No. You will find scholars that doubt the historical existence of Julius Ceaser - but not reputable ones. The historicity of Jesus is accepted fact by the majority of historians and biblical scholars. That may be so about Julius Caesar, but there are some legitimate historians and scholars who question the historicity and true nature of Jesus.
*** *** ***
No. It is mainly people with agendas who will not accept the accuracy of the Bible.
" The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors,...
That is an interesting piece on biblical history. It does appear to establish the faithful preservation of the text. But it does only date from a number of years after the fact which it addresses. Even if I were to agree that the scholarship is sufficient to establish that the text has remained the same since that time, it is impossible to state, based solely on this material, that what was preserved is actually what was said, however.
*** *** ***
If you want to count heads, the historic position of the Church for 2000 years has been that the Genesis record is literal and historical.
The historic position is irrelevant, because most or all of those historical personages had none of the up-to-date knowledge from science and other fields to inform their opinion of the world. In other words, they approached the text in a different context than modern readers. (For example, historically, the church believed the Sun revolved around the earth and, therefore, the terms "rising" and "setting" of the sun was viewed literally. That is, until science changed the context and then the text was read figuratively.)
*** *** ***
Every major system of though is allowed certain primary, self referential assumptions. Without these there could be no basis of rational communication. Imagine if I asked you to prove every statement you made was true - then additionally asked you to prove that "truth" was true, or that "truth" existed, etc... No, you assume (rightfully) that there is such a thing as truth - and you are allowd to do so without proving it.
The primary assumption of historic Christianity is that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
True, and if all we were discussing was theology, then you get your primary, self-referential assumption. But if you are using the words of Christ as support for the historicity of the ex nihilo creation of man, you don't get that primary, self-referential assumption, because you are making a historical and scientific statement, and "assume there is a God as set out in the Bible" is not a valid presumption in either history or science.
*** *** ***
As an American, who grants your your rights?
In what sense? Pragmatically? Legally? Theoretically? Realistically?
***but there are some legitimate historians and scholars who question the historicity and true nature of Jesus.***
Maybe his nature, but I know of no reputable scholar (in this century) who has questioned the fact of his historical existence.
***It does appear to establish the faithful preservation of the text. But it does only date from a number of years after the fact which it addresses.***
He shows the hypocrisy of those who accept the integrity of Ceaser's "Gallic War" yet demure over evidence for the NT that is tenfold stronger.
***it is impossible to state, based solely on this material, that what was preserved is actually what was said, however.***
Then by your definition, it is impossible to study history - period.
***The historic position is irrelevant, because most or all of those historical personages had none of the up-to-date knowledge from science and other fields to inform their opinion of the world.***
Then your statement that "many professed Christians do not believe that there is any problem harmonizing Christianity and evolution, " is also irrelevant because many of those in your "survey" are also lacking "up-to-date knowledge from science and other fields" - correct?
***For example, historically, the church believed the Sun revolved around the earth and, therefore, the terms "rising" and "setting" of the sun was viewed literally.***
What this or that Christian believes on any topic should not be the standard by which the truth of Christianity is judged. The Scripture stands or falls on on its own sword. Having said that, persuasive arguments have been made that the Bible presupposes a heliocentric system.
Leon Morris cites Luke 17:34-36, which speaks of Jesus' second coming, "In that night, there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women will be grinding together...Two men shall be in the field." "
In other words," says Morris, "this great event will take place instantaneously at night, in the morning, and in the afternoon. Such a combination would be possible only on an earth in which day and night could be occurring simultaneously, and that means a rotating earth."
*** "assume there is a God as set out in the Bible" is not a valid presumption in either history or science.***
Neither is ""assume there is no God".
**** As an American, who grants your your rights?
In what sense? Pragmatically? Legally? Theoretically? Realistically?****
Where do your rights come from as their primary source.