Why the Bible should be used as a historical source.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

The Bible is not considered to be a historical source by many an athiest, especially on these boards. The reason, it's the soul account of Jesus Christ and there are no known sources of first hand accounts that aren't allready included in the bible.

That is just utter B.S.

The New Testament is a collection of letters from many different people who witnessed Christ, not just one guy writing all this down. It's a collection of different sources into one book.

By definition, Athiests are claiming that many different sources are wrong....because they are in one book.... NICE!:hmmm:

[wilting]

I don't think viewing the Bible as a historical source is contrary to Athiesm, one just needs to look at it objectively; that is as once source among many that was often written with an agenda or from a biased perspective. It can have historical value without being interpreted literally.

For example, what revelation shows how the Romans were seen by some.

[Irishman]

Well it should be taken as a source but not as an authority. It is a history, but it should not be treated as a better source as any other mythological account. We should treat it as the Aeneid or the Illiad or Oddessy. We aknowledge that many of these events happened, but we dont take the supernatural references seriously.

The problem that most theists get into is they want to take the bible literally, or use it as proof of Jesus' divinity. It may be evidence of his existence, but not of his divinity.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I'm not argueing the divinity factor, merely the existance factor.

[William the Bastard]

I see the Bible in the same context as Herodotus. They both make mistakes and have an agenda to what they want the reader to believe.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Every peice of Literature has an agenda that the reader should beleive. You'll find these even in childrens books, occasionaly they're obviously called "the moral of the story".

[William the Bastard]

Every peice of Literature has an agenda that the reader should beleive. You'll find these even in childrens books, occasionaly they're obviously called "the moral of the story".

Just to make clear I was agreeing with you only adding to it. Too right about morals otherwise what would be the point!

[Gwendylyn]

Every peice of Literature has an agenda that the reader should beleive. You'll find these even in childrens books, occasionaly they're obviously called "the moral of the story".

That doesn't mean they are historical sources. Just because there are many accounts of a mouse who took a thorn out of a lions paw, does not mean we take this literally.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

What about many accounts of a man named Jesus Christ who lived around 2,000 years ago. Should we say "meh, there's no proof he existed" when he obviously did, according to the writing of many people in one book?

I mean, do you beleive that Mount Vesuvius errupted and burried Pompey?

[William the Bastard]

Personally I think he was a historical character but it his impossible feats I disbelieve in (eg walk on water). For most that means that if you talk about doing looney impossible things then they will write off anything else you say as mad.

[Gwendylyn]

What about many accounts of a man named Jesus Christ who lived around 2,000 years ago. Should we say "meh, there's no proof he existed" when he obviously did, according to the writing of many people in one book?

I mean, do you beleive that Mount Vesuvius errupted and burried Pompey?

If this is directed at me, then you missed my point. My point was that comparing the validity of historical sources and children's literature is extremely faulty, and will only hurt your argument.

[William the Bastard]

comparing the validity of historical sources and children's literature is extremely faulty, and will only hurt your argument.

Aesop's Fables personally still have a resonance to me and I am 20!

[Gwendylyn]

Aesop's Fables personally still have a resonance to me and I am 20!

I'm sorry, are you trying to agree or disagree with me, or are you missing the point?

[William the Bastard]

I'm sorry, are you trying to agree or disagree with me, or are you missing the point?

I am only stating my own opinions. Some stories designed for children can have more purpose than those for adults. They can take a subject and simplify it to the bare bones context of a situation. However oversimplification can ruin the true depth and nature of a topic. So I have opinions both ways!

[removeduser_426582376423734]

What about many accounts of a man named Jesus Christ who lived around 2,000 years ago. Should we say "meh, there's no proof he existed" when he obviously did, according to the writing of many people in one book?

I mean, do you beleive that Mount Vesuvius errupted and burried Pompey?

Jesus existed, anyone who disagrees would be a hypocrite if he believed that other historical books were true. However, what he did is up to debate.

[Zerthamel]

Everyone knows Jesus existed it only matters if you live for him or not.

It should be historical source.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

There are stories about Alexander doing incredible things as well....does this make him less of a real person? Of course not.


The typical "Jesus didn't even exist" arguement centers around the fact that there is only "one" source of Jesus's existance, The Bible.

Well, following that logic, I have hereby discovered that Vesuvius did not errupt and burry Pompeii and Herculanium. There is only one historical source that said it did. the acount of Pliny the Younger is the only historical account of the erruption on hand. Obviously, following that logic again, we cannot assume that Vesuvius did in fact errupt and that space aliens could have done it.

[Admiral Nelson]

Well, following that logic, I have hereby discovered that Vesuvius did not errupt and burry Pompeii and Herculanium. There is only one historical source that said it did. the acount of Pliny the Younger is the only historical account of the erruption on hand. Obviously, following that logic again, we cannot assume that Vesuvius did in fact errupt and that space aliens could have done it.

It is not the same. Go to modern-day Pompeii and visit the parts that have been excavated from the volcanic ash.... ask any archaologist in the world and they will confirm the existence and approximate date of the eruption. Historical sources are unnecessary to confirm that. There is much more evidence in defense of Vesuvius than a two millenia- old book.

[Your Lame Sister]

the bible is a subjective book: it's goal is to make the person who reads it to believe in god. therefore, it must be treated as such. it can be usefull for some research, but it can't be taken as hard facts.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Well, following that logic, I have hereby discovered that Vesuvius did not errupt and burry Pompeii and Herculanium. There is only one historical source that said it did. the acount of Pliny the Younger is the only historical account of the erruption on hand. Obviously, following that logic again, we cannot assume that Vesuvius did in fact errupt and that space aliens could have done it.

Well there is just one problem, the archeological evidence which confirms the written sources.
Also Pliny was an eyewitness to the account and describes the events of an volcanic eruption accurately(hence been given the name to Plinian eruptions) which knocks him up a tad on the credibility scale.
If he made it up then he must have been very lucky to actually have gotten it right.
So you can go ahead with that theory unfortunately you won't get far.

About the bible I can only judge to the historians that I have spoken to and they don't deny that the bible can be used as a source.
But the problem is, what can they use ??
What is true and what is made up ??
This is probably the reason why they don't wanna use it as a source and when they do, they use it very carefully and rarely as a main source.
When used as a main source then it is to show how the religious aspect of the time.