Is the bible just a bunch of Myths?

This is from a talk given at Newcastle University Christian Union mission week, 'Lost be Found'. Speaker Nick Howard gives ten stepping stones towards understanding the bible as a guide to life.

The talk does not attempt to answer every question people may have about the bible and its sources but tells us why Christians trust in it. Please post questions and queries about the talk and I hope that they can be answered.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Nick
• Howard
• Newcastle
• Christian
• Union
• lost
• be
• found

[CamdenBloke]

I'd like to see atheist biblical scholars and historians at this meeting tossing actual critical comments at these people.

[dmosier]

1:00..."Jesus said this about the bible"

Jesus did not say this about 'the bible'.

The 'bible', as we know it was not around in those times. The ENTIRE NEW TESTIMATE was written after Jesus' death...and this is if you believe the Jesus Myth in the first place.

Your first point is flawed beyond repair, and in my opinion so are the rest.

[Gurn92]

"that's quite cheesy I suppose" understatement of the year. This guy's whole demeanour is very cheesy and preachy. I just can't accept it when he proclaims that faith in Jesus through scripture alone can give eternal life, protestants misinterpret scripture constantly hence why they have split into over 70,000 different factions. Faith and works is a far more convincing statement of how to, please God (if you believe that is) and attain eternal life.

[jgourlay6]

You have faith in 'empirical reasoning' and what you call 'practical reason' - you are just blind to your faith. Prove empiricism without assuming it. Demonstrate the validity of practical reason without using the reason you assume (else you are engaging in circular reasoning). Induction can only give probabilities which is not knowledge - or have you answered David Hume's charge?

[lonerook860]

Nope faith is not reasonable because it is the justification of a belief on nothing more than conviction - conviction is not a form of proof. Empirical reasoning is a process based on the principles that there are common principles and order within reality which we can demonstrate. Faith and practical reason are very different, and you have no justification for stating you have true knowledge of a creator, other than your own self-affirming opinion.

[dmosier]

Where is YOUR PROOF that "Mark was written in the 1stC"?

Please provide a source.

[jgourlay6]

Are you kidding?! Tacitus explicitly mentions 'Christus' from whom the 'Christians' derive their name. This ties in with Acts 11.26.

The onus is on the historian to give good reason for the rise of a 'myth' when there exists a very simple explanation for belief in the existence of a person - i.e. that he actually existed.

[jgourlay6]

This presupposes (by faith) that Jesus could not foretell the destruction of Jerusalem. A lot of higher criticism works on this presupposition. But the presupposition itself is debatable of course...

[dmosier]

So then we agree that Tacitus is not a reliable source.  Good to find some common ground

[jgourlay6]

I didn't realise you were quoting me. Why haven't you answered the question I first put: where is the reputable historian who believes Jesus did not exist?

[dmosier]

From Wikipedia

Dating of Mark after 70 AD is based on apparent references to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, combined with the assumption that the first readers would not have understood these references if the gospel had been written prior to the events described.

Mark 13:14-23, known as the "Little Apocalypse", is a key passage for dating the text. Using the method of Higher Criticism to analyze the Biblical text and to discover the historical framework in which it was written, ...

[jgourlay6]

I appreciate you modesty. So my faith in an eternal Creator as the explanation of what neither of could empirically prove is reasonable. We all have faith - some of us admit it. We all have faith - something being caused by a 'greater' being is reasonable faith even if not strictly demonstrable by the methods of induction. After all, induction itself is not proven by induction but believed by faith as an axiom for science.