Do problems with the historocity of the Bible affect your faith (or lack of it)?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

It's affected my faith in that it gives me flexibility in how Christianity should be understood, even when what is revealed turns out to be uncomfortable for those who've held onto certain beliefs all their lives.  For example, I recently discovered that the account of Jesus forgiving the prostitute is not in the original manuscripts but is instead an interpolation.  This has been known for centuries, but I only found this out from doing independent research.  Did it trouble me at first?  Yes, greatly.  But, theologians and ministers have known this and it hasn't caused them to abandon their faith because they consider the account authentic, nonetheless.  And, even if it didn't happen at all and was fabricated to simply create a better image of Jesus, that doesn't take away from the value of the story itself and that's why I don't think Christians should give it any less authority than they would any other passage.

The only thing that would make me seriously consider abandoning Christianity for another faith (notice I didn't say "abandon religion altogether") would be some kind of evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus did not in fact walk the earth, all caveats about "proving a negative" aside.  But, most accredited scholars (some of faith, some not - no, people who are blatantly using scholarship to push an agenda, like Richard Carrier, don't count) accept that there was a physical Jesus.  We've only found better reason to accept this as time goes on.  The mere fact that we have Christianity is, in my opinion, reason enough to believe that there is one significant figure we can trace it all to, independent of whether or not the metaphysical claims are accurate.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The only thing that would make me seriously consider abandoning Christianity for another faith (notice I didn't say "abandon religion altogether") would be some kind of evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus did not in fact walk the earth

So in short, it doesn't matter if what someone says is true, or even if they said anything at all that wasn't later attributed to them, it only matters that there was a real person who may have said it? There is likely evidence for Buddha and Mohammed. There is of course irrefutable evidence that there was a Joseph Smith, and in the case of Emperor Haile Salassie and L. Ron Hubbard we even have them on tape. Would you accept at face value the spiritual and metaphysical claims that they made? The answer is of course no, but why does it not concern you about your own faith?

What matters is if there's truth or value in what was said.  There's no reason to simply not preach or practice forgiveness because the aforementioned account didn't occur.  (In fact, the same message from that account can easily be found in other sayings of Jesus, so this particular example isn't really essential to understanding the moral teachings.)  If your only reason for being moral is so that you may please authority, it's not real morality.  If your only reason for believing is to avoid going to Hell, it's not real belief, it's cowardly pandering so that you can save your own metaphysical ass.  A lot of people do it, but everyone who does is completely neglecting the lesson of not doing things solely for personal gain.

And yes, there is evidence for a Buddha and a Mohammad.  Some of that evidence comes from the movements that they started.  As I was sure to mention in my last post, these proofs may not be evidence of their metaphysical claims, but they are evidence that someone must have been there to inspire them.  Even a myth must be somewhere grounded in truth.  Otherwise, "myth" would be a highly disingenuous term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strawman of the year award.

I specifically said that whether it was fabricated to improve Jesus' image or not does not take away from the the inherent value of the story itself.  In other words, forgiveness is a virtue whether or not it was preached from the mouth of a divine figure.  Forgiveness is a good idea because it's a good idea, not because we'll be punished by an omnipotent being if we don't forgive.  (And usually, you'll face the consequences for not having forgiveness in this life, anyway, because no one's life has improved as a result of grudges or vengeance.)  In other words, if you only treat another person well because you expect to be rewarded for it, then what does that say about the human condition in the first place?  Mankind must be more morally bankrupt than I thought!

I have to say, with all due respect, I'm a little bemused at your posts today.  You're a smart person.  This is rather intellectually lazy on your part...

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Strawman of the year award.

I specifically said that whether it was fabricated to improve Jesus' image or not does not take away from the the inherent value of the story itself.  In other words, forgiveness is a virtue whether or not it was preached from the mouth of a divine figure.  Forgiveness is a good idea because it's a good idea, not because we'll be punished by an omnipotent being if we don't forgive.  (And usually, you'll face the consequences for not having forgiveness in this life, anyway, because no one's life has improved as a result of grudges or vengeance.)  In other words, if you only treat another person well because you expect to be rewarded for it, then what does that say about the human condition in the first place?  Mankind must be more morally bankrupt than I thought!

I have to say, with all due respect, I'm a little bemused at your posts today.  You're a smart person.  This is rather intellectually lazy on your part...

You gave the example of a story in the New Testament that you, through your understanding and research, consider to be a fabrication. You then said;

'And, even if it didn't happen at all and was fabricated to simply create a better image of Jesus, that doesn't take away from the value of the story itself and that's why I don't think Christians should give it any less authority than they would any other passage.'

I then said; 'So in short, it doesn't matter if what someone says is true, or even if they said anything at all that wasn't later attributed to them, it only matters that there was a real person who may have said it?' I was referring of course to the fact that you have no issue with parts of  the book of your religion and the words of your god being a fabrication if it 'creates a better image of Jesus'. Or in short, attributing things to Jesus that he didn't say or do does not present to you as a problem when placed side by side with other key tenets of your faith. That's extraordinary. That's all I was trying say.

(For the record, my point isn't that it's a complete fabrication; it was an interpolation.  It wasn't part of the original manuscripts, but whether or not such an event took place and was simply added to the text upon further investigation is another question.)

Your exact words were, "You've said that even if an addition or interpretation of an event is fabricated, then as long as it makes Jesus look better that's okay."  That totally misses the point.  My goal here isn't to make "Jesus look better," it's to apply a consistent understanding of his teachings.  I'd discourage present understanding of the text if it clearly departed from Jesus' philosophy, but image has nothing to do with it.  If you don't agree with my approach, that's fine, but please don't accuse me of saying things I never said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I've explained, I mentioned forgiveness as an example to illustrate how certain virtues can be of relevance even if they were not explained the way the text professes.  Jesus could have met a woman caught in adultery, pardoned her for her wrongdoings, and challenged her persecutors.  Maybe he didn't.  But that particular account doesn't tell us anything about Jesus that we don't already know.  Forgiveness isn't a new lesson of his, but the story is a real-life example of how that lesson is applied.

The Scriptures indeed paint a portrait of a Jesus who wanted us to follow him as the savior and not just a moral exemplar.  But, with regard to the passage you cited, John 15:1-6 merely states that you are either a branch that bears good fruit or a branch that does not.  Jesus, in this case, was referring to the Jews as the branch; it doesn't teach that when you believe, you become a branch.  Now, I have no time or desire to go over every single passage of the New Testament that refers to Jesus as the Savior - that is a completely different discussion - but the main point is this: Jesus wanted people to have life, to live that life abundantly, to be whole, to be clean, and to be hopeful rather than fearful about what lies ahead for humanity.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I proclaim no certainty or special knowledge of what 'is.'  I know I've said this on a number of occasions here in one way or another.  The discussion is starting to go off track, though, so I'll leave you with this: the concept that establishes the doctrine of Jesus' morality is Logos; i.e. the Word of God.  It is essential that Jesus be separated by his physical entity and his spiritual entity - the entity that pointed people toward the Word rather than the physical manifestation of the Word that people have worshiped to the detriment of popular understanding.  Jesus didn't want a fanbase, he wanted enlightenment.  By following Logos, you are following Jesus, thus observing God.  As far as having to accept Jesus as your savior, that can go a number of ways.  Although, keep in mind that you're speaking to someone who understands "born again" as a process and not as something you decide to label yourself as one day.  I've explained before that I don't accept the idea that one has a set time for which to decide if they believe in God or not.  (As a people who are never on equal footing or start with what can truly be considered a blank slate, such expectations would be completely unreasonable.)

Sadly, I fear that you are trapped in the mindset that there is a single approach to Christian doctrine among believers.  Or, maybe you don't believe that, but your preconceptions of Christianity cause you to overlook those differences or downplay their importance.  It could very well be subconscious, too.  Or I could be completely wrong and it's something else entirely.  In any event, I think that's why it's near impossible to reach a conclusion that's satisfactory to everyone when you are forced to not approach things on your own terms.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Sadly, I fear that you are trapped in the mindset that there is a single approach to Christian doctrine among believers.  Or, maybe you don't believe that, but your preconceptions of Christianity cause you to overlook those differences or downplay their importance.  It could very well be subconscious, too.  Or I could be completely wrong and it's something else entirely.  In any event, I think that's why it's near impossible to reach a conclusion that's satisfactory to everyone when you are forced to not approach things on your own terms.

I don't believe there is a single approach to Christian doctrine. I am aware there are 40,000 different Christian denominations and countless many interpretations folded into each of them. Many different views are expressed on this forum regularly. If I pick one to focus on I am not being purposely ignorant of the others You might forget that I was a practicing Christian until 2010 and was one of the banner bearers of liberal Christianity on this board until that point. I am not a Christian because I don't understand what people believe. It's because I 'get' the point with which I do not agree.

What I find surprising in many of your recent posts is a very classical agnostic approach to morality. You might not be comfortable with that inference (which is not by any means a slight) and at a point in my life neither was I, but I find it intriguing and the way in which you have been defensive of that is interesting That's all.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "agnostic."  If by "agnostic" you mean someone who doesn't claim to have all the answers in front of me, then yes, I suppose "agnostic" would be a fitting label (I think I even referred to myself as an "agnostic theist" some time last year), but in all honesty I hate that word as it's used in its most frequent context because I think everyone is agnostic in one way or another, even those who have convinced themselves they are not, so I find its use rather pretentious and redundant.  If I come off as defensive on that, I don't mean to.

As far as morals go, I believe morality is the same to humans regardless of time period but more and more of it is revealed to us as humanity progresses.  (To use a somewhat crude example, masturbation used to be regarded as immoral because it was believed that a man had a limited supply of semen and so wasting it would be detrimental to the human population.  Some even thought a man could die if he were to "run out."  It was absolutely proper to discourage masturbation and non-procreative sex back in those times, but now we know that none of these concerns hold weight, so discouraging them for nature-based reasons is no longer necessary.)  Gender equality is another strong example, but I think the one I described is best.