Why do you not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired?

[Anonymous]

Take a class on the historical/critical analysis of the NT and you will see why. You can easily see where the authors copied each other and copied ideas from other sources. You can also see where they inserted their own perspective. Using what we know about the period as a whole from contemporary sources, you can begin to piece together why they might have done that. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. It just takes the supernatural element out of it.

[Anonymous]

Jesus -- liar, Lord or legend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was sort of the subject of the sermon today at my church...Can the Bible be Trusted? The sermon is obviously too long to post here, and honestly can't remember all of it. But basically, it was stating that the writings that comprised the Bible, or at least the NT, was historically accurate from a purely historically point of view, and as CS Lewis stated (not verbatim), Jesus was either a raving lunatic to claim he was the Son of God, or he really was the Son of God.

Yes. An entire religion is actually based on the utterances schizophrenic yeshiva boy. If he were around today he'd be…well…starting some crackpot church.

+1

This is one of the thing that gets me. If a past religious figure (prophet, claim of divinity) were around today, and did the same thing, they would unquestionably be mentally ill. I'm fascinated how some people of faith will dismiss people like Koresh, or some other cult leader, but is so believing of similar figured of the past. It's the same exact thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a class on the historical/critical analysis of the NT and you will see why. You can easily see where the authors copied each other and copied ideas from other sources. You can also see where they inserted their own perspective. Using what we know about the period as a whole from contemporary sources, you can begin to piece together why they might have done that. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. It just takes the supernatural element out of it.

I've taken such a class, and it was fascinating. I disagree it takes the supernatural out of it, though, but obviously that's a personal response. Instead, it's sort of like any event that involves witnesses, where some witnesses are going to remember different things, or are going to remember the same things differently. This happens every day with witnesses in courts. I take your point that some of the gospel authors did their own editing, but the larger consistencies among the accounts witness to an underlying truth, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was sort of the subject of the sermon today at my church...Can the Bible be Trusted? The sermon is obviously too long to post here, and honestly can't remember all of it. But basically, it was stating that the writings that comprised the Bible, or at least the NT, was historically accurate from a purely historically point of view, and as CS Lewis stated (not verbatim), Jesus was either a raving lunatic to claim he was the Son of God, or he really was the Son of God.

Yes. An entire religion is actually based on the utterances schizophrenic yeshiva boy. If he were around today he'd be…well…starting some crackpot church.

+1

This is one of the thing that gets me. If a past religious figure (prophet, claim of divinity) were around today, and did the same thing, they would unquestionably be mentally ill. I'm fascinated how some people of faith will dismiss people like Koresh, or some other cult leader, but is so believing of similar figured of the past. It's the same exact thing.

Unless they weren't mentally ill.... I'm fascinated how some atheists can make claims like "Koresh is the exact same thing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a class on the historical/critical analysis of the NT and you will see why. You can easily see where the authors copied each other and copied ideas from other sources. You can also see where they inserted their own perspective. Using what we know about the period as a whole from contemporary sources, you can begin to piece together why they might have done that. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. It just takes the supernatural element out of it.

I've taken such a class, and it was fascinating. I disagree it takes the supernatural out of it, though, but obviously that's a personal response. Instead, it's sort of like any event that involves witnesses, where some witnesses are going to remember different things, or are going to remember the same things differently. This happens every day with witnesses in courts. I take your point that some of the gospel authors did their own editing, but the larger consistencies among the accounts witness to an underlying truth, IMO.

the historical-critical method is absolutely non- supernatural. Historians do not study things which there is no evidence -- like the supernatural. They can report on what people say, but do not make historical determination of events for which there can be no historical evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was sort of the subject of the sermon today at my church...Can the Bible be Trusted? The sermon is obviously too long to post here, and honestly can't remember all of it. But basically, it was stating that the writings that comprised the Bible, or at least the NT, was historically accurate from a purely historically point of view, and as CS Lewis stated (not verbatim), Jesus was either a raving lunatic to claim he was the Son of God, or he really was the Son of God.

Yes. An entire religion is actually based on the utterances schizophrenic yeshiva boy. If he were around today he'd be…well…starting some crackpot church.

+1

This is one of the thing that gets me. If a past religious figure (prophet, claim of divinity) were around today, and did the same thing, they would unquestionably be mentally ill. I'm fascinated how some people of faith will dismiss people like Koresh, or some other cult leader, but is so believing of similar figured of the past. It's the same exact thing.

Unless they weren't mentally ill.... I'm fascinated how some atheists can make claims like "Koresh is the exact same thing."

We have rapid communication that can connect opposite ends of the worlds instantly, these days. We have people that study these kinds of things. Now we can communicate and compare, instead of these people developing in relatively isolated niches. Such people who claimed they were divine or divinely inspired has existed in every culture, continent, all over the world. Do you believe them all? The Mayan priest? Do you believe Jesus was divine (or divinely inspired), but not Mohammed? Why are you picking and choosing which one to believe? They really are all the same thing - past and present.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Someone's either a liar or was hallucinating/on an acid trip.

Before you die, ask to be dressed in your lightest clothing. You will find hellfires eternal to be rather hot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should I?

+1

The burden of proof is on those who claim it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a class on the historical/critical analysis of the NT and you will see why. You can easily see where the authors copied each other and copied ideas from other sources. You can also see where they inserted their own perspective. Using what we know about the period as a whole from contemporary sources, you can begin to piece together why they might have done that. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. It just takes the supernatural element out of it.

I've taken such a class, and it was fascinating. I disagree it takes the supernatural out of it, though, but obviously that's a personal response. Instead, it's sort of like any event that involves witnesses, where some witnesses are going to remember different things, or are going to remember the same things differently. This happens every day with witnesses in courts. I take your point that some of the gospel authors did their own editing, but the larger consistencies among the accounts witness to an underlying truth, IMO.

the historical-critical method is absolutely non- supernatural. Historians do not study things which there is no evidence -- like the supernatural. They can report on what people say, but do not make historical determination of events for which there can be no historical evidence.

Historical and literature-type approaches have a lot to add to faith, IMO. But at the end of the day, it all comes down to faith (the supernatural, if you will). Short of proving the whole thing is a complete fabrication, which neither approach has done to date, you still come back to the issue of faith (supernatural, if you prefer). Even accepting the various OT or NT books as a historical record compiled by witnesses or people who talked to witnesses, vs. a complete fabrication by some patriarchy, is a matter of faith. So you look at the historical evidence, and then you add faith, or you don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Someone's either a liar or was hallucinating/on an acid trip.

Before you die, ask to be dressed in your lightest clothing. You will find hellfires eternal to be rather hot!

You can tell they are Christian by their love

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a class on the historical/critical analysis of the NT and you will see why. You can easily see where the authors copied each other and copied ideas from other sources. You can also see where they inserted their own perspective. Using what we know about the period as a whole from contemporary sources, you can begin to piece together why they might have done that. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. It just takes the supernatural element out of it.

I've taken such a class, and it was fascinating. I disagree it takes the supernatural out of it, though, but obviously that's a personal response. Instead, it's sort of like any event that involves witnesses, where some witnesses are going to remember different things, or are going to remember the same things differently. This happens every day with witnesses in courts. I take your point that some of the gospel authors did their own editing, but the larger consistencies among the accounts witness to an underlying truth, IMO.

the historical-critical method is absolutely non- supernatural. Historians do not study things which there is no evidence -- like the supernatural. They can report on what people say, but do not make historical determination of events for which there can be no historical evidence.

Historical and literature-type approaches have a lot to add to faith, IMO. But at the end of the day, it all comes down to faith (the supernatural, if you will). Short of proving the whole thing is a complete fabrication, which neither approach has done to date, you still come back to the issue of faith (supernatural, if you prefer). Even accepting the various OT or NT books as a historical record compiled by witnesses or people who talked to witnesses, vs. a complete fabrication by some patriarchy, is a matter of faith. So you look at the historical evidence, and then you add faith, or you don't.

Joe, if the facts don't suit you, add fairy tales.

[Anonymous]

Joe = iow. In other words

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a class on the historical/critical analysis of the NT and you will see why. You can easily see where the authors copied each other and copied ideas from other sources. You can also see where they inserted their own perspective. Using what we know about the period as a whole from contemporary sources, you can begin to piece together why they might have done that. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. It just takes the supernatural element out of it.

I've taken such a class, and it was fascinating. I disagree it takes the supernatural out of it, though, but obviously that's a personal response. Instead, it's sort of like any event that involves witnesses, where some witnesses are going to remember different things, or are going to remember the same things differently. This happens every day with witnesses in courts. I take your point that some of the gospel authors did their own editing, but the larger consistencies among the accounts witness to an underlying truth, IMO.

the historical-critical method is absolutely non- supernatural. Historians do not study things which there is no evidence -- like the supernatural. They can report on what people say, but do not make historical determination of events for which there can be no historical evidence.

Historical and literature-type approaches have a lot to add to faith, IMO. But at the end of the day, it all comes down to faith (the supernatural, if you will). Short of proving the whole thing is a complete fabrication, which neither approach has done to date, you still come back to the issue of faith (supernatural, if you prefer). Even accepting the various OT or NT books as a historical record compiled by witnesses or people who talked to witnesses, vs. a complete fabrication by some patriarchy, is a matter of faith. So you look at the historical evidence, and then you add faith, or you don't.

That's a very neat rationale for discounting factual information that could be applied to anything. Don't like the outcome of a scientific experiment? No problem -- accept the empirical evidence and add faith to get the preferred result.

Don't like the fact that you've found your spouse in bed with another? Just add faith (the supernatural if you will) and all's well.

"add faith" becomes an excuse to believe what feels good, instead of what common sense tells you. It's a way to deny reality that sounds like you're doing something noble and good -- and that could get you to heaven.

I hate to think that intelligent people are accepting this kind of thinking -- and maybe learning it in church from people who should know better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

that's another possibility -- he was just a guy during those times.

"Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/gallery/images/340/zaphod2.jpg