manwithdream

I have heard many people say that the stories of the New Testament were copied from myths. Even if that was true, what is the point of using the argument if New Testament believers will just say that a certain evil angel purposely started other religions and their myths that had those stories so that in the future the New Testament would look like a copy of them? As fun as the argument is, it doesn't work against people who believe in a certain evil angel that spreads evil in the world. It seems like people enjoy the argument so much, they don't care if it works. I guess it probably works mostly on people who don't believe in the New Testament already, or a few people who might change their minds, but otherwise it is a weak argument.

If someone says that an evil angel made up those other stories, what possible answer is there?

Avalon

I am one such person who believes that the New Testament is heavily based on myth. My answer to your question is if someone is so entrenched in their beliefs to use the argument of an evil angel/Satan, not only will the myth argument not work, but NO argument will work. And with that in mind all discussion on the matter should cease. So I guess the issue is not that the myth argument is a bad one, it is simply that there are some people who are open to reason, and those who are not. It is that simple. So I disagree that the NT myth argument is a bad one. It is a very GOOD argument. The problem is not with the argument, the problem lies with the person recieving it.
Frankly if that is the only way a Christian can resolve the issue in their minds is that Satan did it, then no other argument would work. Even if conlusive proof came about that could once and for all prove that nothing in this universe came about by a deity, and we could explain evolution and all questions about creation with 100% certainty, there would be people who would say that Satan is behind it all :devil1: . They will not cease believing no matter what.

If you for example have your reasons to believe in God and/or Jesus which I am sure you do, that is fine. Ask your self, IF there were enough things established through freindly discussion and all your reasons were to be found lacking, would you be open to a change of mind? I know almost all atheists would be. Would you? Or when all other possible arguments fail concerning the existence of some God or the historicity of Jesus and the the stories of the NT, would you resort to the solution that Satan or some evil being did it? Many would call this intellectual suicide.
Now I am not trying to make you change your beliefs, and I am not really wanting to debate concerning the NT myths and evidence for God... blah, blah, blah.

But realize how poor of an argument Satan is, it's like grasping at straws. At that point, people hearing such an argument just look down, shake their heads and walk away.

Solitary Man

It's a very poor argument, considering it's untrue. Moreover, I've noticed that facts and scholarship actually do have somewhat of an impact, at least far more of an impact than junk pseudo-science like the Jesus Myth.

Avalon

Even if I agreed with you that the NT myth is a poor argument... so what?
Again, the retort that "Satan did it" is more rediculous by any standard. At least the NT myth position makes someone think. They can look through the books and come to a conlusion on their own. Not all atheists take kindly to th mythicist position.

But once the believer comes back with Satan/some evil angel as the solution to all possible problems including how many things in common the NT has in common with myths of old ... as I said (from my experience) no argument will work. Oh well.

BTW: Even if one were to agree that Jesus can be shown without a doubt to have existed, you cant honestly tell me that the NT and stories of Jesus do not have so much in common with other mythical heroes/gods of the past that someone should take pause and quesiton. So giving Jesus that much, again... this is something that should be brought to peoples attention.

Solitary Man

The possibility that the entire human race is secretly enslaved by lizard people called the Illuminati can also make people think...if it were not so blatantly ridiculous. However more ridiculous (notice the spelling) Satandidit is, that does not negate the ridiculousness of the NT Myth position. Saying Satan did it in my opinion is equally absurd as saying "they stole it all from pagan gods" or coming to conclusions from the English translation of the New Testament.

Hasn't it already? Mainstream scholarship has moved far beyond the literalness of the NT. Even Mainstream evangelical scholarship isn't inerrant. And by espousing false arguments, you can actually bolster their confidence in their own ignorance. Why would you want to do that?

ughaibu

If the new testament is accurate, about the non-fanciful incidents in the life and sayings of Jesus, the guy was a ten-a-penny doomsday cult peddler. Who cares if it's accurate or not?

Avalon

Please, before you critique my spelling, set a good example
fair enough


I am willing to happily agree that we dont want to bolster their ignorance, so I shall direct your attention to beginning of the OP question
So taking the hypothetical stance that it is true, which you obviously disagree with, my original post stands. Now if he were asking if it were true, then you and I would simply disagree as we currently do and that is fine. In any case, concerning "Satan did it", you and I thankfully agree that it is an absurd stance and should give way to better arguments.

BTW, I am new here to the forums, and it is a pleasure to meet you.

Joan of Bark

My understanding is that in small-o orthodox Christianity, Satan is not capable of creating anything, except doubt in the mind of believers. But I'd like to hear about any other references to Satan's capabilities.

Avalon

I think you are absolutely right, which is another reason why the "Satan did it" approach is ridiculous. Unfortunately this is a stance that is over used for more issues than just the historicity of the NT.

aa5874

You're right. Jesus was not born or existed literally, probably allergorically.