Doug Shaver

How do you know they were not writing such things?

thegdin

If i may borrow from Tom Sawyers analogy, great analogy by the way, there inst anyone writing as to whether or not the empire strikes back is a real story or a crock of shit. anyway, did they even have lit critics back then? i know a little later on the church became some pretty efficient critics themselves. "we dont like what you write, so you die. in gods name."



side note, i love how Self-Mutation tries to argue and then runs off never to return to the thread. just check out his posting history. he refuses to listen and think about any point that anyone makes thats contrary to his beliefs. im not surprised though.

rizdek

You're mistaken, at least for me. The reason why I don't think the story of Jesus coming to earth as a god-man and dying on the cross is true has nothing to do with atheism. It has nothing to do with historical analysis. In fact it has everything to do with my deep, absolute, unwavering conviction that if, IF there was a God, (at least a God worthy of worship) he would not use what is essentially human sacrifice as a means of having a relationship with the humans he created. The gospels tell a story that essentially depends on people breaking God's law, his own moral code, to carry out what had to be done to implement his "plan." So, for me, were I to become convinced there was a good God who needed worshipping, the very last place I'd start to try to learn what this God was about would be the NT.

The whole, "human's sins are so terrible and humans are so inherently vile that the only way God could redeem them is through an infinite punishment," is based on circular reasoning. It isn't even Biblical. It's "He had to send his son because human's sins are too horrible for him to just forgive." How do we know human's sins are too horrible to just forgive? "Because why else would he send his son?"

There seem to be too many other explanations for how the Gospels and epistles could have come to be written the way they are other than them being true.

rizdek

I actually do too, and I'm not being cynical. Consider how much fun all us "sinning, hell-bound atheists" have in responding to SM's posts. SM's just giving us a bit of pleasure before we take that plunge into eternal torment.

AtheistGamer

An alien ship landed five miles south of town yesterday. The only people that saw it happen were my five friends and I. No physical evidence was left behind. Why do you insist on testamony from someone other than my friends? There's no difference between an alien ship landing yesterday, and a messiah ressurrecting yesterday. If you don't have anyone besides a tiny group of people nobody should buy it. Hell if you don't have physical evidence of any kind then it doesn't matter how many people make the claim. Bring me a piece of that cross which could supposidly bring people back to life and then we'll talk. Or perhaps show me the tomb that Jesus was buried in?


Also the Gospels are not reliable. We don't know who wrote them, there's no evidence of any Oral transmission, and they are all copied from one source.

Zeluvia

Because I read them.

Vinnie

Kapyong, Your response is largely pedantic and completely missed the point of what I wrote, therefore I will not pursue this dialogue with you beyond this response.

Re: Wow, you say some crazy shit.

The point is to avoid saying things such as "the Bible says" when doing historical research. The texts were written by different individuals and do not all share the same message, purpose or details. "The Bible says" of the "New Testament says" is theology, not history. "A Christian author named Paul writing in the 50's tell us" is the way to conduct history.

Re:So there is relevant non-Christian literature.

Late first century and second century literature (Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) but it doesn't tell us anything earlier Christian sources don't and might even be dependent upon Christian testimony.


Re: Oh, so now, there is NOT any relevant non-Christian literature?

I said in the FORMATIVE years, e.g., 30's and 40's. There is no non-Christian historian during this time frame that we would EXPECT to mention Jesus or the Jesus movement. Its possible someone would but given the sparsity written materials from this time period and the obvious exaggeration of the Gospel authors, no argument from silence can be built here.

Re: So, evidence is "silly" ?

I said to ask specifically for "extra-biblical evidence" is silly because the term Biblical should not arise in historical discussion. All Christian sources need to be evaluated individualy. Assuming a canonical dimension to ancient Christian writings is theology, not history. The title "Bible" or description "biblical" carries theological connotations. Historians don't work under the assumption that these texts were inspired by God and are inerrant or simply that they serve the purpose for which God intended them. That is theology, not history. I have no qualms with systematic theology but it is not history. It steals some of its methods but is largely constrained by theological propositions.

Re: How can you believe such nonsense? Xenu, Hercules, Moroni..

That is the whole point. Treating texts historically allows us to separate myth from fact, fiction from truth. It turns out that the "good news" about Jesus lies somewhere in between legend and history, containing both elements intertwined. That is what historians have determined, contra the fundamentalists and hyper-skeptical mythicists out there.

See HJ Skepticism Q&A for more information.

Vinnie

semiopen

This statement is not correct.

The logical premise is that: only atheists ask for evidence outside of the new testament.

This is just wrong. Consider the many interesting threads where discussions are entered into by theists which deal with issues that are not directly involved with the New Testament. Consider also the questions of origin, dates of wiritng, etc that all pertain the New Testament but are OUTSIDE of the New Testament. Does S-M imply that any research of this period outside of the New Testament makes one an atheist?

There is a Jewish stance which I assume is the same in Christianity, that a person of limited intellectual capability is just as worthy having a very simple understanding of the bible as even an advanced scholar. Using this argument, someone like S-M might be justified in having a simple faith, however this does not make anyone with a deeper understanding an atheist.

The theological question here is would god consider the belief of a simple minded person who doubts the motivation of those more intellectually gifted, a sin.

Roger Pearse

I hope you checked all those "quotes" yourself? Got the reference, found the text, checked whether or not it actually says that, and whether that is what the author was saying or a bit of quote-mining. <hint>


All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

No indeed. But when they say that a bloke went around gathering followers and ended up nailed to a large lump of wood by the establishment for his pains; that his followers regrouped under a fresh leader and started spreading out across the world, etc, there seems no pressing reason to believe otherwise. What else would one expect?

All the best,

Roger Pearse