What atheists fail to understand

[bhsmte]

Or as George Orwell said, "Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals believe them."

Orwell was an atheist. Do you often quote atheists, to make a point?

 

[mindlight]

Whoa, that is a super dangerous claim. The life of Mohammed is definitely on far stronger historical footing than almost anything concerning Jesus of Nazareth. To call one God Incarnate and the other a social construct is engaging in some pretty serious special pleading.

I do think that Christianity as a potential revelation has much more going for it than any other religion, but this doesn't justify taking a conservative approach to Christian tradition and then a hyper-skeptical one to Islamic accounts.

You may be surprised how shaky the picture of Mohammed is.

Islam - Did Mohammed exist?

 

[mindlight]

Orwell was an atheist. Do you often quote atheists, to make a point?

Orwell was an atheist intellectual. Takes one to know one ;-)

 

[bhsmte]

Orwell was an atheist intellectual. Takes one to know one ;-)

Doesn't answer my question.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You may be surprised how shaky the picture of Mohammed is.

Islam - Did Mohammed exist?

Some publications with far-fetched hypotheses do not constitute a solid historical consensus.
Or else
- the phantom time hypothesis is true, Charlemagne and his descendants never existed, and roughly half a millennium of the Middle Ages is an invention. We are thus currently living in the year 1721CE.
- the Merowingian kings of France were the descendants of Jesus the Christ and Mary Magdalene, the true secret behind the Holy Grail or "Sang Real" = "holy blood".
- The Egyptian pyramids, Stonehenge and other ancient sites were built by aliens
- And, of course, homo sapiens is not the product of simian evolution, but happened when a chimpanzee mated with a pig.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

As to the historicity of Jesus: the gospels, as religious literature written by fervent believers decades after the fact, are as unreliable a source as Mormon accounts of Joseph Smith's supposed miraculous abilities in translating golden tablets with a seeing stone (just to mention a single example).
When references to Jesus *do* show up in Non-Christian sources, we are already roughly half a century removed from the time of his supposed execution, and people are basically talking hearsay about the beliefs expressed by the Christian sect that's spreading at the time. Again, that's like reading a newspaper article from ca. 1900 about Joseph Smith, "who found golden plates bearing witness to a lost Jewish colony, and was martyred".

 

[bhsmte]

As to the historicity of Jesus: the gospels, as religious literature written by fervent believers decades after the fact, are as unreliable a source as Mormon accounts of Joseph Smith's supposed miraculous abilities in translating golden tablets with a seeing stone (just to mention a single example).
When references to Jesus *do* show up in Non-Christian sources, we are already roughly half a century removed from the time of his supposed execution, and people are basically talking hearsay about the beliefs expressed by the Christian sect that's spreading at the time. Again, that's like reading a newspaper article from ca. 1900 about Joseph Smith, "who found golden plates bearing witness to a lost Jewish colony, and was martyred".

And for those folks who want to put in the work and actually read the works of academic NT historians, they will discover, there is consensus in regards to the following points, being historically reliable:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, not much of the gospels, is considered historically credible.

 

[mindlight]

Some publications with far-fetched hypotheses do not constitute a solid historical consensus.
Or else
- the phantom time hypothesis is true, Charlemagne and his descendants never existed, and roughly half a millennium of the Middle Ages is an invention. We are thus currently living in the year 1721CE.
- the Merowingian kings of France were the descendants of Jesus the Christ and Mary Magdalene, the true secret behind the Holy Grail or "Sang Real" = "holy blood".
- The Egyptian pyramids, Stonehenge and other ancient sites were built by aliens
- And, of course, homo sapiens is not the product of simian evolution, but happened when a chimpanzee mated with a pig.

That post was a little unhinged.

 

[mindlight]

As to the historicity of Jesus: the gospels, as religious literature written by fervent believers decades after the fact, are as unreliable a source as Mormon accounts of Joseph Smith's supposed miraculous abilities in translating golden tablets with a seeing stone (just to mention a single example).
When references to Jesus *do* show up in Non-Christian sources, we are already roughly half a century removed from the time of his supposed execution, and people are basically talking hearsay about the beliefs expressed by the Christian sect that's spreading at the time. Again, that's like reading a newspaper article from ca. 1900 about Joseph Smith, "who found golden plates bearing witness to a lost Jewish colony, and was martyred".

The gospels were eyewitness testimony to the events of Christs life. 50 years is a sufficient window such that records could be verified by people who saw the stuff first hand. 200 years as in the case of the Quran and Haddith means that it is not eyewitness testimony. Given that we have examples of different versions of the same quran on the same parchment we know that there was a redaction process which is being lied about.

Yes there are also non Christian witnesses which confirm much of the historical context to the bible accounts.

 

[bhsmte]

The gospels were eyewitness testimony to the events of Christs life. 50 years is a sufficient window such that records could be verified by people who saw the stuff first hand. 200 years as in the case of the Quran and Haddith means that it is not eyewitness testimony. Given that we have examples of different versions of the same quran on the same parchment we know that there was a redaction process which is being lied about.

Yes there are also non Christian witnesses which confirm much of the historical context to the bible accounts.

The gospels, don't claim to be eye witness accounts and they were penned by anonymous authors, decades after the supposed events they describe.

 

[mindlight]

The gospels, don't claim to be eye witness accounts and they were penned by anonymous authors, decades after the supposed events they describe.

John and Matthew are direct apostolic testimony written by eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus life. Mark was a close companion of the apostle Peter. Luke a companion of Paul also wrote his collation of eyewitness testimony including that of Mary within a generation of the events described.

The church has already been through the age of liberalism and rejected much of its speculative nonsense from the nineteenth century. That certain atheist or liberal theology professors have yet to catch up with this is their problem not the churches.

 

[bhsmte]

John and Matthew are direct apostolic testimony written by eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus life. Mark was a close companion of the apostle Peter. Luke a companion of Paul also wrote his collation of eyewitness testimony including that of Mary within a generation of the events described.

The church has already been through the age of liberalism and rejected much of its speculative nonsense from the nineteenth century. That certain atheist or liberal theology professors have yet to catch up with this is their problem not the churches.

Historians and even Christian ones, disagree with you.

 

[mindlight]

Historians and even Christian ones, disagree with you.

The bible, tradition and the majority of the church would agree with me on the eyewitness authority of the gospels. If you want to raise a specific question about the historicity of the gospels do it. At the end of the day the arguments mainly boil down to speculation by some smart alec earning a salary from a liberal institution.

As this OP also indicated we also have a living relationship with the Christ described in scriptures with experiences of his miraculous works in our lives today.

 

[bhsmte]

The bible, tradition and the majority of the church would agree with me on the eyewitness authority of the gospels. If you want to raise a specific question about the historicity of the gospels do it. At the end of the day the arguments always boil down to speculation by some smart alec earning a salary from a liberal institution.

As this OP also indicated we also have a living relationship with the Christ described in scriptures with experiences of his miraculous works in our lives today.

Some anonymous author writing stories decades later, is not an eye witness account. If you need to believe that though, go right ahead.

 

[mindlight]

Some anonymous author writing stories decades later, is not an eye witness account. If you need to believe that though, go right ahead.

This is the settled view of the church and formed the basis of why one account was chosen over another when they finalised the canon centuries later.

 

[bhsmte]

This is the settled view of the church and formed the basis of why one account was chosen over another when they finalised the canon centuries later.

Church can say what they like, it doesn't change that the gospels are not eye witness accounts.

 

[Inkfingers]

Church can say what they like, it doesn't change that the gospels are not eye witness accounts.

The Gospel of John is taken to be an eye witness account, whilst the others are taken to be eye witness accounts written down by scribes; if a someone goes to the police and the police write down their account does it cease to be an eye witness account if the witness themselves does not do the scribing?

 

[dlamberth]

John and Matthew are direct apostolic testimony written by eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus life.

Nope...Not true.

 

[bhsmte]

The Gospel of John is taken to be an eye witness account, whilst the others are taken to be eye witness accounts written down by scribes; if a someone goes to the police and the police write down their account does it cease to be an eye witness account if the witness themselves does not do the scribing?

The gospel of John, is the latest of all the gospels penned and likely 50-60 years after the supposed events took place. John was penned by an anonymous author as the other 3 gospels were. If someone anonymously wrote a book today filled with stories, that they claim happened 50 years ago, that would not be considered an eye witness account. An eye witness account, requires the identification of the eye witness and a way to independently verify, that the account was an eye witness account.

In courts of law, which tries to get at the truth, for an eye witness account to be accepted, that eye witness has to take the stand and be cross examined. Otherwise, it is hearsay testimony.

 

[Inkfingers]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cold-Case-...712914&sr=8-1&keywords=cold+case+christianity