A Question for Atheist or Anyone

[ShadowsCool]

I don't get what you don't understand, my post fully answers that question. You're presenting a false dichotomy: either the gospels are absolutely true or absolutely false.

I agree that either they all totally false or are totally true. I don't think they are anything other. If it's God's word transcribed by prophets then there can be no other way. God would not allow his prophets to get his word wrong. It's divine intervention, which I believe in.

I'm telling you this is a problematic assumption because what the apostles might of thought was the important "truth" of the gospels was not their historical accuracy or the objective detailing of events. Likewise, believing what one writes is not the same as demonstrating the veracity of what one writes.

I don't agree. if God inspired the word then It would have to have been true. That's the whole point of the Bible that Christians and Jews believe it is inspired. Not 40 different authors trying to keep some jewish people in line.

In fact, those morons wouldn't even know what I believed in. Why give them something to use against me or my family or community?

I don't think they were morons, they were hunted down like animals. Eventually they were going to get caught.

I suspect your use of martyrdom as a justification for faith is based on the fact that Jesus was killed by Pilate and there is some bizarre value in imitating this death.

You do understand that Jesus had to die for sins, right? I mean that's what the gospels are all about. He let Pilate judge him. There was no value in being a martyr following Christ except to be called a saint by the Early Church.

Isaiah 53.5: But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

[OrphanPip]

I agree that either they all totally false or are totally true. I don't think they are anything other. If it's God's word transcribed by prophets then there can be no other way. God would not allow his prophets to get his word wrong. It's divine intervention, which I believe in.



I don't agree. if God inspired the word then It would have to have been true. That's the whole point of the Bible that Christians and Jews believe it is inspired. Not 40 different authors trying to keep some jewish people in line.

Well there are serious problems with taking that approach to the gospels. For one, Matthew and Luke are most certainly built off of the earlier text of Mark, and they make specific, but different, additions to emphasize different themes. One has to reconcile the fact that four people tell slightly different versions of the same story, sometime with striking contradictions. I'm not going to say they made stuff up, but that the idea that they were infallibly recording accurate history is unlikely.

For example, Matthew's description of Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents" is almost certainly fabricated. The Jewish historian Josephus doesn't mention it once, despite detailing every minor detail of Herod's cruelty in office, somehow he manages to miss the mass slaughter of newborns? And Matthew's story about the escape into Egypt puts a lot of strain on Luke's account of Jesus' early infancy. Luke's is certainly more believable.

There are also chronological discrepancies between John, Luke, Mark and Matthew. Such discrepancies are expected from people writing down stories years after they happened, eye witnesses are notoriously bad.

Also, as far as I'm aware it is a minority opinion amongst Christians in general that the Bible being divinely inspired means that it is literally true.

[cafolini]

Well there are serious problems with taking that approach to the gospels. For one, Matthew and Luke are most certainly built off of the earlier text of Mark, and they make specific, but different, additions to emphasize different themes. One has to reconcile the fact that four people tell slightly different versions of the same story, sometime with striking contradictions. I'm not going to say they made stuff up, but that the idea that they were infallibly recording accurate history is unlikely.

For example, Matthew's description of Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents" is almost certainly fabricated. The Jewish historian Josephus doesn't mention it once, despite detailing every minor detail of Herod's cruelty in office, somehow he manages to miss the mass slaughter of newborns? And Matthew's story about the escape into Egypt puts a lot of strain on Luke's account of Jesus' early infancy. Luke's is certainly more believable.

There are also chronological discrepancies between John, Luke, Mark and Matthew. Such discrepancies are expected from people writing down stories years after they happened, eye witnesses are notoriously bad.

Also, as far as I'm aware it is a minority opinion amongst Christians in general that the Bible being divinely inspired means that it is literally true.

Why wouldn't you say they made stuff up? They had no history in those days. Where could they have picked up from. There is no thick evidence of sacred places untill they pounded on it all the way to the third century.

But at the same time you were saying that most people who believe in the Gospels do not believe it was actually true. I don't doubt that. How could they? Hypocricy is a human need burnt in the soul by the Romans.

[ShadowsCool]

There are also chronological discrepancies between John, Luke, Mark and Matthew. Such discrepancies are expected from people writing down stories years after they happened, eye witnesses are notoriously bad.

Also, as far as I'm aware it is a minority opinion amongst Christians in general that the Bible being divinely inspired means that it is literally true.

Modern scholars are rift with speculation about a whole lot of things. For instance, I read somewhere that there is some doubt as to Shakespeare authoring his plays, or if he even wrote any. I mean come on, I don't believe that, but it's still out there.

As for the Gospels, I think they held up pretty well in time, considering they are about 2,000 years old. Whether you accept them is purely up to you. But I wouldn't take some Jewish scholar, who only mentions Jesus in passing. The Jews had many reasons for not accepting Jesus as their messiah. As a matter of fact it was foretold in the old testament

[Charles Darnay]

As for the Gospels, I think they held up pretty well in time, considering they are about 2,000 years old. Whether you accept them is purely up to you.

It is not a matter of how long they have held up for. The original texts were pretty well preserved for the last 2,000 years - it is the original texts themselves that are called into question.

But I wouldn't take some Jewish scholar, who only mentions Jesus in passing. The Jews had many reasons for not accepting Jesus as their messiah. As a matter of fact it was foretold in the old testament

While yes, he was Jewish, Josephus was said to be a self-hating Jew. He expresses some very anti-Jewish sentiments in "The Wars of the Jews." Of course, we do run into a problem when analyzing Josephus because like all historians he had to write for the interest of the Emperor. So there is a question of how much is his feelings and how much he is expressing the will of his Emperor. But I don't think he should be disregarded because he was Jewish: his details are very thorough about events at that time about what was well known. Him referring Jesus just in passing could very well be indicative of the fact that Jesus (and his followers) were very unfavourable to the Empire at the time and had no place in Tiberius' history.

[Charles Darnay]

Modern scholars are rift with speculation about a whole lot of things. For instance, I read somewhere that there is some doubt as to Shakespeare authoring his plays, or if he even wrote any. I mean come on, I don't believe that, but it's still out there.

As for this nonsense about Shakespeare not being the author of his works - your point is well taken: modern scholars like to muck about with history for profit or other reasons. But the Shakespeare-Jesus comparison itself doesn't hold up. The key difference being that people don't dispute what is written when it comes to the Shakespeare cannon, just who was the real hand controlling the pen(quill). The Gospels are the opposite: no one doubts who wrote them, it is what is written that is doubted.

And of course that one claims to be truth while the other recognizes that it is fiction is a key factor....but I know this wasn't your point.

[ShadowsCool]

The Gospels are the opposite: no one doubts who wrote them, it is what is written that is doubted.

You bring up "these doubts" about the Gospels as if there are many and everyone agrees upon them. The Bible does claim to be the word of God, so what? You make it like these "doubts" are a cloud over the Bible. Well present your suspicions then!!!
What are they? Why is it you have them?

I am pretty well versed in the Bible, Old & New, and am pretty sure what is written is solid. The old & New Testament fits like a glove. They weave together perfectly. But you suggest that there was some mishandling of documents or outright forgery involved. Please present your arguments with specifics. I'm sure you have plenty.

[Charles Darnay]

You bring up "these doubts" about the Gospels as if there are many and everyone agrees upon them. The Bible does claim to be the word of God, so what? You make it like these "doubts" are a cloud over the Bible. Well present your suspicions then!!!
What are they? Why is it you have them?

I am pretty well versed in the Bible, Old & New, and am pretty sure what is written is solid. The old & New Testament fits like a glove. They weave together perfectly. But you suggest that there was some mishandling of documents or outright forgery involved. Please present your arguments with specifics. I'm sure you have plenty.

I never said there were forgeries within the documents, or mishandling. As for the Old and New Testament fitting together like a glove - I completely agree. There are some interesting topoi that cross over between the two texts: interesting from a literary perspective, a bit suspicious from a theological perspective.

When I said that the Gospels are doubted, I meant that what is written is doubted. Not by everyone, but there are those who doubt what is written....I believe they are often called Atheists or non-believers. I didn't think that I was making such an outlandish claim.

[ShadowsCool]

When I said that the Gospels are doubted, I meant that what is written is doubted. Not by everyone, but there are those who doubt what is written....I believe they are often called Atheists or non-believers. I didn't think that I was making such an outlandish claim.

Well that's quite different then. I think if the Bible were written, presented as fiction, no one would have a problem with it. I think we can both agree on that. But the fact that it is presented as the word of God, rubs many people the wrong way. I can understand that.

I have extensively cross referenced the Bible and find very few "holes" to point to. Maybe an odd phrase here, which can be interpreted a certain way due to Greek & Hebrew grammar or a number saying around 8 days, when it one account it may say 6. But not much else.

I'm also pretty well versed on 1st century Christianity up to the 4th century. I find little that concerns me regarding the original manuscripts themselves. Of course, anytime you have man involved with such a Book, things can happen. But I find few, if any.



Shadows