It doesn't "make me right", but I never meant to imply that it did.
What were you expecting me to say?
"Good lord! You say these things were written in a book by someone with a PhD? Well then they must be true!"

I can debate or discuss individual arguments (at least to the best of my ability), but there's precious little I can say in response to something along the lines of "It's true 'cause Dr. Pagels said so."

I may perhaps be convinced by her arguments; I will not be convinced merely by her degree. I'm sure you can understand that.

The King James Version of the Bible (1611) is the one of the great books in English literature. To credit it more than that is only to discredit the scholars that wrote it.

How many "other writings" do you consider to be "divinely authored"?

But ok, let's make an analogy that doesn't depend on divine inspiration. Let's say you have 10 paintings, some of which may be frauds and some of which may be authentic Rembrandts. Your financial situation demands you to put them all for sale for the highest price possible. Knowing that you're in no position to distinguish between the real thing and the fraud, what kind of price tag will you use? The lowest common denomitor?

I'm not sure i'm quite following the connection between the analogy and the situation at hand. Wouldn't it make sense to just do your best to determine which ones, if any, were fakes?
If, in your analogy, the paintings represent ancient texts, are you suggesting that because some ancient texts might be forgeries we should treat them all as forgeries? Why should we make such sweeping generalizations?

I find it amusing that the Google ad at the bottom of the page (at least on my screen) says, "Jesus didn't exist? Learn more: www.thegodmovie.com."

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

So read her book & let's chat.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

I will definately let you know if/when I do so.

once again twain hides behind a distant author or news article to prevent a reasonable discussion. in this regard, he has the maturity of a five year old.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

while twain and I agree on very little when it comes to religion, he does make good points and he is not one of those athiests who knows nothing about Christianity. He has an idea about what he is talking about. Give him a break.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

It would be difficult to credit the Bible generally (and the gospels in particular) as proof of anything. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, viz. stories whose authorship cannot be authenticated and which cannot be corroborated except by other hearsay evidence; and although there are references in the Scriptures of persons, places and events whose existence can be corroborated by other historical records, it is hard to credit the story of Jesus in the gospels as anything more than fable. The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) cannot be authenticated; and even if they could, they cannot be proved contemporaneous accounts of a percipient witness to the events described or even recorded recollection. They were most likely popular stories handed down by verbal tradition and miscellaneous writings of the early Christian sects, which were later collected and revised under the auspices of the Church (not all of the gospels were approved), and eventually translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. The English Bible, is even more attenuated, being translated by William Tyndale, who used the Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate; which translation was later revised and edited under the direction of Francis Bacon as the King James version. To argue over which version of the Scriptures is correct is merely to beg the question.

For the same reason, it is questionable that these texts can even be relied upon as an historical record. For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus. Pilate was a Roman aristocrat, a knight of the equestrian class, and appointed Procurator of Judea as representative of the Emperor Tiberius. The historical references to Jesus, on the other hand, are sketchy at best. Philo of Alexandria, who was contemporaneous with Jesus and Paul, does not mention Christ or the Christians; and the brief account of Flavius Josephus in the Testamonium Flavianum (C.E. 93) appears to have been added by a later hand. Even the reference by Tacitus is second-hand hearsay (most likely from his friend and correspondent Pliny the Younger, who was Governor of Bithynia, and active in rooting out Christian sects under Trajan). See Pliny the Younger, Letters, Book X, 96; and Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.

Here argument fails, for argument is not evidence. In this respect, the Bible is no more relevant than other ancient literary works (e.g., Homer) in proving historical fact. Questions of this sort require one to assume as true what may not be susceptible of proof; which presumptions invariably result in irrational arguments that get nowhere. The Scriptures are just not intended to be subject to such critical examination. You can argue it forever, but it will bring you no closer to the truth of the matter.

The Bible is only proof if you actually have faith. If you don't have faith then it's going to be this really weird book.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Ah, "proof" is such an interesting concept. I agree with you that the Bible is not proof of anything. But then, if you read it, it never even remotely claims to be.

No, I think the best you could say (especially wrt the gospels) is that they are testimonial evidence, the quality of which one should attempt to ascertain however one can.
"Proofs" are the domain of the "hard" sciences, those with labs and experiments or with set axioms and laws. One should never ask a given text to "prove" anything; one should merely ask whether or not it represents any sort of persuasive evidence.

Now you say that "the Bible is no more relevant than other ancient literary works", to which I might ask "relevant to what?"
If you mean "relevant to learning the truth of historical events" then I would point out that some ancient literary works are quite relevent to that purpose.
If the gospels, or the New Testement in general, are to be looked at for historical relevence, then they must either be accepted as being what they are purported to be (meaning, in this case, honest accounts written by the attributed authors; no need to even touch the issue of "divine inspiration") or else they must be explaind away as something else (and preferably reason given as to why and how the deception was perpertrated.

To that end, I give you full credit for putting forth a theory that the gospels were "most likely popular stories handed down by verbal tradition and miscellaneous writings of the early Christian sects". I presume that you also believe that these particular "popular stories" happened to be false ones, for of course some popular stories are quite true, but that's another issue.
Personally, from what looking into the history of the gospels I've done, I find the explination you presented doubtful and unpersuasive. But I can only encourage anyone who wants to form an opinion to have their own look into the matter. To learn what texts and manuscripts exist, when they were dated, what the records show ancient scholors thought of these texts and so forth. And of course, at some point comparing these things to ancient texts of a similar age and nature for the sake of perspective.

The only truly objectionable things are the arguments which blindly accept or dismiss a source without ever really considering it.

Oh, I don't know, non. I'd say that, in a way, it's a pretty weird book either way

And, I'm not an atheist. I'm a Deist. Just like our Founding Fathers. Call me a Jeffersonian Democrat/Enlightened Deist. Just your friendly neighborhood Jeffersonian Democrat/Enlightened Deist.

(PS: I can't read 6565 posts because he's on IGNORE. Mostly just because it drives him crazy. . . )

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Oh, and Non, you and I agree in most matters aside from organized religion, but I do appreciate & respect your religion. I especially respect that you do agree with me that the intertwining of faith & government is something we should strive to look at askance.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson