What atheists fail to understand

[FireDragon76]

I believe generalizations are bad for both sides because it marginalizes specific individuals' reasons for believing or not believing.

Not to mention there are plenty of religious people for whom personal experience is not very important.

 

[Silmarien]

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

Islam - Did Mohammed exist?

I'm aware that this extremist view exists, but as far as I'm concerned, it's on even shakier grounds than mythicism regarding Christianity. In both cases, what we have is just hyper skepticism for its own sake, perhaps with a side helping of anti-theism tossed in for good measure.

I'm not sure why you're holding historicity with regards to Islam to such a higher standard than you do with Christianity. All I ask for is a bit of consistency with the way we evaluate what these particular religious traditions have to say.

Nope...Not true.

Oh, there are definitely scholars out there who think that John was a disciple (if not necessarily one of the Twelve). It's a minority view, but not the sort of thing that we can say isn't true.

 

[dlamberth]

Oh, there are definitely scholars out there who think that John was a disciple (if not necessarily one of the Twelve). It's a minority view, but not the sort of thing that we can say isn't true.

I know, I've seen their arguments. And I've read the other side too. Any more I think it's become such a minority view to where I don't give it much sway at all.

 

[Noxot]

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

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.

John 1:14 (YLT)
And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:14 (ESV2011)
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

it's debatable if by "seeing his glory" he claimed to have witnessed Jesus and some of his life but I judge that the belief that the gospels are based in an actual history of some sort to be a sane thing to think.

either someone was an eyewitness and spoke about his life in the typical spiritual/inspired manner that the bible is written in or Jesus is a fictional character with no real history... well I guess it could be a jumble between the two.

it largely comes down to faith vs doubt in a person. there is an actual reality regardless of ones definition of what constitutes proof of an eyewitness account.

eyewitness accounts concerning things like witnessing a person committing a crime are pretty easy for the brain to misidentify after the case.

it's easier to remember a good and wise person. something like strife going on in the community because of him and those that disagree with him are easy to remember. not to mention that he was basically murdered for his extreme views and sayings. it's pretty easy to remember when your friend or rabbi was unjustly betrayed and put to death.

people not so steeped in mainstream Christianity give a nice alternative understanding of how things could have been concerning Jesus.

Spoiler: alan watts on Jesus

 

[mindlight]

"I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of how lightning might possibly come to exist naturally, so it's CLEARLY a supernatural weapon hurled by a deity." Creationist "logic" in a nutshell.
Attributing phenomena that are not yet understood to a deliberate creative process like the ones our species engages in when building structures or painting works of art misses the fact that 99.9% of the processes around us exhibit order *without* the involvement of human-like agency.
The way our species create is the "odd one out", not vice versa.

The creation of a universe with its own laws of physics has no analogy. So understanding how lightning works will not help you much there.

That this universe is no longer in pristine condition cause of fall and flood further complicates things.

 

[mindlight]

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

Right so you are advocating ignoring all the innumerable direct witnesses of a documents authority because these witnesses share many of the documents conclusions. But you are forgetting that there was a considerable controversy in the church about which documents to use / select. So only those which the whole church could agree on were actually used and ultimately in the final canon.

This whole discussion as to whether the gospels are eyewitness accounts is a little off topic for this thread. So I have started a new one here if you feel up to arguing your case.

Gospels are eyewitness accounts

 

[Silmarien]

I know, I've seen their arguments. And I've read the other side too. Any more I think it's become such a minority view to where I don't give it much sway at all.

You don't have to, but you can't say, "Nope, not true," to someone who does, unless you can discredit every scholar who disagrees with you.

 

[dlamberth]

You don't have to, but you can't say, "Nope, not true," to someone who does, unless you can discredit every scholar who disagrees with you.

I get your point. I wonder though, where does one draw the line? Do we give flat earthers the same ear?

 

[Silmarien]

I get your point. I wonder though, where does one draw the line? Do we give flat earthers the same ear?

Wherever we want to draw the line, it most certainly should not be at ancient history. There's certainly no scientific reason to think that the author of John wasn't a disciple, and everyone is going to bring their own perspective to an analysis of the texts and the credibility of early Christian tradition.

 

[dlamberth]

Wherever we want to draw the line, it most certainly should not be at ancient history. There's certainly no scientific reason to think that the author of John wasn't a disciple, and everyone is going to bring their own perspective to an analysis of the texts and the credibility of early Christian tradition.

OK...point made. To be honest with you, I've known this all along. But clearly in my own mind I've drawn a line. That's come about because I don't believe any of the Bible is written by anyone who actually knew Jesus personally. And I believe that scholarly examination of the text have more than shown that as a truth. At one time I was able to give the same leeway as you do to the authorship question of John, but no more.

As an aside but distantly related perspective, The Gospel of John to me is best understood through the lens of mysticism. Though there are scholars who say the same, we are a minority. And one can clearly hear the echoing calls of "Nope, Not True" ringing through the hall ways when that perspective is introduced. So I get what your saying.

 

[Silmarien]

OK...point made. To be honest with you, I've known this all along. But clearly in my own mind I've drawn a line. That's come about because I don't believe any of the Bible is written by anyone who actually knew Jesus personally. And I believe that scholarly examination of the text have more than shown that as a truth. At one time I was able to give the same leeway as you do to the authorship question of John, but no more.

I would hesitate to say that scholarly investigation has demonstrated truths concerning the identities of the authors of the Gospel. History is less about establishing facts and more about reconstructing a picture as best we can, so I think scholarship is more useful in terms of showing how oral tradition works, different literary patterns that turn up in the Gospel and what they might say about the people who wrote them, and so forth and so on. I honestly find the more conservative scholarship more interesting, but I started out as hyper-skeptical towards the Gospel accounts, so considering the merits of Christian tradition is stepping away from long held assumptions for me. It's the opposite of what normally happens.

As an aside but distantly related perspective, The Gospel of John to me is best understood through the lens of mysticism. Though there are scholars who say the same, we are a minority. And one can clearly hear the echoing calls of "Nope, Not True" ringing through the hall ways when that perspective is introduced. So I get what your saying.

Yes, I have some sympathy for that view as well, and have seen people froth at the mouth when it comes up. I think my favorite approach is the Gospel of John as the work of a disciple using mystical language to describe the impact of his experiences (though that Johannine thunderbolt in Matthew makes me wonder). By and large, though, it does strike me as being from a different tradition as the Synoptics, probably with an altogether separate source.

 

[Episaw]

Major league, strawman.

What sport do they play that in?

 

[Episaw]

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

Relevance please?

 

[Not David]

OK...point made. To be honest with you, I've known this all along. But clearly in my own mind I've drawn a line. That's come about because I don't believe any of the Bible is written by anyone who actually knew Jesus personally. And I believe that scholarly examination of the text have more than shown that as a truth. At one time I was able to give the same leeway as you do to the authorship question of John, but no more.

As an aside but distantly related perspective, The Gospel of John to me is best understood through the lens of mysticism. Though there are scholars who say the same, we are a minority. And one can clearly hear the echoing calls of "Nope, Not True" ringing through the hall ways when that perspective is introduced. So I get what your saying.

I don't understand how a style used to tell the story of Jesus should be considered provd that it wasn't written by the Apostol John.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Is there any disputing that the three "synoptic" gospels share a body of text instead of being written utterly independently by eyewitnesses?

Because I'm telling you, if three of my students handed me in such a report, and then claimed that they had all written them independently, I'd fail their behinds immediately.

As to the authorship of "John's" gospel:
You could probably try to build a case for this being the only canonical eyewitness account, fundamentally diverging from the synoptics because they merely expanded upon another line of tradition. But then, you'd have to dismiss just how decidedly greek and "un-jewish" this gospel is (in light of the fact that the historical John would have been a Jew), and how it seems to speak more to the contemporary status and identity of Christianity in the late 1st century CE than to the historical situation of Jesus's ministry.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Likewise, it takes an AWFUL lot of mental gymnastics to assume that the nativity tales are historical fact.
I'm not saying it's impossible to rationalize every single detail until it somehow makes sense, but to do so takes the same amount of work as justifying geocrentrism by coming up with mathematic equations "harmonizing" the "erratic" movements of the planets. It can be done, it's just not solid scholarship, but confirmation bias from start to finish.

If you start with the conclusion that something MUST be true, and then go looking for whatever shred of evidence you find that might support your hypothesis, then chances are that you will "succeed" - and be wrong. In fact, even if your conclusion should turn out to be right, your way of trying to substantiate it is still wrong, and puts it on shaky ground until somebody else conducts better work.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The only way you'll ever "prove" the Bible to be a 100% historically accurate eyewitness account that sets it apart from any other religion ever conceived is by treating it differently from every other historical source on account of its supposed "holiness" - and that's when you lose the dispute before it's even begun.

 

[bhsmte]

Relevance please?

Does this mean you wont answer the question?

 

[Not David]

Is there any disputing that the three "synoptic" gospels share a body of text instead of being written utterly independently by eyewitnesses?

Because I'm telling you, if three of my students handed me in such a report, and then claimed that they had all written them independently, I'd fail their behinds immediately.

As to the authorship of "John's" gospel:
You could probably try to build a case for this being the only canonical eyewitness account, fundamentally diverging from the synoptics because they merely expanded upon another line of tradition. But then, you'd have to dismiss just how decidedly greek and "un-jewish" this gospel is (in light of the fact that the historical John would have been a Jew), and how it seems to speak more to the contemporary status and identity of Christianity in the late 1st century CE than to the historical situation of Jesus's ministry.

Not all Jews are going to have the same style, especially John who didn't stay his whole life in Judea.

 

[Silmarien]

Is there any disputing that the three "synoptic" gospels share a body of text instead of being written utterly independently by eyewitnesses?

Luke never claims to be an eyewitness and Mark is traditionally considered a student of Peter, so I don't see why anyone would argue that they were written by independent eyewitnesses when all of Christian tradition says otherwise. I prefer the view that the Synoptics record the oral traditions of various communities, rather than being either original works or the result of copying.

You could probably try to build a case for this being the only canonical eyewitness account, fundamentally diverging from the synoptics because they merely expanded upon another line of tradition. But then, you'd have to dismiss just how decidedly greek and "un-jewish" this gospel is (in light of the fact that the historical John would have been a Jew), and how it seems to speak more to the contemporary status and identity of Christianity in the late 1st century CE than to the historical situation of Jesus's ministry.

I haven't looked too deeply into Johannine scholarship, but I sincerely doubt that the scholars who argue that John was an eyewitness are dismissing anything. Even those who favor the Johannine literature as mysticism, like John Shelby Spong, tie it specifically to Jewish mysticism, so I am unconvinced that there is anything spectacularly un-Jewish about it. Though there are scholars like Richard Bauckham who argue that the source of John was a more minor disciple who was later confused with the Apostle John--take this approach and he could certainly have been a Hellenistic Jew like Paul.