Bible inaccuracies

Originally posted by jgiant
You must take the evidence given and unbiasly analyze it for yourself. If this is the conclusion you come to then fine. But since none of these sources references Jesus in a mythylogical way one must question where the idea of a myth Jesus came from. If you question Jesus's existance than you must question many other historical figures as well. Figures such as Alexander the Great, Ceaser, Buddha, Confusious, and Muhammad. Also, are you retracting your statment that the Tacitus reference and the second quote from Josephus was a forgery?

No, the default position is unbelief; I do not need to question whether Jesus is mythological, you have to prove that he is historical.

Originally posted by inimalist
strange, thats the same time as the enlightenment, the general birth of science and tthe end of violently enforced conformity to church doctrine...

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo (nowhere in the bible does it say the sun revolves around the Earth)

“The gospel comprises indeed, and unfolds, the whole mystery of man's redemption, as far forth as it is necessary to be known for our salvation.” Robert Boyle, famous chemist who founded Boyle's law.

"The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate, and beautiful." Francis Collins, founder of the Human Genome Project.

Also, your argument does nothing to the overwhelming opposition to the Jesus myth from then till now.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, the default position is unbelief; I do not need to question whether Jesus is mythological, you have to prove that he is historical.

Originally posted by jgiant
It seems as though science and Christianity conflict because science is based on fact and religion on faith. Though history proves otherwise,
"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." Sir Isaac Newton.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo (nowhere in the bible does it say the sun revolves around the Earth)

“The gospel comprises indeed, and unfolds, the whole mystery of man's redemption, as far forth as it is necessary to be known for our salvation.” Robert Boyle, famous chemist who founded Boyle's law.

"The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate, and beautiful." Francis Collins, founder of the Human Genome Project.

my comment was about the quality and biases in pre-modern history and scholarship. I could care less about how you reconcile faith and fact to yourself.

Originally posted by jgiant
Also, your argument does nothing to the overwhelming opposition to the Jesus myth from then till now.

If the historicity of central religious figures were important to me, I'd be a Muslim.

Originally posted by inimalist
If the historicity of central religious figures were important to me, I'd be a Muslim.

Originally posted by jgiant
So you don't dispute Jesus as an historical figure

I don't believe that the Jesus of the bible lived, any more than the Jason of the Argonauts did.

Originally posted by jgiant
And(hypothetically) you would believe the account of Jesus according to a man who lived 500 years after his death?

I give little credit to "account" based history. I would give it a listen, but certainly I wouldn't call it conclusive or very convincing.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't believe that the Jesus of the bible lived, any more than the Jason of the Argonauts did.

I give little credit to "account" based history. I would give it a listen, but certainly I wouldn't call it conclusive or very convincing.

Originally posted by jgiant
Would you serve God and fallow Christ teachings if he were to show himself to you?

How would he do that?

It all depends on how.

Originally posted by jgiant
If you want me to quote from early Extra-Biblical Christians I will, but i doubt that will convince you. I suggest you search Jesus out for yourself in an in depth unbias study and seek him out. I promise if you truly seek him out with an open mind and heart he will reveal himself to you. Also, if Christianity is based on a myth then it would be the fastest growing myth of all time. Usually myths take a while before they catch on because people who are alive at the time of the myth can refute it and kill it before it spreads. If Jesus did not exist it would make Christianity a more unexplainable phenomena than if he did.

Originally posted by jgiant
Would you serve God and fallow Christ teachings if he were to show himself to you?

the most difficult part of this would be that I would interpret most situations like this as being a hallucination of some kind

were I convinced that it were God I would believe though...

how is this relevant to the fact that pre-modern scholarship is known to be highly subject to personal bias and does not benefit from modern technology or academic research techniques?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Cool, so I take it you accept Islam as well by that logic.

Originally posted by inimalist
the most difficult part of this would be that I would interpret most situations like this as being a hallucination of some kind

were I convinced that it were God I would believe though...

how is this relevant to the fact that pre-modern scholarship is known to be highly subject to personal bias and does not benefit from modern technology or academic research techniques?

Originally posted by jgiant
Pre-modern scholars recognized that uncovering science revealed the truths of God. Finding natural laws of the universe prove there is order and design by a creator.

In what subject do you think pre-modern academia is superior to modern academia?

Originally posted by jgiant
Yes i belive Muhammad was a real person. I do not believe his teachings and his historical views on Jesus because the fact he was born 500 years after his death.

Originally posted by jgiant
Well its not i was just asking you a personal question, because I know if you seek God will all your heart you will find him. Pre-modern scholars recognized that uncovering science revealed the truths of God. Finding natural laws of the universe prove there is order and design by a creator.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you don't think him existing is enough to believe his teachings... but you DO think it's reasonable for me to accept Jesus's divinity based on the mere fact he existed...

Originally posted by inimalist
In what subject do you think pre-modern academia is superior to modern academia?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's why they're pre-modern.

Originally posted by jgiant
Thats another topic I am just trying to show that the overwhelming evidence is that he existed.

Modern science is the same way. Dr. Hugh Ross and Francis S. Collins (founder of the Human Genome Project) are great examples of Christians who understand God has wonderful design. Dr. Stephen Hawkings is recognized as one of the greatest minds of our time and he (although he is not recognized as a Christian, his wife is) states in his book "A Brief History of Time", "One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"
Einstein did not believe in God initially and thought that energy and matter were eternal and so was the universe. Arno Penzias discovery of microwave background radiation proved that energy and matter were not eternal and the universe indeed had a beginning. Einstein then had to become a theist accepting that if the universe had a beginning there must be a God. Many of the findings of science could be found years before their discovery by science if only they looked to the Bible. The Earth being round, the Earth being held up by nothing and floating in space, the universe having a starting point.

Originally posted by jgiant
Einstein did not believe in God initially and thought that energy and matter were eternal and so was the universe. Arno Penzias discovery of microwave background radiation proved that energy and matter were not eternal and the universe indeed had a beginning. Einstein then had to become a theist accepting that if the universe had a beginning there must be a God.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
None of that. None of it gives even the slightest shred of credibility to the existence of a God.

Originally posted by jgiant
Modern science is the same way. Dr. Hugh Ross and Francis S. Collins (founder of the Human Genome Project) are great examples of Christians who understand God has wonderful design. Dr. Stephen Hawkings is recognized as one of the greatest minds of our time and he (although he is not recognized as a Christian, his wife is) states in his book "A Brief History of Time", "One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"
Einstein did not believe in God initially and thought that energy and matter were eternal and so was the universe. Arno Penzias discovery of microwave background radiation proved that energy and matter were not eternal and the universe indeed had a beginning. Einstein then had to become a theist accepting that if the universe had a beginning there must be a God. Many of the findings of science could be found years before their discovery by science if only they looked to the Bible. The Earth being round, the Earth being held up by nothing and floating in space, the universe having a starting point.

ok, again, not looking for your identity politics, especially when you are now putting words and interpretations into the mouths of people who would vehemetly disagree with your position.

my point:

you said: The idea that Jesus was not real is a modern concept and not in line with the majority of historical scholars prior to the 18th century.

I said: Which happens to coincide with the fall of religion as the dominant organizational and truth holding institution, as well as the beginning of modern science.

Here is the rub: I don't care who believes what. Fact is, since the 18th century, we have figured out most of what we know about the universe. In fact, that something originates post-1700 should be an indication that it is likely much more informed than something which originates pre-1700. This is compound with the fact that in many parts of the world pre-1700, questioning whether Jesus had lived would be cause to have you institutionalized if not killed outright.

Originally posted by jgiant
No it doesn't I am just stating how modern science still recognizes God as a real force.

1) no it doesn't
2) if it does, what is the standard notation for the God force?
3) some scientists are religious, the number is under 5% iirc
4) "Modern science" isn't a thing that can recognize anything
5) no