EDIT to correct my screwed up quoting.
I'm guessing all my points have been covered already but I do like ot make a personal response to such theists as Jane.
I am a teensy bit skeptical after having read a number of your posts which don't suggest any great familiarity with the Bible or the scholarship. Perhaps, you might have read a popular book along the way. The work of scholarship is carried out in stupefyingly dull (sometimes) journal articles and a lot of it is in German and other languages that you would have to be able to read, since articles are rarely translated. Still, there are serious books out there and it is certainly possible that you have read one or two. Care to name them?
I love this. You want to claim that since I don’t agree with your nonsense, I don’t know the bible. Hilarious because that’s all of the “reason” you have, Jane. Jane, I was a Christian so I know all of the dodges that Christians use. I’ve read the bible completely once as a believer and once as note, along with probably having read it a couple more times piecemeal. I do love how you try so desperately to lie about other people, Jane. Hmmm, isn’t that called false witnessing? I do love how you’ve decided on your own that any real scholarship is “mostly in German” (hint, there are things called “translations” of articles since your claim that your articles are “rarely translated isn’t true and I see as a transparent attempt to make sure no one looks for them) and I can just see you already trying to claim that any book that you don’t agree with isn’t “really” serious and only simply “popular”. It’s a classic tactic and such a pathetically transparent one.
Do you read German? Can you tell me what Sitz im Leben means without looking? And it’s between you and your god on that little chance to lie. What ones have you read of these ever so “dull” books? I’ve read Schweitzer, Spinoza (the RCC has him on their banned books list, funny that), William Albright, etc.
How interesting. What have you read? How do you evaluate the evidence proposed? Do you have a background in Near Eastern history? Semitic languages and cultures? Ancient literature? Old Testament studies?
I love this, hilarious. And I’m sure you do, don’t you Jane?
You have all of these backgrounds since you are sure that they are needed for knowing all about your religion? Or are you lying Jane, as so many other Christians have? Let’s see. I have a degree in geology, and a very good background in biology (I started my college in that before changing majors). So I know how to investigate and review evidence aka the scientific method that hypocrites like you hate unless it creates things that make your life easier. I have a minor in Library Science so I know how to research very very well. I love learning so I know a lot about a lot of subjects. I am well-versed in archaeology, psychology, and literature, including how various literary techniques are used. I know a lot about other religions, and known that yours is nothing special or unique. I am not an expert in ANE languages but I have no reason not to trust those who are and who support their conclusions with evidence.
I have no interest in worshipping a "possible itinerant rabbi" of any period. I worship God-- and that means Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Ah, so you don’t worship the “historical” Jesus at all since there is no evidence of this historical Jesus to be any “father son and holy spirit”. So much for your attempting to claim that the historical jesus has any validity toward supporting your claims.
Where the historicity of the NT is concerned, the consensus is quite overwhelming. That does not mean uniform agreement on all the details.
No, the consensus is not overwhelming. If you think so, again, evidence please. And it’s always fun to see a Christian make the claim that the consensus is overwhelming but immediately make excuses about why it’s not. It’s rather like the part in “The Life of Brian” where the People’s Front of Judea are asked “What have the Romans done for us?” which leads to 10 minutes of listing just what the Romans have indeed done for them. Like so many Christians, you just want to willfully ignore the lies and contradictions in your bible so you may cling to the parts you like.
Could you please remind Ms Velkyn of that? I have but I think it will carry more weight coming from you than me! More seriously, the problem is where to start and stop. And what will you do with the information when you get it? Will you investigate it? Will my effort pay off in any way, shape or form? How much will be enough?
Jane, you aren’t in the Shelter, so your whining is silly. I’ve shown you my reasoning and evidence that your claims are nonsense. I do love to see *yet again* the usual attempts by a Christian to claim that atheists aren’t “really” interested in evidence. Since I am, Jane, your words are again lies.
You again repeat the baseless claim that the bible is a “primary historical” source. Sorry, but a lie doesn’t magically become true with repetition, Jane. You keep repeating that historians find them accurate. That’s not true. The bible has mentions of real places and people. That’s it. None of the essential events claimed in the bible can be shown to be real at all. Not your “creation”, the noah flood, the supposed destruction to the point it will *never* be found again of Tyre, the exodus, the various wars, the supposedly fantastic palaces of Solomon or David, no magical nativity, no cruxifiction, and no magical return of JC anytime that makes sense. If you want to claim that the mere mentiosn of a few historical places and people make a true story, then the myths of the Greeks and Romans are true, the claims of Islam are true, any modern thriller on the bookshelves is true; all as true as your nonsense. Are they, Jane? Are you willing to accept that?
as for monks being preservers, that’s only by luck. They were using old books as palimpsest for idiotic prayer books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest