Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Archbio]

I'm not going to say anything about the historicity of Jesus, except that I'm pretty sure that there was academic controversy on the existence of an historical Jesus, so I don't think it's all that obvious.

As for citing the Glorious Life Church website to "back up" anything, I don't think that's very prudent at all. Historically, there's no consensus that the Bible (and by that I mean the Old Testament) should be assumed to be accurate, even in parts that aren't blatantly mythological or miraculous narratives, and this website seems overenthusiastic over minor things (a figurine of a calf from antiquity? wow!) as well as outright inflating others. All in all, I was under the impression that the accuracy of the Bible, as a source, wasn't held by most historians as particularly faultless. I get the curious impression from the GLC website that the authors are imagining a conflict between "the historical narrative of the Bible is made out of whole cloth" and "the bible is the absolute truth, hurray!", which isn't a very balanced way of looking at this.

Lets not forget Homer was confirmed at least once by archeology.