Why Are You an Atheist or a Believer?

[NUance]

We have the four Gospels, written specifically about Jesus 20-70 years after his death, and the rest is essentially fan fiction, expounding on what those four Gospels said. The fact that there are "a lot" of books written about Jesus does not bolster any argument, it's simply a fact of his being the dominant religion in the area where the printing press was invented, and that religion being perpetrated through the centuries. If we wrote 10,000 books about Popeye, that wouldn't legitimize Popeye in any way.

Paul's Epistles are essentially fan-fic about the Gospels. They are not primary-source material for Jesus, and in fact, Paul never met Jesus, and he is not primary-source, either. He's telling us nothing different than what Martin Luther told us - his opinion on the teachings of Christ.

None of this is documentary by nature. It's likely that Jesus existed, and that he was a religious leader of the era ascribed to him. But as "evidence" goes, the Bible and subsequent writings are paper thin.

So there are four books in the bible written about Jesus. Four, if you disregard the 23 other books of the New Testament and other apocrypha about Jesus that werent included in the bible. How many books written during that era survive today? Can you name any other person from that eralet alone a humble carpenter who had four books written about them by people who personally knew them? Like I said above, there are few, if any, people from that era whose existence was more well documented than Jesus.

They were not written by people who personally knew him.

Did Matthew and John personally know Jesus?

 

[zoogs]

I thought that existence of Jesus historically was universally acknowledged. But as with other historical figures and even modern day figures, there is the potential for such a mixture of fact and legend that it can be hard to really pin things down. So many aspects of his life are, while central to certain faiths, not universally agreed upon in a scholarly sense. Nor in a religious sense, where the other major religions that sprouted up in the same region have different, distinguishing views about who Jesus was and what happened to him.

But then, faith has never been about academic reasoning, because then it would be open to being rejected for lack of evidence. Certainly there is no scientific evidence that supports the possibility of a resurrected human being, as fascinating a topic as that is for us -- or the divine or magical, as fascinating as those things also are. That doesn't really matter as far as faith goes.

 

[knapplc]

We have the four Gospels, written specifically about Jesus 20-70 years after his death, and the rest is essentially fan fiction, expounding on what those four Gospels said. The fact that there are "a lot" of books written about Jesus does not bolster any argument, it's simply a fact of his being the dominant religion in the area where the printing press was invented, and that religion being perpetrated through the centuries. If we wrote 10,000 books about Popeye, that wouldn't legitimize Popeye in any way.

Paul's Epistles are essentially fan-fic about the Gospels. They are not primary-source material for Jesus, and in fact, Paul never met Jesus, and he is not primary-source, either. He's telling us nothing different than what Martin Luther told us - his opinion on the teachings of Christ.

None of this is documentary by nature. It's likely that Jesus existed, and that he was a religious leader of the era ascribed to him. But as "evidence" goes, the Bible and subsequent writings are paper thin.

So there are four books in the bible written about Jesus. Four, if you disregard the 23 other books of the New Testament and other apocrypha about Jesus that weren’t included in the bible. How many books written during that era survive today? Can you name any other person from that era—let alone a humble carpenter— who had four books written about them by people who personally knew them? Like I said above, there are few, if any, people from that era whose existence was more well documented than Jesus.

The other 23 books of the New Testament aren't written about Jesus, they're written about Christians. Huge difference there. Paul's epistles are all "live this way because of Jesus," not depicting the life & times of Jesus.

Further, there is no solid evidence that any of the Gospels were written by someone who "personally knew" Jesus.

 

[BigRedBuster]

We have the four Gospels, written specifically about Jesus 20-70 years after his death, and the rest is essentially fan fiction, expounding on what those four Gospels said. The fact that there are "a lot" of books written about Jesus does not bolster any argument, it's simply a fact of his being the dominant religion in the area where the printing press was invented, and that religion being perpetrated through the centuries. If we wrote 10,000 books about Popeye, that wouldn't legitimize Popeye in any way.

Paul's Epistles are essentially fan-fic about the Gospels. They are not primary-source material for Jesus, and in fact, Paul never met Jesus, and he is not primary-source, either. He's telling us nothing different than what Martin Luther told us - his opinion on the teachings of Christ.

None of this is documentary by nature. It's likely that Jesus existed, and that he was a religious leader of the era ascribed to him. But as "evidence" goes, the Bible and subsequent writings are paper thin.

So there are four books in the bible written about Jesus. Four, if you disregard the 23 other books of the New Testament and other apocrypha about Jesus that werent included in the bible. How many books written during that era survive today? Can you name any other person from that eralet alone a humble carpenter who had four books written about them by people who personally knew them? Like I said above, there are few, if any, people from that era whose existence was more well documented than Jesus.

They were not written by people who personally knew him.

Really?

LINK

John the Apostle had the distinction of being a beloved friend of Jesus Christ, writer of five books of the New Testament, and a pillar in the early Christian church.

John and his brother James, another disciple of Jesus, were fishermen on the Sea of Galilee when Jesus called them to follow him. They later became part of Christ's inner circle, along with the Apostle Peter. These three were privileged to be with Jesus at the raising of Jairus' daughter from the dead, at the transfiguration, and during Jesus' agony in Gethsemane.

On one occasion, when a Samaritan village rejected Jesus, James and John asked if they should call down fire from heaven to destroy the place. That earned them the nickname Boanerges, or "sons of thunder."

A previous relationship with Joseph Caiaphas allowed John to be present in the high priest's house during Jesus' trial. On the cross, Jesus entrusted the care of his mother, Mary, to an unnamed disciple, probably John, who took her into his home (John 19:27). Some scholars speculate that John may have been a cousin of Jesus.

So, John was present during Jesus' trial but he didn't know him or never had met him or did not have first hand knowledge of him or what he did?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Matthew didn't know Jesus personally?

LINK

Matthew 9:9-13New International Version (NIV) The Calling of Matthew9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[SIZE=.625em][a][/SIZE] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

 

[BigRedBuster]

So, Saul persecuted Christians while Jesus was here and then after he was crucified, Saul (Later Paul) met him on a road and was convinced to change and became a disciple. He wasn't around to know Jesus?

LINK

When Did Paul First Meet Jesus?by Wayne Blank
See also 1 Year Holy Bible Reading Plan
The Pharisee Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus is one of the most well-known events of Bible History. Saul had been a deadly enemy of Christians, but the Christ Himself brought about his conversion, after which Saul became known as Paul - not only one of the greatest Christians that ever lived, but a man who was given to write, through his Epistles, much of the New Testament record.

"I am Jesus whom thou persecutest"

But when did Saul/Paul first meet Jesus? On the road to Damascus? Perhaps, but as a Jerusalem Pharisee, it would have been nearly impossible for Saul to not have encountered the Messiah during the time of His ministry - and it was the Pharisees who were the foremost members of the ruling council that had the Christ judicially assassinated. When Jesus said, on the road to Damascus, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest," it was after Christ's resurrection when no one could persecute Him; Jesus may have made the statement as a reminder of what Saul had done prior to and during Christ's killing. Saul very likely debated with Christ in Jerusalem (Christ's encounters with the Pharisees are described in detail - and the Pharisees were always humiliated by the Truth that Christ spoke), debates that Saul lost - hence his violent hatred for Christ and then Christians.

 

[Scratchtown]

Thank you BRB.

 

[Scratchtown]

The book of James was written by Jesus' half brother, James.

I suppose he didn't know him either. Growing up with him as brothers.

 

[Husker_x]

All four gospels are anonymous texts. They were ascribed their familiar names centuries later, probably for the same reasons authors who wrote the 'apocryphal' "Gospel of Thomas" or "The Apocalypse of Peter" assigned them famous names--not because these figures wrote them, but it increased their odds of being taken seriously to have a weighty names associated with the texts. It was also notoriously hard to weed out forgery in the ancient world given how poor literacy rates and access to written documents were.

So as you can probably guess, using the bible to figure out whether or not a guy named Matthew knew Jesus is a sketchy start. It's about the same as using the gospels to prove Jesus was a historical figure and not just a legend. You wind up going in circles.

Anyone interested in New Testament authorship, textual transmission, or forgery in the ancient world should check out Bart Ehrman's work. He is a well respected scholar who also writes about these topics for a general audience.

 

[knapplc]

All four gospels are anonymous texts. They were ascribed their familiar names centuries later, probably for the same reasons authors who wrote the 'apocryphal' "Gospel of Thomas" or "The Apocalypse of Peter" assigned them famous names--not because these figures wrote them, but it increased their odds of being taken seriously to have a weighty names associated with the texts. It was also notoriously hard to weed out forgery in the ancient world given how poor literacy rates and access to written documents were.

So as you can probably guess, using the bible to figure out whether or not a guy named Matthew knew Jesus is a sketchy start. It's about the same as using the gospels to prove Jesus was a historical figure and not just a legend. You wind up going in circles.

Anyone interested in New Testament authorship, textual transmission, or forgery in the ancient world should check out Bart Ehrman's work. He is a well respected scholar who also writes about these topics for a general audience.

I remember, as a Believer, how inconvenient these truths were. Part of me acknowledged them, but overtly I ignored them. One of the greatest tools I ever got was a Concordia Self-Study Bible. I used it in my two-year, cover-to-cover Bible study. I read the preface to each book, the authorship for each book (which even this Bible acknowledges is, for the Gospels, disputed), and the footnote references.

It was one of the key things I used to be who I am today.

The Bible is a good tool for truth. I encourage everyone who owns one to read it.

 

[Scratchtown]

Ok my question to the atheists on this board (who were former believers) who have actually understand the Bible's message is this...

Knowing that the Bible teaches over and over again about the concept of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and to trust and love the Lord God with all that we are...why would God go against what he says in His Word about faith? Have faith...have faith...those who have faith...

Knowing the message but yet still demanding hard physical proof? How do you not see it around you? Meaning the complexity of the earth and nature. Not the human actions that are awful like rape, murder, etc....I'm talking about the physical beauty of the earth. Think about what it looked like in its purest state before mankind completely screwed it up.

I watched this video today and just admire God's beauty when I see this.

 

[Husker_x]

Ok my question to the atheists on this board (who were former believers) who have actually understand the Bible's message is this...

Knowing that the Bible teaches over and over again about the concept of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and to trust and love the Lord God with all that we are...why would God go against what he says in His Word about faith? Have faith...have faith...those who have faith...

Knowing the message but yet still demanding hard physical proof? How do you not see it around you? Meaning the complexity of the earth and nature. Not the human actions that are awful like rape, murder, etc....I'm talking about the physical beauty of the earth. Think about what it looked like in its purest state before mankind completely screwed it up.

I watched this video today and just admire God's beauty when I see this.

I reject the concept of faith because we live in a world where there have been literally thousands––tens of thousands––of religions, all of which basically say the same thing for the same reasons. Repeating "I believe it, I believe it, have faith" to myself is not a pathway to true knowledge. Muslims and Mormons are just as adamant as you, again for the same reasons. I also don't think that the Bible is the word of a god––there's certainly nothing within the text or the historical record to suggest it. See the giant quote in the OP for more on that.

I do believe that the existence and complexity of the universe presents human beings with a genuine stumper, just as much today as two thousand years ago. You choose to 'solve' the mystery with faith––meaning your answer can't be confirmed and is therefore not much of an answer––but I'm personally more interested in following the science wherever it leads.The last hundred years or so has proven time and again that this old universe of ours is, to paraphrase a famous saying, stranger than we know and stranger than we can know.

 

[knapplc]

Ok my question to the atheists on this board (who were former believers) who have actually understand the Bible's message is this...

Knowing that the Bible teaches over and over again about the concept of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and to trust and love the Lord God with all that we are...why would God go against what he says in His Word about faith? Have faith...have faith...those who have faith...

Knowing the message but yet still demanding hard physical proof? How do you not see it around you? Meaning the complexity of the earth and nature. Not the human actions that are awful like rape, murder, etc....I'm talking about the physical beauty of the earth. Think about what it looked like in its purest state before mankind completely screwed it up.

Would you be Christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia? Or Tibet? Or India? Most likely, no. You'd be Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu. You'd likely be as adamantly steadfast in your faith as you are today, you'd just have that same faith in a different god.

When I realized that my religion was largely an accident of where I was born, it became far easier to look beyond the "faith" question and start examining the whole of it critically.

 

[Redux]

If one religion were the ONE TRUE RELIGION shouldn't some higher power that is supposed to be all loving affirm that religion instead of watching the masses slaughter one another?

When firm faith is based solely off of geography and upbringing how does one accept it without question?

 

[TGHusker]

Christian theism makes claims about science and history that can be debated and researched (like whether or not the Jesus of the gospels is actually a historical figure, for instance).

More books, writings and literature have been written about Jesus than anyone who ever walked the face of the earth. Including prophesies written before he was alive, writings from people who were alive at the time of Jesus and met him, and an immense body of literature following his death. Yet at least some atheists still doubt that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood human being. Mmmmkay.

There's a lot written about Achilles, too.

The trouble with verifying the existence of ancient figures (especially poor anonymous peasants) is that you have no primary sources. The gospels are anonymous texts written decades after the guy allegedly was crucified. They're also technically speaking propaganda. And most of the stories contain what we would call "magic" in English.

Just FYI: there is a real debate about this in the scholarly community. Look at the work of Richard Carrier or Robert Price for a start. My opinion is Jesus probably does correspond to one or several real historical people. That's my hunch. It's very difficult to say either way.

X, I would agree that there is a real debate in the scholarly community. You and I and our other friends here won't settle this here when the scholars have not been able to settle it over centuries. We each have our 'pet' scholars to quote. You will find that Christian scholars will point out the nearness of the event to the actual writings by eye witnesses or those who interviewed those eyewitnesses. You mentioned the writings coming decades after the resurrection account. That is 'seconds' vs typical ancient historical accounts. You believe Alexander the Great existed, yet the gap between his life and reliable historical accounts are much greater than that between Christ and the gospels. This can be said of many of the historical figures of ancient days.

The apostle Paul spent 15 days wt Peter (eyewitness) after his (Paul) Damascus road experience. Mark, an understudy of both Paul & Peter, wrote the self name Gospel around 55 AD or so. John was an eyewitness and Gospel writer. Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, has been judged to be an excellent historian because of the great detail he used in his writings. Being a Greek and a doctor would explain his scientific and orderly approach to the books, giving great attention to detail in his accounts. He was of course a companion of Paul and had interviewed the apostles. Written approx 60 AD. 1Corithians in which Paul speaks of other witnesses was written approx 50-55AD. Modern scholarship generally accept that gospels were written with the purpose of being historical, biographical accounts

We have to remember that the Gospels and the Book of Acts were each written as a historical retelling of the experiences of the eyewitness or once removed (interviews of those eyewitnesses) accounts. They were later compiled into what we have today in the NT. The often sited & not included gnostic gospels (of the Da Vince Code fame, etc) came very much later.

You may also want to note that Bart Ehrman (one of the agnostic scholars) makes a big show out of his disbelief but when pressed he often admits that the gospels are appropriately preserved.

Lee Stobel, former atheist journalist, recounts his journey from Atheism to belief in God due to the evidences for the resurrection in this video starting at around minute 9.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVoKR_cvJJM

One poster after the video had this to say regarding 'myths or 'magic' :

From the point of view of literature, and I am speaking as one who has both studied and taught literature over fifty years, the New Testament gospels do not fall in either category or compare at all to any of the legends or myths we have to examine. They are far too realistic, for one thing. Any student of literature should be able to notice that. In fact, they are so realistic that it took literature more than a millennium and a half to produce anything similarly realistic. C.S. Lewis certainly agreed with that and after examination of the New Testament documents was so convinced that he turned from atheism to faith.

The only comparison they have to myths is that they present a reality that is larger than the material world and includes a spiritual dimension. But that is the point of the narratives. If you complain that they must not be true because they include a spiritual dimension, you are creating a circular argument and excluding the possibility of their truth by your definition of reality.

As an aside, the fact that human beings have always held that there is more going on than meets the eye. The myths actually are evidence of that. What the gospels and Jesus do is connect the real material historical world to the spiritual dimension. The resurrection is the most obvious point of connection. It was an event in history that can be examined by the methods of the historian. You may not think that there is enough evidence to conclude the resurrection was a real event. But you cannot argue that it is not real because it is supernatural. That is illogical. It is the supernatural that it is intended to demonstrate.

end Quote

Gary Habermas, former skeptic/agnostic historian, presents the story of his path to faith & historical data on the resurrection with this video and his website info

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ocvI9TXfgA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znVUFHqO4Q

http://garyhabermas.com/

For everyone's viewing enjoyment I've added these links to take you to discussions between scholars Gary Habremas, Michael Licona and Robert Price and Richard Carrier, Richard Spencer

I like how this discussion went as these guys are civil with each other (just like all of us

) while discussing these difficult topics. At about the 1:23:00 point to the end, some good honest thoughts about their journeys by Licona, Habremans and Price

Much of this discussion centered around the reliability and dating of the gospels and writings of Paul to support the resurrection account.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnEa40t06Ns

Discussion wt Habremas, Licona, and Carrier, Finley