Is the "bible" a divinely inspired text or not?

Surely you see Christ's coming as significant change of some sort. What do you see at the primary differences between the OT and NT?

 

kbm and grizzled,

Jesus, a virgin-born 'son of God' who was famed widely as a great teacher and wonderworker, miraculously healing and feeding multitudes, walking on water and raising the dead; who was transfigured on a mount into a shining sun; whose crucifixion was accompanied by great earthquakes, the darkening of the sun (cough* Krishna * cough) and the raising from their graves of numerous 'saints'; and who himself was resurrected from the dead.

Surely these extraordinary events known far and wide were recorded by one or more competent historians of the time! The centuries surrounding the beginning of the Christian era, the periods of Tiberias and Augustus, were, in fact, some of the best-documented in history, as admitted even by Christian apologists.

There are basically no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus' pruported advent. Even eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo, alive at the purported time of Jesus, was silent on the subject of the great Jewish miraclemaker and rabblerouser who brought down the wrath of Rome and Judea. Nor are Jesus and his followers mentioned by any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first and second centuries of the Common Era, including Plutarch, the Roman biographer, who lived at the same time and in the same place where the Christians were purportedly swarming yet made no mention of them, their founder or their religion.

Perhaps the bible is the embellished version of 'something' inspired by God....maybe it conveys 'his' message the best......I, nor anyone can definitively debunk that notion...

I do have my doubts however considering the men who put the bible together. Even they hinted at the fact that there religion was 'not new'; it drew on the models of previous cults/religions for its foundation, but adorned it with a pretty little bow; Jesus.

Arguing whether the bible was inspired does hold some merit (some of the stories draw on older oral tradition/tribal history), but evidence against the divinity of Jesus is so overwhelming, imo, that I can't help but repudiate the thought that he was divine

 

(All this is quoted from an apologetics website)

While less frequently used by scholars, a number of ancient secular sources mention various aspects of Jesus’ life, corroborating the picture presented by the Gospels. The writers of these sources include ancient historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus. Jewish sources such as Josephus and the Talmud add to our knowledge. Government officials such as Pliny the Younger and even Roman Caesars Trajan and Hadrian describe early Christian beliefs and practices. Greek historian and satirist Lucian and Syrian Mara Bar-Serapion provide other details. Several nonorthodox, Gnostic writings speak about Jesus in a more theological manner.
Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the earliest church. Most frequently reported is Jesus’ death, mentioned by twelve sources. Dated approximately 20 to 150 years after Jesus’ death, these secular sources are quite early by the standards of ancient historiography.
Altogether, these non-Christian sources mention that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, performed miracles, led disciples, and that many thought he was deity. These sources call him a good teacher or a philosopher and state that his message included conversion, denial of the gods, fellowship, and immortality. Further, they claim he was crucified for blasphemy but rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples, who were themselves transformed into bold preachers.
A number of early Christian sources also report numerous details concerning the historical Jesus. Some, such as the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, date from A.D. 95-110, or just ten years after the last New Testament book.

For specific details, see Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, MO.: College Press, 1996).
R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1986)
F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974)
Edwin Yamauchi, "Jesus outside the New Testament: What Is the Evidence?" in Jesus under Fire, ed. Michael Wilkins and
J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).
J.B. Lightfoot, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1891, 1956).

 

Well, I can't add much to that. I think it's pretty generally accepted that Christ did exist, the questions are about whether or not he is the son of God.

kbm:
I think they are agreeing that the flood happened. They are suggesting that since the Gil story predated that bible it is the source of the bible story. I think there are a number of possible scenarios, but my main point is that logic is not the route to take to decide if it is the bible is divinely inspired. You and I favour the bible because we believe God is capable of this. I you don't believe in the God of the bible, it's a much bigger leap to the same conclusion, and I don't think you get there.

rimbaud:
Thanks for the tip on Howard Gardner. I read a bit about the Good Work Project and it looks interesting. I find it interesting that there is such a focus on ethics and responsibility in business literature these days. Makes you wonder what's behind it.

 

tpl,

Ah, such young enthusiasm. Save your strength.

As to Gootan's response...sorry, much of that has been thrown out or, at the least, deemed questionable.

I believe it was Origin who lamented the fact that his "friend" (I think they just knew each other) Josephus never mentions Jesus in his histories.

Josephus's writings are known to have been manipulated -- "he" calls Jesus the messiah and the greatest man, etc...not very good for a Jew.

Anyway, that is all I will say as it is pointless.

Grizzled,

Glad you liked the Gardner stuff. I fear that the business world has a long way to go in regards to ethics/responsibility, though. We can all dream, though, right?

 

We can do more than that my friend. We can take action! We can be part of the solution!

tpl:
I'm no historian, but I do know that Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe that Jesus existed, they simply differ on whether they believe he was a prophet or the messiah. I'm guessing that there is some other convincing evidence if Jews and Muslims believe he existed too, but I don't have any references for you.

 

kbm,

If you go around telling people that the Bible came from Gilgamesh, then you are being silly and "irresponsible."

Now, if you said that parts of it reflect that it came out of the same traditions and from the same peoples, you would be fine.

Of course, your purpose in telling your story was quite different, I realize. Try not to let people hurt your head too much.

Grizzled,

You can take part. I am afraid the business world has little use for the me's of the world, despite my longing for a visual culture and education revolution.

 

Rimbaud, you may be right. I won't even pretend that I have read most of the writings that have made it out of antiquity. But do you agree that tpl's position is very difficult to prove without extensive research? He would essentially have to present everything while the opposing stance would only require one example.

 

mr_gootan,

Proving something negative is always more difficult, especially when combined with about 1600 years of belief (I leave out the first few hundred years because Chrisitans were so divided and diverse in their beliefs - mostly being between literalists and symbolists - even in the year 120 there was confusion as to whether Jesus really existed).

However, it is not as hard as you think simply because in the last 2-3 years there have been 10-15 major works that have all proposed the non-existance of Jesus. So plenty others have done the work for tpl, or anyone else interested. I, personally, have a few of them...I also have some that argue for the existance.

 

So I would say that way for the individual to address this question for themselves is to read the bible, (the New Testament first, I suggest) and see whether you find the message to be true, profoundly true in fact. And if you do, I suggest, you will have reason to believe that Christ probably existed as the bible says he did.

 

Could you list some of these works of which you speak? I'd be very interested in reading some both for and against the existence of Jesus...

 

Okay, I intentionally avoided posting on this subject for a while, because I knew that once I started, I would be even more long-winded than usual, but there is an important distinction that people aren't making, or at least not that I've noticed, and that is that if you accept that the Bible, as we know it, is inspired, you have to accept not just the text of the Bible, but the process of it's evolution, from David, and the years of the Babylonian captivity when much of the Old Testament was written, up to and including Constantine's Council of Nicea, where the Bible, as we know it, including what is and what isn't included, was finalized, and surviving all the many translations that this process included..

Starting at the beginning, the Hebrew god Yaweh, who has evolved into the God of the Bible was probably originally a local desert deity in the arid regions east of Canaan, and recent archeological evidence suggests that Yaweh may originally have been one of at least 2 Gods of the local inhabitants who shared a polytheistic faith with a female mother God, name unkown...

Much of the Old Testament was written post facto, especially that written during the Captivity, and was a concerted and very concentrated effort to organize and summarize the previously oral traditions of the Hebrew faith, inspired by their relocation, and with it's inherent fear of dissolution...All in all, one of the more remarkable achievements in the history of either organized religion, or the written word...

Almost none of what we now call the New Testament ever pretended to be written during the lifetime of Jesus Christ, and what has been included within this testament is only part of the many writings and letters written by the various apostles and disciples, whose selection was an ongoing process of inclusion and elimination for a few centuries until Constantine summoned all the leaders of the Christian Church in Nicea, Asia Minor, in 325, to deal with such issues as Arryanism, the physical state of Christ, and the finalization of the Bible...It is interesting to note that, from the point of view of the undoubted authority over this process, Constantine, the Council was an entirely pragmatic one; He sought to structure the rule and faith of the Church into a hierarchy, so as to substantially mirror and support his own hierarchal political power structure, and to religiously validate the authority of the Emperor. These were among the many less than purely religious factors which have affected the outcome of the Bible through it's process , and if we ask ourselves whether or not the text is divinely inspired, we must also ask if this entire process was equally inspired...

Personally, I have arrived at no conclusion...The historian in me has grave doubts, especially when you learn more about some of the more notable translators, and their work, over the ages...but the hopefull part of me observes that if their is a God, he would inspire us through men who are flawed, and processes which are less than pure or holy, but whose outcome would be determined by his hand, not the process...It's an interesting question, but this perspective is, I think, important when asking the question posed by this thread...