Quote:
Originally posted by Raistlin:
The bible would be a lousy reference. It was written down over many decades
by numerous authors. On top of that what was written about was passed on by word of mouth.
We all know how word of mouth can be distorted by numerous recountings.
|
Raistlin,
Actually Celtic society was not literate and scorned the use of writing as it weakens the memory. Their bards trained for twenty years and recited their tales from memory. Numerous recounting can indeed distort truth, but so too can an individuals bias in writing. Rewriting from a source distorts it further.
Whether or not you agree with the theological implications of the Bible, as an historical reference it is actually quite accurate. For example, other cultures of the era and area, like the Assyrians only really wrote about their victories, not their defeats. The Bible lists humiliation and defeat, upon humiliation and defeat, on it's authors.
The measurements, family trees, and other seemingly unecessary facts about the sizes of the temple, new laws passed by King Whoevertheheck, and names of exiles returning, indicate an astounding dedication to fact, truth and accuracy.
The other thing is that there are four Gospels, from at least two seperate original sources that when crosschecked support rather than contradict each other as would be expected.
Just because you don't agree with the theological content is a poor reason to disgard the historical writings contained, or the poetry and songs or the Confucious-like wise sayings within.
We are talking also about detailed writings about the life of an individual who has impacted the world more than any other human in history. To write such a figure off as mythical ignores precedented patterns of fame and influence. There is no reason to doubt Buddha existed, nor Confucious or Sun Tsu or David of Israel, Alexander the Great, Napoleon or Plato. Thus as a human Jesus of Nazareth most assuredly existed. To accord the massive influence to a mythical figure and then propose that other, less impacting and less documented individuals were factual, is a most bizzare position to try and take.
The issue is whether you agree with his statements or not, not whether or not he was around to make them.
------------------
"Check the sustain on this one ... aaaaaaaa, I mean you could go out for a bite and there'd still be aaaaaaaaa"
"Can I touch it?"
"No. It can't be played"
"Can I look at it?
"No we've seen enough of that one....."
A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!