Newsweek Poll: Majority of Americans Believe the Bible to be Historically Accurate

[RandomPhantom700]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/

"Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmas—the Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the East—is historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible."

Now, I realize that public opinion polls aren't exactly the most accurate measures on the face of the planet, and that fundamentalism being high in America almost goes without saying, but the sheer percentages brought up just make me wonder whether this whole democratic exchange of ideas thing is working. Thoughts?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, they didn't ask me.

Considering that historical evidence shows that older religions had the some of the same stories (different names in some cases), there is not evidence outside the bible of Jesus's existance, etc..... I take it all with a grain of salt. People are easily programmed, and to me, all this survey says is that they hit a large group of "believers".

I think what it indicates is that people are more willing to take things at face value, than to take the time, do some research and think. Then again, people in this country aren't taught how to "Think", but how to regurgitate pre-approved thoughts.

It's one of those funny things....millions of people wander through the "Holy Land" each year on religious pilgrimiges....but how little archeological evidence is there that any of those people/places/events really exist? Why is it that certain events in the time-frame of the bible do not line up withing any reasonable life-span for a normal human? Why do so many of the stories also appear in older now 'extint' faiths? Certainly the Romans would have some information recorded, especially on who they executed or tried. Certainly the Jews should have something recorded on the execution of such a noticible 'pretender'? Etc.

People believe what they want to believe, what they are told to believe, period. Most lack the ability or willpower to question, fearing censur from friends/family/employers, etc. It is why we have all the big Christian holidays off...and not the Jewish, Muslem or Pagan.

Personally, I think it's all myths. But thats my opinion. For those who do believe, more power to you. I'm not saying you shouldn't...just that you should look deeper into things. The search will enrich you incredibly, even if we both arrive at different final determinations. (Heck, if all you get is 1 traditional dish to serve at the holidays it's still a little something, right?)

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I'm a Christian, and as such, the Bible is obviously an important book.

This, however,

In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate.

stunned me.

Every word? Including, oh, Revelations?

I am really surprised, actually.

But maybe my traditions and opinions are a little different.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The problem with polls is that the results are too often easy to control or otherwise skew. I mean, 1 outta 1 Bobs surveyed here believe that waking up before the crack of noon is a sin...but howmany employers will change?

 

[punisher73]

There are some ancient historians that make reference to Jesus as a historical person. Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus in their writings.

I don't believe that Jesus was invented and was not a real man that taught a philosophy of life, but the question is did he do all the things that are attributed to him, or do all the acts that he did. Remember the gospels are not biographies of Jesus (what biography would talk of a birth, skip 12 yrs to a story, and then another 18 yrs until he was 30.) they were sermons written for a specific audience to illustrate certain points that would have been important to them. For example, Matthew was written for a mainly jewish audience and spends great length connecting OT prophecies to events in Jesus' life, whereas John was written for a greek thinking audience and talks about logos and truth and concepts that they would find important.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If you do a search here, you'll see that both Tacitus and Josephus have been pretty much rebutted.

Your comment though on the targets of the writings is interesting, and one I had not thought of previously. My question here is, what of the other Gospels? To who were the Gospels of Mary and Thomas directed? 1 idea that I saw previously indicated the Thomas' were infact mostly a recording of his own corespondence with I think Peter or Paul. (The letters we here refered to so often in service).

 

[Xequat]

Holy crap, 55 percent?!?!?! That many people actually believe that some guy had a talking donkey? Methuselah actually lived to be 969 years old?!?!?!? Noah actually got two of every animal onto one giant boat and none of them ate each other and they all reproduced successfully when they landed (heh, that would lead to incest, right?)?!?!?!

Don't get me wrong, the Bible is great. But Jesus taught through parables, so why shouldn't we believe that the Bible is one great parable or stack of parables? The message is what's important. But how come only two of the four (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) even mention Jesus' birth and they have conflicting stories?

 

[Xequat]

As to what you were saying about target audiences, there were pagans back in the day, so here's an interesting site (first one I found from a search on "Mithra"). http://www.vetssweatshop.net/dogma.htm

It draws a lot of similarities between Jesus and the Pagan god Mithra. Even in Catholic school, we were told that some people believed that Jesus was born around March, but there was already a holiday set up for December, so the Church just decided to celebrate Christmas then so as not to disrupt anything. Just think how quickly Kwanzaa would have been laughed out of the Hallmark store if it were supposed to be celebrated in June. No, the guy that invented it in the sixties wisely decided to put it alongside Christmas and Hannukah when people were already celebrating anyway.

 

[heretic888]

Well, they didn't ask me.

Considering that historical evidence shows that older religions had the some of the same stories (different names in some cases), there is not evidence outside the bible of Jesus's existance, etc..... I take it all with a grain of salt. People are easily programmed, and to me, all this survey says is that they hit a large group of "believers".

I think what it indicates is that people are more willing to take things at face value, than to take the time, do some research and think. Then again, people in this country aren't taught how to "Think", but how to regurgitate pre-approved thoughts.

It's one of those funny things....millions of people wander through the "Holy Land" each year on religious pilgrimiges....but how little archeological evidence is there that any of those people/places/events really exist? Why is it that certain events in the time-frame of the bible do not line up withing any reasonable life-span for a normal human? Why do so many of the stories also appear in older now 'extint' faiths? Certainly the Romans would have some information recorded, especially on who they executed or tried. Certainly the Jews should have something recorded on the execution of such a noticible 'pretender'? Etc.

People believe what they want to believe, what they are told to believe, period. Most lack the ability or willpower to question, fearing censur from friends/family/employers, etc. It is why we have all the big Christian holidays off...and not the Jewish, Muslem or Pagan.

Personally, I think it's all myths. But thats my opinion. For those who do believe, more power to you. I'm not saying you shouldn't...just that you should look deeper into things. The search will enrich you incredibly, even if we both arrive at different final determinations. (Heck, if all you get is 1 traditional dish to serve at the holidays it's still a little something, right?)

Well said, Bob. I concur 100%. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

There are some ancient historians that make reference to Jesus as a historical person. Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus in their writings.

Go with Kaith on this one, dude. I've rebutted these many times on at least two different threads.

To keep it simple:

- Both the wording and literary context of the Josephus (circa 95 CE) references, as well as the inability of early Christian apologetics to reference them, leads one to the opinion that they are Christian forgeries. This is especially evident when they were once in different forms than the ones we have now (reference Origen's citation of Josephus).

- In the reference in question, Tacitus (circa 120 CE) incorrectly refers to Pontius Pilae as a 'procurator' when historical evidence demonstrates his accurate title was 'prefect'. Ergo, Tacitus was not relying on primary historical sources or records but going on the word-of-mouth of others.

- Neither Josephus nor Tacitus are primary sources, both writing several generations after Jesus was supposed to have died (Josephus more than 60 years removed and Tacitus nearly 100 years removed).

I don't believe that Jesus was invented and was not a real man that taught a philosophy of life, but the question is did he do all the things that are attributed to him, or do all the acts that he did. Remember the gospels are not biographies of Jesus (what biography would talk of a birth, skip 12 yrs to a story, and then another 18 yrs until he was 30.) they were sermons written for a specific audience to illustrate certain points that would have been important to them. For example, Matthew was written for a mainly jewish audience and spends great length connecting OT prophecies to events in Jesus' life, whereas John was written for a greek thinking audience and talks about logos and truth and concepts that they would find important.

The preceding claims are inaccurate, I'm afraid.

The three synoptic gospels --- Mathew, Mark, and Luke --- were apparently the scripts for mystery school plays. J.M. Robinson discusses this theme in his Pagan Christs work. Namely, the text of the synoptics is written and framed in such a way that it seems to be intended for the audience of a play (in this case, one of the mystery plays that were quite popular at the time).

Such giveaways include the rapid-fire sequencing of events that are supposed to take place in more than a year's time, the unlikely occurence of certain events (such as the Sanhedrin meeting in the dead of night to try a heretic), and oddity that is the recording of Jesus' monologues spoken when ALL the disciples are asleep!! An sleeping "eyewitness" couldn't record a monologue, but the audience at a performance could hear one just dandy.

Not to mention, none of the gospels were written for Jewish audiences. They all evince an ignorance of Palestinian geography, an ignorance of Jewish laws (such as Jesus telling women they can't divorce --- apparently forgetting women didn't have divorce rights in Jewish laws of the time), and the inaccurate Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septugaint) that any native Jewish rabbi (such as the ones Jesus supposedly "repudiates") would laugh at.

The simple, sobering truth is there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Gospels have anything to do with the life of a historical person. Cultural bias (or just flat-out ignorance) is the only motivating factor here.

 

[heretic888]

As to what you were saying about target audiences, there were pagans back in the day, so here's an interesting site (first one I found from a search on "Mithra"). http://www.vetssweatshop.net/dogma.htm

It draws a lot of similarities between Jesus and the Pagan god Mithra. Even in Catholic school, we were told that some people believed that Jesus was born around March, but there was already a holiday set up for December, so the Church just decided to celebrate Christmas then so as not to disrupt anything. Just think how quickly Kwanzaa would have been laughed out of the Hallmark store if it were supposed to be celebrated in June. No, the guy that invented it in the sixties wisely decided to put it alongside Christmas and Hannukah when people were already celebrating anyway.

Oh, pshaw.

Those "in the know" have known about the clear parallels and similarities between the Christ story and the Hellenistic mystery schools for well over a century now. Even church fathers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian admitted this stuff (albeit via the silly justification that is 'diabolical mimicry').

Personally, I think Dionysus is the closest match. Mithras is close, though. In any case, the Christians undoubtedly borrowed from many traditions and schools in their creation of Iesous Kristos.

Even in terms of "Christian" philosophy, the parallels with Platonism are clear (especially in the Pauline epistles). Hell, Clement of Alexandria called Christianity "perfected Platonism". That should tell you something.

The "Jesus fish" is an Egypto-Pythagorean symbol, denoting unity of opposites in that it is two perfect concentric circles that merge at a particular angle (90 degrees, I believe). Same with the "cross of light". Another solar deity symbol.

Oh, pshaw.

 

[GAB]

Well said, Bob. I concur 100%. :asian:

Yes, My 2 cents worth.

Regards, Gary

 

[punisher73]

The preceding claims are inaccurate, I'm afraid.

The three synoptic gospels --- Mathew, Mark, and Luke --- were apparently the scripts for mystery school plays. J.M. Robinson discusses this theme in his Pagan Christs work. Namely, the text of the synoptics is written and framed in such a way that it seems to be intended for the audience of a play (in this case, one of the mystery plays that were quite popular at the time).

What are Robinson's credentials? I am not familiar with him. I looked up the book on amazon and noticed that it was through kessinger publishing which reprints alot of old books dealing with the occult, and it was originally published in 1911 before alot of texts were available. The reason I point this out is, the "sermons theme" came from a professor I had in college, Dr. Fred Burnett, who was one of the original members of the "Jesus Seminar" that went through all the old texts, etc. to try and determine what Jesus really said, or might have said etc (as an aside, he quit the group when they expanded membership and became more PC with the project).

Go with Kaith on this one, dude. I've rebutted these many times on at least two different threads.

I'll have to look more into historical research on josephus then. I had not seen anything in print stating their inaccuracies.

 

[heretic888]

What are Robinson's credentials? I am not familiar with him. I looked up the book on amazon and noticed that it was through kessinger publishing which reprints alot of old books dealing with the occult, and it was originally published in 1911 before alot of texts were available.

I was mistaken, actually. The name of the writer was J. M. Robertson.

As for his "credentials", they are summarized here:

http://www.thoemmes.com/404.asp?404;http://www.thoemmes.com/encyclopedia/robertson.htm

Robertson was one of those wacky "freethought liberals" we hear so little about today, and had a great influence on T. S. Eliot. At one time, he was a member of England's Privy Council (earning the title of 'Right Honorable').

As for the dating of his works (as well as his "credential"), its irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The argument that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were originally mystery play scripts is not in any way impacted by the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi Library.

Anyone with a decent translation of the New Testament can crack it open and evaluate this claim for oneself. You don't need a degree or some title to do so. Jesus Christ' "monologues" are there, plain for all to see. As are the rapid-fire pacing of the story, the flow of events told in an almost Shakespearian manner, and the incredulous events that are supposed to be "historical" (such as the Sanhedrin meeting in the dead of the night).

Its quite evident to anyone who evaluates the text in an even quasi-objective manner that this is clearly the skeleton for a play of some sort.

The reason I point this out is, the "sermons theme" came from a professor I had in college, Dr. Fred Burnett, who was one of the original members of the "Jesus Seminar" that went through all the old texts, etc. to try and determine what Jesus really said, or might have said etc (as an aside, he quit the group when they expanded membership and became more PC with the project).

No offense, but I take the claims of the Jesus Seminar with a grain of salt. The absolute lack of scientific justification for many of the various claims in the "historical Jesus" field are absolutely apalling. It is perhaps the only scientific field where religious belief actually determines the direction of academic discourse, as opposed to logic and evidence.

I'll have to look more into historical research on josephus then. I had not seen anything in print stating their inaccuracies.

A lot has been written, actually --- for well over 100 years, I might add. This is hardly new material.

Laterz.

 

[punisher73]

Anyone with a decent translation of the New Testament can crack it open and evaluate this claim for oneself. You don't need a degree or some title to do so. Jesus Christ' "monologues" are there, plain for all to see. As are the rapid-fire pacing of the story, the flow of events told in an almost Shakespearian manner, and the incredulous events that are supposed to be "historical" (such as the Sanhedrin meeting in the dead of the night).

Its quite evident to anyone who evaluates the text in an even quasi-objective manner that this is clearly the skeleton for a play of some sort.

I'm not really sure what the argument is here. We are both saying that they are not biographies and were written for an audience. I agree with how they are written and the fast pace is more in line with that than biographical sketch, which I have already stated the gospels are not, but that still does not preclude that they were written for a target audience to illustrate a specific intent, which is my original argument.

No offense, but I take the claims of the Jesus Seminar with a grain of salt. The absolute lack of scientific justification for many of the various claims in the "historical Jesus" field are absolutely apalling. It is perhaps the only scientific field where religious belief actually determines the direction of academic discourse, as opposed to logic and evidence

Which is why the Dr. I referenced left, he was interested in actual research. I think credentials are important when discussing this type of material because we both could cite sources of things (especially in this type of discussion) that could show either idea supported. I think it boils down to a scholars credentials and who you trust more, since I think there are NO impartial scholars in this field and that both sides all have an agenda which I take into account.

 

[heretic888]

I'm not really sure what the argument is here. We are both saying that they are not biographies and were written for an audience. I agree with how they are written and the fast pace is more in line with that than biographical sketch, which I have already stated the gospels are not, but that still does not preclude that they were written for a target audience to illustrate a specific intent, which is my original argument.

The argument is that the synoptic Gospels, at least in an earlier form than what we have now, appear to be scripts for mystery plays.

Now, this doesn't mean that they were originally scripts for plays. I personally think that, originally, the synoptics were merely collections of non-time/place sayings and actions attributed to 'Jesus Christ' and his 'disciples' --- perhaps similar to the Gospel of Thomas and the much-vaunted (and hypothetical) Gospel of Q.

I would agree that a 'message' is being taught, if that is what you are referring to. This is in line with my contention that they are very much mystery plays --- the whole mechanic of which was to initiate either the audience or the participants into the mysteries of a religious school.

The idea that the Christ Story is actually a Mystery Play is also supported by some of the authentic Pauline epistles. For example, when Paul tells the Galatians that Jesus has been openly laid out and crucified before their eyes --- and its unlikely most, if any, of the Galatians would have made the trot to Jerusalem --- this would make sense in terms of a mystery play enactment. Paul also seems to echo this in his own case, when he claims to have been crucified and resurrected with Christ --- very reminiscent of an initiatory ritual of a Mystery School (in which the initiate participates in the death and resurrection of the Man-God, such as Osiris).

Which is why the Dr. I referenced left, he was interested in actual research.

And, more power to him.

I in no way meant to insult your professor in my earlier criticism, but I was critiquing the general trends I see in the whole "Historical Jesus" discussions. I think they are rife with presumptions, cultural bias, and a general lack of evidence --- not to mention outright projectionism.

Its no coincidence that the most popular academic theory of 'Jesus Christ' now is that he was an uber-Jewish political insurgent/activist. Y'know, that wouldn't go nicely hand-in-hand with the recent civil rights movements in the West, or the establishment and alliance with the state of Israel, neh??

Yup. Just ignore that Jesus-as-political-rebel basically flies in the face of Gospel accounts (and therefore has no literary evidence whatsoever to support it) --- "give unto Caesar what is his". Also, the purported uber-zealotry Jesus was supposed to have in Judaic religion seems kinda weird when he put forward distinctively non-Jewish ideas like foresaking one's family, friends, and possession to follow the Way (which sounds strikingly Pythagorean-Platonic); becoming a wandering preacher-guru (Cynicism and Pythagoreanism?); surpassing the Law in lieu of Spirit; the idea that marriage isn't the greatest thing in the world and celibacy is awesome (Pythagoreanism); and, the whole idea of Divine Redeemer just screams mystery school (whence we get mystery plays, both public and private).

I think credentials are important when discussing this type of material because we both could cite sources of things (especially in this type of discussion) that could show either idea supported. I think it boils down to a scholars credentials and who you trust more, since I think there are NO impartial scholars in this field and that both sides all have an agenda which I take into account.

That's all well and good, but I can't count the number of times I have seen bad ideas being supported by people with good credentials. I mean, the credentials are nice and all --- but, it really comes down to the meat of the arguments. Discourse should involve the message, not the messenger.

 

[Satt]

You know, this could make a good MT poll too. Just my 2 cents. I just can't make polls yet.

 

[Melissa426]

For those who do believe, more power to you.

Thanks.
My beliefs do empower me and millions of other Christians.

(1)Speaking about what you believe regarding the history of the birth of Jesus.
This morning's sermon at church was from Matthew 1:18-25, about Joseph discovering his betrothed was pregnant.According to Jewish law, he could have had her publicly judged and stoned; instead he decided to just divorce her quietly. (This is before the angel came to Joseph in the dream to tell him that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit).
The gist of this is that people hurt us and wound us deeply all the time... words, actions, deeds. Do you respond with anger, give like for like, want to hurt them as much as or even more than they hurt you? Or can you show mercy as Joseph did?
I guess I don't consider this hard to believe. And, yes, I know that it is just one passage of the whole story.

(2) If archeological proof of a "historical Jesus" were found, would it change your opinion about his divinity, his message, his life?

(3) Just out of curiousity, why sometimes BOB and sometimes KAITH? if you don't mind my asking

Peace,
Melissa

 

[7starmantis]

I usually dont weigh in on these types of threads, but I'm just a little curious about this one post. First however, let me give you my background. I will not take a stand on one side or the other here, but I was raised verly legalistically "christian". I mean to the point that we didn't have a TV, I was homeschooled until high school, and by the age of 12 had to be able to quote verbatum many books (in their entirety) of the bible in english (king james version), greek or hebrew. That being said, I have quite a bit of bible knowledge for what its worth. Dont try to assume my position, because chances are, you will be wrong.

Here is what I'm curious about....

But how come only two of the four (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) even mention Jesus' birth and they have conflicting stories?

What is conflicting about the stories here? I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just curious as to what you see as conflicting.

7sm

 

[TonyM.]

Betcha fewer than 10% of adults have ever read the bible cover to cover, so it's pretty stupid to poll people on their opinion of it.