proving/debunking Christianity finally

Hey all - maybe I haven't done enough homework yet, but here's my question anyway.

It's fairly clear to me that most if not all of Christianity is based on belief in the texts of the Bible. By 'belief' I mean that they are convinced that the accounts contained within the Bible, especially those concerning Jesus can be taken as literal.

So my question is this - why hasn't someone produced the definitive evidence that either the texts of the Bible were embellished the political figures of the time, or that they were factual accounts of miracles, etc.? Wouldn't either way really benefit everyone? One way, we say yeap, here we go there's an actual parchment here, a scrap here, a sandal there all of which prove that Jesus was real. Hallelujah, we can all agree to go to church and forget about blowing each other up over fossil fuels (erm.. or unlimited petroleum products of the earth, depending on which ATS forum you read ). The other way, we get a blushing apology from the Church that says ok, these are all parables, to talk about the way life SHOULD be lived. Bingo Christianity is new all over again, with renewed interest in learning about 'the faith' and we can finally hear about the more mystical elements of the faith.

Did I miss the boat? Already been done? The research forum?

Remember this:
The bible must not be judged by it's entireity...
In other words,
the bible is a collection of independent volumes, written at different times, in different places, by different people.

Maybe not useful to your topic, but always wise to keep in mind.

Originally posted by theBLESSINGofVISION
Remember this:
The bible must not be judged by it's entireity...
In other words,
the bible is a collection of independent volumes, written at different times, in different places, by different people.

Maybe not useful to your topic, but always wise to keep in mind.

Those people are prophets and what they write is what God told them... Supposedly

Thanks for your posts, and that's exactly where I'm going - has anyone actually taken a critical, objective look at the Bible in its entirety? I know there's a wealth of information out there, but I'm kind of digging for resources that ATS'ers recommend...

Welcome to our world!

There has probably been more written on this subject than any other in the last 2,000 years or more.

If you are genuinely interested, plan to spend a couple of decades in research and keep an open mind. Never forget the historical context of the events and/or interpretations of those events. Never forget the closely intertwined political influences. If you are of a religious nature - by that I mean you consider yourself to have a strong set of beliefs or you are a member of a leading religious group - then, try very hard to read what is actually written rather than a pre-conceived notion of what you've been told that these words/stories are supposed to mean. That is much harder than you might think.

What I enjoy reading about Christianity are the "extremes" - those that strongly support all the Gospels say about Jesus and those that strongly deny that any part of it is true. I generally read with the attitude that the truth is probably somewhere in between those extremes.

Originally posted by RedeemingSpirit


So my question is this - why hasn't someone produced the definitive evidence that either the texts of the Bible were embellished the political figures of the time, or that they were factual accounts of miracles, etc.?

How can you have a factual account of a miracle?? Any text containing stories about miracles is going to have to be taken as an embellishment, if faith isn't going to be involved.

Bingo Christianity is new all over again, with renewed interest in learning about 'the faith' and we can finally hear about the more mystical elements of the faith.

What does it matter what large groups of other people are doing? The Church isn't preventing anyone from learning anything anyway, the information is out there, you can get it. It doesn't have to be part of some movement.

Thanks Al, I think we're on the same wavelength. I understand that with a mostly Christian upbringing, getting beyond deep rooted preconceptions is difficult. I guess I'm really begging the question here - why the heck haven't we sorted out what the real truths are in this regard. Did Jesus really exist? Was he a miracle born from a virgin? Did he walk on water? Some hardcore factual evidence here - there must be something that can attest to the validity of the bible and the things therein. What if we built a massive data warehouse of every text written on the bible, every translation of the bible and searched for every nugget of information that is corroborated across more than one text? With all the research that has been done, all the books that have been written, my question is just why has there not be a general consensus over what's true and what's not?

Not a new question, I'm sure.

think about this.

over the years there has never been an archelogical find that has contradicted what is in the bible.

They have found Jericho, the tower of Babel, and many other places that take place in biblical history and have found all to be consistant with the bible.

it is just a matter of faith if you want to belive in the bible, or wait until the whole thing gets proven

Ahhhh...there's the rub!

Many scholars, laypeople, religious leaders, and charlatans have claimed to have accomplished just what you suggest. There are many, many definitive books claiming to have finally "solved the puzzle" once and for all and absolutely. The problem is, of course, that most of these authors don't agree with each other and some are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

As Jehosophat correctly points out, we've found a lot of historical evidence that places referenced in the Bible were, indeed, actual places. Same with some of the people. He/she seems to imply that this means that we will eventually find hard evidence that proves all of the Bible. Many others argue that we should expect that the Bible would contain many proven facts about certain people (mostly kings and military leaders) and actual places because all historical fiction contains these elements.

I'm not arguing either side. I'm only saying that it's really interesting to examine all points of view with an open mind. My personal belief in G-d does not bind me to place any significance at all on the Bible or any other book written by the hand of man so, I don't really have a dog in this fight.

When looking for the bible to be 'true'--what exactly does that mean?

I mean, as far as Jehosophat saying it is true, and Al Davison saying otherwise--what do each of you consider to be 'true?'

Facts?
Verifiable as actual events in the material plane?

Originally posted by Jehosephat
think about this.

over the years there has never been an archelogical find that has contradicted what is in the bible.

They have found Jericho, the tower of Babel, and many other places that take place in biblical history and have found all to be consistant with the bible.

it is just a matter of faith if you want to belive in the bible, or wait until the whole thing gets proven

All the Archaeological evidence suggests is that the author of the particular biblical entry had knowledge of the area and/or peoples of the time, it DOES NOT prove that God/Jesus existed. Jericho for instance is known to have been there and its walls did fall down but not the way the bible says. Also Jerusalem at the time of Solomon was not the huge city that the bible portrays (archaeologically verified) and there is no evidence of about 3 million Israelite wanderers (at any time) during Exodus. So although there is archaelogical support for the bible there is also support for some of bible being wrong. Another exodus anomaly is the FACT that the 'land of milk and honey' i.e Canaan was controlled by they Egyptians at the time so why did moses take them there to escape the Egyptians? Makes no sense.

G

I'm not sure if you were inviting me to answer but, I think I already did. I consider the majority of the Bible to be a collection of historical fiction primarily written to support the belief in the Abrahamic religious traditions. Most of it was very likely just oral traditions and folk tales that were, at some point, committed to writing. I actually like the Bible - lots of good stories with good moral points. But, most of the stories are, to me, like the old "ant and the grasshopper" story. Fables that teach valuable lessons. It's not a bad piece of literature even if it's pretty boring in places. It doesn't have to be true to have value.

I don't want to slam the Bible, here. I don't have a problem with folks believing it in whatever way they choose as long as it does not impact me in any significant way then, why would I care?

Since this thread title specifically references Christianity, I'll go on to say that I think most of the stories about Jesus were really old, old stories about other characters - some real, some imagined. I'm not saying that I have made up my mind about whether there really was a Jesus but, I'm pretty confident that this character was not the "Son of G-d". In fact, I smile when I think about what G-d would think if G-d ever found out that a bunch of us humans decided to give him a child. I think G-d would find that amusing and probably be like "well, bless their little hearts - that's kinda sweet".

[edit on 8-1-2006 by Al Davison]