The New Testament should be treated as historic knowledge of the past. Just like the texts describing Alexander the Great and the conquest of the new world.
Just because there are miracles it doesn't make it less trustworthy.
Jesus rose from the death and the evidences for the resurrection is strong In this one. There was a p .Hd research on the resurrection and the conclusion was to say that Jesus had an unknown twin brother who suddenly appeared after his death and then everyone mistook the twin brother for Jesus. Because of the fact that there's so much evidence to support this and he was afraid of the scientific community if he had said it was a miracle, he then chose to come up with something as stupid to say that it must have been a twin.
The Bible is real folks and I would like you to look into this.

You show your ignorance in your first sentence of historic texts. We don't have ANY first person accounts of Alexander the Great. We have differing accounts of what he did written hundreds of years after he died. And the conquest of the new world is one of the more contended historic accounts there is, it was purely written by the victors and discounted and covered up multiple cases of genocide and cruelty. Neither the conquest nor Alexander should be examples of "good" historic texts, in fact they're some of the best examples of garbled historic writings we have.

Yes but the writings of Alexander is still being portrayed as true. Perhaps more by the public however.
The bible is not exaggerating, it's direct and straight forward. It's not in a poetic language filled with perfection. It's shows the ugly truth about humans but also the love from God towards us humans. If you look at the letters John wrote and look at his history of being a Jew and a man who would hunt down and kill Christians to become the faithful man he became it's obvious that it's true.

There are some accounts in the bible that, once corroborated by other sources (preferably firsthand, impartial accounts), can be considered a likely explanation of what happened.

That's it. Considering how much of the bible we know to be false and how much of the remaining is extremely unlikely, what is left should be treated with extreme skepticism.

skepticism towards what? Beliveing that you are a divine being and are told to love your fellow human beings and the God who loves you back no matter what? What harm is there in that, when it comes form the man who rose form the dead and made many other miracles?
Don't look at human behavior and say that it's false. Yes there has been killings in the name of God and other dangerous things. That has labeled the New Testement in a negative way, just like Stalin did to communism. Please try not to bring your fellings into this.

This post was edited by LazyDazy on Apr 16 2016 08:36am

twin brother... yes...
so actually you are doing tales over tales book
okay... yes...


have a nice one dude...

Er...

If you can't write miracles that's what you come up with, if you actually look at the evidence without being ignorent.

This topic is going places.

There is a massive problem with your premise, to illustrate:





These two things are contradictory. The public does not dictate what is historically accurate text, literary scholars do in conjunction with historians. One approach analyzes the language at play the other actual historical accounts that we can compare them to.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but outside of a few key events we can't be certain Alexander the Great can be attributed nearly as much as he is by the public. Whether his actions were a result of his personal genius or his council we have no firsthand account. Whether he truly led battles and campaigns or whether they were lead by his officers we cannot say. Whether he was responsible for the founding of cities or whether they were the result of his councilors and engineers we cannot say. All of these things are generally accepted by the public to be the direct result of Alexander's genius and leadership, all of them are built on assumptions and are historically unfounded.

Now ask yourself, is this the same base that you want to build the Bible on? Myths and assumptions taken for granted by an ignorant public? I'd rather have a loose idea of the historic happenings in the Bible and take the lessons presented with more seriousness than the actual historical record. Forcing people to believe the historic accounts in the bible is a fool's errand, focus on the lessons taught not the demonstrably false accounts garbled by thousands of years of edits and embellishments. Beyond that question whether the message is the original message, that's what I do. I try to discern which messages could have been tainted by time and man's hand, pull the good lessons and ponder the ones I disagree with.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 16 2016 09:11am