an historical fancy. You can do it as a dodge or just to get tenure. Which I am not doing, so I don't even see why that's relevant. I'm just taking my best guess.

I think they were just used to give credence to a cult. My understanding is other belief systems have many of these same myths but what differentiates Christianity is its early adherents said, "yeah but our wild stories are true" whereas followers of other religions knew they were myths.

MineralMan!!

Kicked and recommended.

Jesus qua Jesus was a man. Everything written about him is metaphorical.

Pretty expensive. I haven't bid on one yet.