By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 29 June 2015
Edit Thread
Esiar said:
JWeinCom said:

If you want to switch to the other topic we can do that.  Just let me know and I'll drop this line of conversation.

So, first off we do not know that Jesus existed. Most historians tend to agree that he did, but it is far from proven. It is difficult to prove that anyone existed back then, and even people like Socrates are not confirmed to have existed. Moreover, even if it was confirmed that Jesus existed, what he said is as far away from historically verified as you can get.

And what you said indicates the Jesus, if real, felt that the Bible was literally true. But, if a character within the story referred to other characters in the story as true, that does not make it so. Do you have evidence outside of the Bible that would confirm its accuracy? Because, saying the Bible is true because a character within it said it is true is kind of circular.

Well that did bring one idea to my mind: That from your perspective, the Old Testament authors could have believed differently than the New Testament authors. What I was saying is that, the book of Acts (for example) is written as if the events physically happened, which doesn't make sense if it was intened to be metophorical, which suggests that the intention of the Book of Acts' author was to record events (real or fake) in a way to make it sound like it actually happened rather than a meaning behind all of it that teaches a moral lesson or something in that regard.


So, I get that you're saying the Bible was meant to be taken literally.  I'm assuming you know the Bible better than me, so I won't argue that.  My question is why do you accept that it is real?  Even if it was intented to be viewed as realistic, you still need some verification that it actually did happen, if, as you originally said, there is obvious proof.  There are many things written in a realistic style that are not real, and even things that are reported as real that are not.  So, assuming that the authors meant this to be viewed as real, why do you believe them?