# Resolved: The Bible is an authoritative source when discussing Biblical topics... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2011, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136 "2011-03-27T12:06:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/81 "2011-03-28T03:54:10Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > So the difference lies in what you believe you believe? Is the Messiah no longer a Jewish belief? Yes it does. Doesn’t it always? The Jews are still in anticipation of the Messiah, by and large. (although some have “converted” to Christianity) > [@](#): > > My point is that a thorough understanding of the contents of the tenets/writing/doctrines would seem to be necessary,too. But pointing to those particular people was an attempt to show that that knowledge that exists in one form doesn’t imply that that knowledge can only be granted through that form. Well, I guess that at least potentially true. But it’s simply not that the bible is the best “form”, but almost exclusively the only [printed] form. I think it is kind of strange to say “I’m a follower/fan/adherent of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ but I don’t have the time or inclination to find out very much about him. I’ve heard a few things, and he’s popular so he’s well represented in popular culture. I’ll simply improvise.” In short, I’ve always found the “blissful ignorance” argument to be entirely vacuous. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/82 "2011-03-28T03:55:42Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I most certainly did, and I am responding to it directly and exactly. If you feel otherwise, perhaps each of us is interpreting the OP differently. > > See how that works?Yes, I have. And I rely on opinions from experts with vastly more knowledge on the subject than myself. What difference does it make if I have read it cover to cover? I just wanted to hear you say it, in a virtual kind of way. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/83 "2011-03-28T03:58:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They would have been extremely surprised to hear themselves called anything but Jews, and that includes Jesus. No doubt. And if self-labelling is the sole criteria for categorisation, then that’s the only point of any importance. Is that how “Christian” is purely defined? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/84 "2011-03-28T04:07:45Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Yes it does. Doesn’t it always? Why would it matter what you believe you believe? If I believed that Jesus didn’t exist, but for whatever reason I was convinced that to believe Jesus didn’t exist made me a Christian, does that mean that i’m a Christian? Is the definition of Christian just the belief that one is Christian? > [@](#): > > Well, I guess that at least potentially true. But it’s simply not that the bible is the best “form”, but almost exclusively the only [printed] form. > > I think it is kind of strange to say “I’m a follower/fan/adherent of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ but I don’t have the time or inclination to find out very much about him. I’ve heard a few things, and he’s popular so he’s well represented in popular culture. I’ll simply improvise.” > > In short, I’ve always found the “blissful ignorance” argument to be entirely vacuous. I’m not talking learning via passive cultural osmosis, though that’s certainly a method. How about through studying the world? Reading the Bible is presumably not the only active method. While we’re at it, why not divine revelation? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/85 "2011-03-28T04:29:25Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > No doubt. And if self-labelling is the sole criteria for categorisation, then that’s the only point of any importance. Is that how “Christian” is purely defined? Their understanding of their obligation as Jews would not have been altered by a belief that Jesus was the Messiah. There was actually nothing un-Jewish about that belief before the crucifixion. In point of fact, we don’t really know exactly what Jesus and his apostles believed for sure, but it’s unlikely that they were “Christians” in the post-Pauline sense. For instance, I personally don’'t believe that any of them thought Jesus was God or a literal “son of God.” The Messiah, maybe, but that word had a different meaning to them as Jews than it does to what we now call “Christians.” ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/86 "2011-03-28T06:25:50Z")
The problem with the Bible, and it’s a huge one, is that the New Testament was written after the fact. It was not dictated or written by Jesus and accounts of his life are contradictory. His message was pretty basic and for that reason one should assume there are no hidden messages or clarifications that need to be made. Since Jesus didn’t write the New Testament down it exists purely on the individual writings and the compilation of those who followed. As a Christian book, it lacks an author for the 2nd half of it. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/87 "2011-03-28T10:47:06Z")
Well, if we’re quoting the Bible: Acts 11:26c says “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” This is after the first diaspora that happened after “Stephen was killed” (Acts 11:19), and while a large portion of the early Church fathers were still alive. As for the OP: it basically boils down to what I mean when I say, “Don’t fight the hypothetical.” If the OP requires the Bible to be true, then saying it isn’t undermines the entire premise, and thus no debate can be had. The question “What kinds of animals did Noah have on the Ark?” is meaningless if you are just going to argue that Noah didn’t exist. It would be like going into one of **Skald** ’s hypotheticals and saying that, say, [Dave wouldn’t do that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=602109). [sub]All scripture portions taken from the New International Version, ©2011[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/88 "2011-03-28T12:33:38Z")
On whether we have "original texts"for the Hebrew Bible (“Old Testament”): No, we don’t have anything hand-written by the original author(s). However, we have the Dead Sea scrolls, written between around 200 BC - 70 AD, which contain the Hebrew texts of every book of the Hebrew Bible (except for the book of Esther.) Those texts are almost identical with the standard Hebrew texts (codified by the 9th Century, called the Masoretic text) – there are a few word differences, scribal errors, etc. but all fairly minor. So we have an almost “original text.” For the New Testament, we have Greek texts that were taken as authentic in the first few centuries. So, while English translations are variable (and often show political/religious bias), the Hebrew and Greek texts are fixed. One can argue whether _amah_ means “young woman” or “virgin,” but one can’t argue that the word in the book of Isaiah is _amah._ ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/89 "2011-03-28T13:34:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Their understanding of their obligation as Jews would not have been altered by a belief that Jesus was the Messiah. There was actually nothing un-Jewish about that belief before the crucifixion. I’m not arguing that they weren’t Jews, though. Or that they wouldn’t have considered themselves Jews. > [@](#): > > In point of fact, we don’t really know exactly what Jesus and his apostles believed for sure, but it’s unlikely that they were “Christians” in the post-Pauline sense. For instance, I personally don’'t believe that any of them thought Jesus was God or a literal “son of God.” The Messiah, maybe, but that word had a different meaning to them as Jews than it does to what we now call “Christians.” Would you consider there to be “Christians” in that sense prior to the first formations of what we’d consider the collected Christian Bible today? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/90 "2011-03-28T15:58:44Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’m not arguing that they weren’t Jews, though. Or that they wouldn’t have considered themselves Jews. Would you consider there to be “Christians” in that sense prior to the first formations of what we’d consider the collected Christian Bible today? If by “they,” you mean the original, direct disciples of Jesus, then I would say it’s doubtful. We don’t really have any way to know exactly what they believed about Jesus, though (or what Jesus believed about himself). They left no writings or primary testimony. The best data we have about what they thought come from Paul who says they still observed Jewish law, and says that Jesus “appeared” to them after he crucifixion, but does not give details (furthemore, Paul says that Jesus told him that last bit himself, that he did not get his information “from any man,” and that he did not meet any disciples until three years after his conversion, so that muddies the waters a bit). I think it’s probably safe to say that the apostles believed Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and they still kept Jewish law after his death. I think it’s also likely that one or more of them may have had some kind of visionary experiences of him after the crucifixion (though the empty tomb and physical resurrection components are not attested in Christian literature until 40 years after the crucifixion. Those elements are not mentioned by Paul, by Q or by Thomas), and it’s likely that they believed he would return from the sky in the fashion of the “son of man” described by Daniel. I personally think it’s extraordinarily unlikely that they thought Jesus was God himself. That would have been a highly un-Jewish belief. I don’t even think it’s clear that Paul thought of him as identical to God, though he frequently calls him by the title of _Kurios_ (“lord,” “master”), that title was by no means exclusively used for God. Paul was, to say the least, highly idiosyncratic in his beliefs about the “Christ,” and while his corpus provided the foundation for orthodox Christology, I’m not convinced he was a “Christian” in an Augustinian sense either. I would say that “Christianity” as a distinct new religion with a new theology basically emerged after the destruction of Jerusalem (in 70 CE), the Jewish-Jesus movement in Jerusalem was lost and the Pauline seeds among the gentiles began to germinate (which is also when the Canonical Gospels began to be written). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136.md?page=4)