The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[AntiTheist]

Faith and belief, even if it is atheism, is in the last analysis the adult form of “let’s pretend.”

To be clear, atheism is neither a faith nor a belief. It is simply the lack of belief in gods (which means that the atheist also lacks faith in gods).

In the same way that I don’t believe in gods, I don’t believe in non-corporeal leprechauns [please note: I am comparing non-belief to non-belief here; I know that gods and leprechauns are different creatures]. I don’t see enough evidence for either of those kinds of beings, and I don’t accept claims that they exist.

It’s not a faith, nor is it a belief, nor does it resemble “make believe.”

 

[twb1621]

Yikes. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that some Christians come out with when you successfully point out that there’s insufficient evidence for the gospels being anything more than myths: “Well, uh…you don’t have absolute proof of anything in history! So therefore you take everything on complete, blind faith! Therefore, no one really knows anything at all, and everyone is justified in believing whatever they like!”

Actually, I believe what I have learned against what I initially believed because of what I have discovered overcoming bias.

Take no offense, but you have merely maintained your position without responding to the questions and issues I presented. As others have said, in such a case a person either wishes to learn the truth no matter where that leads, or does not wish or concern themself with the truth, especially if that truth can bring about a greater inconvenience in their current life style. Of course there are those who wish to learn the truth but have fears in where that may lead. I don’t know your personal situation and it is not necessary to know, but the fact you do not judge equally the information that is available to you should be cause for further consideration.
You are obviously not up to date when it comes to proofs of history or the findings of science and archeology (non-Catholic sources) that have determined such scriptural events like the 10 plagues of Egypt which starting with the first are actually related in nature one to the other, leaving the probability very strong that these events were factual. or the crossing the red sea in the matter of the deliverance of the Jews.
But as you have pointed out in your chosen identity, your position is not atheistic, but rather possesses absolute prejudice as an anti-theist, while as such you have absolutely no proof to support to your beliefs, only denials. You yourself would demand proofs of others in relation to that which you oppose while not requiring proofs for what you choose to believe rendering only invalid objectivity to the possibility rather than open to the truth what ever that may be. Your position goes as far as to reject without consideration of credibility any sources of the evidence, yes in many cases evidence that has been discovered or determined and I know you could not have lived enough lives to have accumulated all the doctorates and experience held by so many professionals in their vast respective fields of study, and this includes atheists or at one time atheists later converted.
You speak of evidence, but you do not follow the necessary CONSTANT principles to validly identify what can be referred to as evidence, this is clear. As an investigator and investigative researcher for over 25 years that is absolute. Even in a court of law circumstantial evidence when available to be accumulated to a “reasonable” degree is useful as sufficient evidence when credible reason and common sense are in focus.
Regardless, you have been offered links to information that you also have not responded to and I am sure you could not have sincerely delved into as you had not the time to do so with ardent interest yet respond as quickly as you have.
My only suggestion would be to put aside your bias and research for truth with common principles and you will find more is available than you have given chance to learn to this point let alone could imagine. Again, your response reflects the avoidance of many issues I presented and valid findings in various scientific and historic fields of study pertinent to these facts that are not only reasonable but prudent to the sincere researcher seeking truth. I wish you well in first overcoming your bias so you may see what is presented you with clearer consideration.

 

[Rocinante]

Yikes. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that some Christians come out with when you successfully point out that there’s insufficient evidence for the gospels being anything more than myths: “Well, uh…you don’t have absolute proof of anything in history! So therefore you take everything on complete, blind faith! Therefore, no one really knows anything at all, and everyone is justified in believing whatever they like!”

There aren’t only two options – either absolute proof or blind faith. There’s also the matter of using available evidence to determine what is most likely the case.

There’s a large body of convincing evidence that Caesar existed and crossed the Rubicon. Is it possible that there is some kind of large-scale conspiracy to pretend that Caesar existed? I suppose it’s possible – in the same way that it’s possible that leprechauns steal and move my car keys when I’m not looking – but it’s also incredibly unlikely. The evidence points very strongly to the existence of Caesar and his crossing the Rubicon. It’s not something that I’m absolutely certain of – I’m absolutely certain of almost nothing – but it’s so close to certain that it would be silly to question.

another key difference between the question of adequate historical evidence for caesar crossing the rubicon and jesus rising from the dead is that none of us organize our entire lives around the truth or falsity of the historical fact about caesar. given that that the crossing of the rubicon is relatively not all that consequential and is relatively consistent with what we know about how the world generally works, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it doesn’t take a lot of evidence to believe the crossing of the rubicon happened. (but i don’t know. i haven’t really looked into it)

on the other hand if i’m going to organize my entire life around a historical fact, and if that fact includes believing that events happened that are entirely inconsistent with what i know about how he world generally works, i’ll want to be much more certain of it than i am about caesar. so this is all just comparing apples and oranges.

rocinante

 

[AntiTheist]

on the other hand if i’m going to organize my entire life around a historical fact, and if that fact includes believing that events happened that are entirely inconsistent with what i know about how he world generally works, i’ll want to be much more certain of it than i am about caesar. so this is all just comparing apples and oranges.

Absolutely. There’s nothing inconsistent about demanding that extraordinary claims about history are supported by extraordinary evidence.

Anyway, I can’t figure out what in the heck twb is rambling about in his latest post. He said something about me “ignoring links” or something like that. Look, I haven’t been following this thread all that closely, but one thing I don’t usually do – as a rule – is visit random websites that present highly questionable “facts” twisted to fit a particular worldview.

I’ll tell you what, twb. I’ll discuss absolutely anything that you want to, but it has to be right here, out in the open. If you post a link, you need to summarize it here for everyone to see, explain what the evidence is, where it comes from, why you think it’s reliable, and what you think it demonstrates.

If you do this, I will happily respond and explain why you’re wrong.

I am happy to have a discussion, but it has to be a discussion. You have to demonstrate that you have read and critically thought about the evidence that you are presenting. I’m not going to sit here and refute a bunch of random websites for the entertainment of everyone involved.

 

[Touchstone]

You speak of evidence, but you do not follow the necessary CONSTANT principles to validly identify what can be referred to as evidence, this is clear. As an investigator and investigative researcher for over 25 years that is absolute. Even in a court of law circumstantial evidence when available to be accumulated to a “reasonable” degree is useful as sufficient evidence when credible reason and common sense are in focus.

This is a curious complaint, because I think a court of law, as we understand it to work in western democracies today, would be the apologist’s worst enemy, a scathing rebuke for the kinds of claims the Christian apologist makes when making evidential appeals.

It’s true that circumstantial evidence can be marshaled lieu of direct evidence, a weaker form of evidence can still build a case, but the Christian claims would fail spectacularly once you get to the “reasonable degree” part.

Consider a case where you had to defend your leader against the charge that he did not write a book he claimed to write (like, for example, the idea that Julius Caesar was not the author of The Conquest of Gaul). If you can show that no discrepancies between the book and the leader’s stories exist, that no other author claims to be the true author, and is alleging fraud on the part of your leader, and that, by evidence presented, you can place your leader in the right time and place to observe and record the events in the book, as well as arrangements with publishers and distributors to publish the book based on a manuscript ostensibly provided by your leader…

You’d have a very strong case. The opposing side doesn’t really have much to stand on, as the claim “I wrote this book”, while it may be false, and falsified if the evidence supports such a notion, is NOT IN AND OF ITSELF problematic. People write and publish books. On its face, in a court of law, it’s a plausible, credible claim.

Now, on the other hand, if you had to show, in a court of law, that your leader was killed, put into a tomb for parts of three days, and then miraculously came back to life, you’d be in big trouble. The opposing side would carry the presumptive finding, for such a claim is fantastic, implausible on its face. All the other side would need to do is appeal to precisely what you appeal to (in part) – REASON, pointing out that such a claim is absurd in light of all knowledge we have of physics, biology, and medical history. Not only is it conspicuously unknown as an event, over centuries and millenia, in which BILLIONS of humans have died and failed to come back to life after anything like that time of being dead, our established knowledge of chemistry and physiology show any number of process and decomposition events that would make resurrection a natural impossibility.

And here, you would fail, badly, in a court of law, a process of review that wasn’t swayed by apologetics or emotional appeals, or the threats of impending takeover of society by murderous marxist nihilism if the apologists’ claim is not accepted. You would have to present evidence that is COMMENSURATE with the claim made, evidence that didn’t just rise to the plausibility of writing a book, but which rose to the plausibility of reanimation after being dead three days.

It wouldn’t get off the ground. The judge wouldn’t even let it go to a jury, as there wouldn’t be anything close to the kind of evidence to make this decidable in such a venue. This would be a case where the Christian apologists’ case would be dismissed by lack of evidence, if established court room rules of evidence were applied.

All of which to say, if you take all the second hand and circumstantial evidence you want to assemble in favor of the resurrection of Jesus, and you multiplied it again, and again, you still aren’t anywhere near what a reasonable judge would accept for such a claim as resurrection. It’s a fantastic claim, and as such would need extremely powerful and unprecedented levels of interlocking evidence to be sustained. It’s an enormously high bar that apologists have set for themselves, necessarily, by the very nature of their claim, and a court room would be an excellent context for showing how inadequate the evidence really is in relation to the claim.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

This is a curious complaint, because I think a court of law, as we understand it to work in western democracies today, would be the apologist’s worst enemy, a scathing rebuke for the kinds of claims the Christian apologist makes when making evidential appeals.

This example is irrelevant in one sense. Courts of law are made up of people who have biases and particular world-views. They do not determine what is true and false. That would mean that slavery was right, simply because those in the court said so. It would also mean that, were a court to codemn an innocent man, the man would become guilty simply at the courts say so.

However, if you are referring to evidential claims being *found *true, and not them being *determined *true, then “courts of law” have certainly been appealed to in Christianity. Look at the Church’s list of declared miracles. They have been examined by panels of scientists and doctors, all of whom find no possible natural explanation for their occurence. That’s as close to a “court of law” as you can get.

In respect to past claims, however, such as those made in the Gospels, your point, which comes from Hume, has been refuted time and time again. The claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” implicitly assumes miracles have a low probability. Probability, however, can only be “low” or “high” when one knows what to expect, given the circumstances. Yet the circumstances, in the case of the Gospels, are precisely what is suspect, i.e. if Christ is a supernatural being, there is nothing improbable about him performing miracles. How do you decide the “if” in this case? Well, you either believe it to be so, or you don’t believe it to be so, and remain agnostic. It is illogical however to say you can prove he is not supernatural , or that it is unreasonable to think he is supernatural, simply because “there’s not enough evidence.” Again, good evidence is proportional to what we should expect to find, given the circumstances. All you and Hume have done is assumed the circumstances are such and such (i.e. Christ was a natural man), and built your case upon this a priori assumption.

 

[Pieman333272]

Absolutely. There’s nothing inconsistent about demanding that extraordinary claims about history are supported by extraordinary evidence.

I’m more of a lurker on this specific thread now, but I actually would agree with you if I weren’t a Christian - its fine to ask for extraordinary evidence. The problem, in my opinion, is when either:

A) They demand evidence we simply can’t produce (and they actually acknowledge that sometimes!), such as a photo of the resurrection (though we technically have that) or a 29 A.D. Copy of the Jerusalem Gazette saying “Man Rises From Dead!” (which may have existed but would almost certainly be lost by now).

B) They dismiss evidence we have (see Tuno on Josephus earlier in the thread), or say “that’s scientifically impossible, so historically, it didn’t happen”. If its proven historically, you have to accept that (or question it, but I’m not trying to start a science vs archeology/history thing here), even if its “unscientific” or violates your precious Metaphysical Naturalism. The Jesus Seminar was criticized even by atheists for dismissing New Testament Canon (which over 75% of all scholars, including Liberals and Atheists, accept some extent of) only because it was accepted according to mass Christian tradition.

Just my opinions on that. When you’re closed to miracles, they will never be proven to you. When you’re open to them, even if not a theist, you will see the evidence for what it is.

 

[Windfish]

I just want to know what books/studies AntiTheist is basing his opinion on. The Gospels are remarkably accurate historical texts - they are an anomaly compared to other historical texts. So close to the figure being described, based on living eyewitness, independently attested, supported by archeology, etc. etc. etc. The fact of the matter is, we have more evidence on Christ than on any other figure in the ancient world, and this is remarkable since he was neither a warlord, politician, or emperor - only a mere peasant! Truly an anomaly. If there were no mention of miracles or anything supernatural, these would be the most trustworthy, accurate, and remarkable historical texts in all of antiquity.

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

I just want to know what books/studies AntiTheist is basing his opinion on. The Gospels are remarkably accurate historical texts - they are an anomaly compared to other historical texts. So close to the figure being described, based on living eyewitness, independently attested, supported by archeology, etc. etc. etc. The fact of the matter is, we have more evidence on Christ than on any other figure in the ancient world, and this is remarkable since he was neither a warlord, politician, or emperor - only a mere peasant! Truly an anomaly. If there were no mention of miracles or anything supernatural, these would be the most trustworthy, accurate, and remarkable historical texts in all of antiquity.

I agree with you, I tried ask Tuno on specifics, but got vague information, more principle and actual evidence. I have heard over and over from historians, Jesus is the most evident to exist as a person in history than most other figures.

 

[Windfish]

I agree with you, I tried ask Tuno on specifics, but got vague information, more principle and actual evidence. I have heard over and over from historians, Jesus is the most evident to exist as a person in history than most other figures.

This is the key to breaking through to people like AntiTheist/Tuno - the Socratic method. I said this before, but what they have is a really vague distrust/skepticism that is not grounded in what these documents are. These documents would have to be really weird indeed for this kind of skepticism to be rationally justified. So the key is asking questions about the nature of the documents and about the nature of their beliefs to break through. For example, here is Bart Ehrman (Ehrman, of all people! He’s been widely refuted, but even he cannot escape the history!) sparring with a mythicist:

youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

This is the key to breaking through to people like AntiTheist/Tuno - the Socratic method. I said this before, but what they have is a really vague distrust/skepticism that is not grounded in what these documents are. These documents would have to be really weird indeed for this kind of skepticism to be rationally justified. So the key is asking questions about the nature of the documents and about the nature of their beliefs to break through. For example, here is Bart Ehrman (Ehrman, of all people! He’s been widely refuted, but even he cannot escape the history!) sparring with a mythicist:

youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY

Great information, and analogy. Makes sense to approach something that way. I’ll check out the video when I get home. Thank you!

 

[AntiTheist]

I just want to know what books/studies AntiTheist is basing his opinion on.

You might start by reading an introduction to the New Testament books in any scholarly edition.

Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus is good and accessible, and it can point you toward other sources.

If you honestly think that these texts were authored by “living eyewitnesses,” though, there’s really nothing I can say that will correct your ignorance on the matter.

EDIT: Actually, on second thought, there is something I could say to correct your ignorance. I could point out that scholarly consensus is that the Gospel authors are anonymous and that no one knows exactly who wrote them, as well as the fact that they likely date from a time after most of the supposed “eyewitnesses” would have long been dead.

These documents would have to be really weird indeed for this kind of skepticism to be rationally justified.

Yeah! They’d have to make extraordinary claims, like a man doing magic or rising from the dead or something! Oh, wait…

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

You might start by reading an introduction to the New Testament books in any scholarly edition.

Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus

No magic needed, Just Christ, and a little further thinking…

 

[AntiTheist]

Boy, we’ve had a lot of users come through here lately who can’t use the quote function properly. Is it the fact that they’re teenagers (or at least read like teenagers)?

So as you claim that historians believe it wasn’t written, there plenty more who do in fact believe. Argument doesn’t hold and water, sorry.

I said that scholarly consensus holds that these texts are anonymous, and that is indeed the case. The fact that a handful of scholars argue that the texts aren’t anonymous is irrelevant to my argument.

That there is so much disagreement on such basic facts as who wrote the books and when the books were composed testifies to the fact that there isn’t much information to go on – if there were sufficient information, there wouldn’t be such a wide spectrum of scholarly opinion.

 

[EricFilmer]

I think that things that exist are things that manifest and affect the physical world in detectable ways. That is, in fact, what “exist” means.

If something “exists,” but it does not affect the physical world in any way at all that can be detected by anyone, then for all intents and purposes, it does not exist at all.

I think this may be getting a bit off topic, but in my opinion your definition of existence is too limited. Based on your statement the number one does not exist.

 

[twb1621]

Absolutely. There’s nothing inconsistent about demanding that extraordinary claims about history are supported by extraordinary evidence.

Anyway, I can’t figure out what in the heck twb is rambling about in his latest post. He said something about me “ignoring links” or something like that. Look, I haven’t been following this thread all that closely, but one thing I don’t usually do – as a rule – is visit random websites that present highly questionable “facts” twisted to fit a particular worldview.

I’ll tell you what, twb. I’ll discuss absolutely anything that you want to, but it has to be right here, out in the open. If you post a link, you need to summarize it here for everyone to see, explain what the evidence is, where it comes from, why you think it’s reliable, and what you think it demonstrates.

If you do this, I will happily respond and explain why you’re wrong.

I am happy to have a discussion, but it has to be a discussion. You have to demonstrate that you have read and critically thought about the evidence that you are presenting. I’m not going to sit here and refute a bunch of random websites for the entertainment of everyone involved.

Of course if you are now open to this discussion and the referred information as you say why not go back and start with all the other posts I wrote you containing the basics and researching the referred sources.
Such requirements I have fulfilled in past posts to you and you do not accept or research the referred information. Anything that I have handed to you with explanations and references you rejected out right with no credible response to any of the issues presented. It is clear you never researched the ancient texts from scripture through the first four centuries of the successors to the apostles as well. Why then at this point would I continue now going further than providing you links directed to sights containing findings of physics and related sciences by the scholars of their fields of study (which would be extremely cumbersome to quote) when you could if honestly interested in learning truth, “click” once and read to your hearts content. I know you can click, you got here. You have in this post only expressed your lack of interest to learn, and what the truth MAY be.
We each have our own freedom to choose, of course you as well, regardless of the basis or lack there of we choose upon. You at this time anyway, continue to choose to deny and adopt your “beliefs” without proof and refuse to pursue truth. That’s free will and there is a reason we were all given it, I lived in ignorance for 25 years so I can’t very well say it is not another’s choice to make as well.

 

[AntiTheist]

Why then at this point would I continue now going further than providing you links directed to sights containing findings of physics and related sciences by the scholars of their fields of study (which would be extremely cumbersome to quote) when you could if honestly interested in learning truth, “click” once and read to your hearts content.

I’m not asking you to “quote” any of the things you cite. I’m asking you to briefly summarize what you think your best evidence is and explain, in your own words, why you think it’s credible and what you think it demonstrates.

I’m not interested in your posting a link to a random site and saying, “There! It’s proven! Read about it if you want to!”

I’m interested in a discussion. If you want to have a discussion, you have to at least demonstrate that you have thought critically about this subject.

I don’t think I’m asking for anything unreasonable. If you look at my OP, you’ll see that I very carefully explain the page I’m refuting and quote relevant extracts from it. You don’t have to be that precise, but you at least have to explain what it is that you’re arguing.

 

[AntiTheist]

I think this may be getting a bit off topic, but in my opinion your definition of existence is too limited. Based on your statement the number one does not exist.

Well, I thought it was clear from context, but when I say “exist,” I’m talking about things that exist independently from the human mind.

I grant that there are a wide variety of concepts that we’ve created that “exist” in the sense that they are thoughts in the minds of people. But there’s not some transcendent “Number One” floating in the astral plane somewhere.

I’ll refine my statement: When I say that an entity exists, I mean that this entity affects the world in detectable ways.

 

[twb1621]

This is a curious complaint, because I think a court of law, as we understand it to work in western democracies today, would be the apologist’s worst enemy, a scathing rebuke for the kinds of claims the Christian apologist makes when making evidential appeals.

-TS

And the resurrection should very well be a remarkable and inconceivable event, shouldn’t it… for human beings. But for a supernatural being? Now in all honesty, do you reject every event that has been classified as supernatural? I don’t believe you would as you seem more inclined to hold interest in matters of open science and the eventual possibilities. I could be wrong and if so please feel free to correct me.

When it comes to truth my friend, unless there is something corrupt in a legal case, truth is truth and there is no adversity to me or any other professional investigator I know on a personal level between truth in the Justice system or truth in apologetics.
The only adversity I ever experienced in the criminal justice system was its abuse when it occurred and I was not shy of pursuing those issues either… Although I will be the first to admit I had occasions to make adversaries in high places at times.

You have expressed a great deal more thought and consideration in your argument than I have heard from some, and I do respect and appreciate your thoughtfulness, but you have not taken into account many aspects of the matter as I have presented throughout this thread, which I believe you were not previously directly involved in. Research in general does not turn away from matters that could be considered of a supernatural or Godly origin just because they may be so difficult to acquire “evidence” from… one would in all due honesty expect such possibilities would be inconceivable and I for one would hope they would not be of complete human understanding, that in itself would be contradictory. This is the reason there are so many fields of study involved and so many avenues to research and gather from for those who do not believe in God but do want to know the truth and come as close as humanly possible to it.

An atheist can assume without support they are correct in that there is no God and blow off the fact that there are only approximately 2.3% of the world’s population who do not accept the existence of God, but one of the factors in any research that must be seriously considered is the commonality and corroboration of sources, both in ancient and modern, usually on the scholarly levels. Yet I agree that this too is only a part of the evidence that is accumulated but it is significant.

I can not nor would not attempt to write 6 years of research in this thread to appease those who want physical evidence handed to them and I wouldn‘t be the first to offer it and be rejected out of hand because one does not wish to consider it. (I get wordy enough in case you haven’t noticed). I can refer to sources, many sources that provide the information and findings regardless of the faith of the scholars or lack thereof. But I will say that it is better to search for the truth than to be “inspired” out of one’s ignorance. And I will also say the most direct way to learn if there is a God is to turn oneself over to Him and be open to Him, but that takes faith.

In regard to Julius Caesar as the author, I have no good reason to insist he was not the author but if you do not have physical evidence that his works were written by his hand rather than by his word and recorded by a study or scribe of his, you have no more justification than that of the written Gospels.

 

[twb1621]

I’m not asking you to “quote” any of the things you cite. I’m asking you to briefly summarize what you think your best evidence is and explain, in your own words, why you think it’s credible and what you think it demonstrates.

I’m not interested in your posting a link to a random site and saying, “There! It’s proven! Read about it if you want to!”

I’m interested in a discussion. If you want to have a discussion, you have to at least demonstrate that you have thought critically about this subject.

I don’t think I’m asking for anything unreasonable. If you look at my OP, you’ll see that I very carefully explain the page I’m refuting and quote relevant extracts from it. You don’t have to be that precise, but you at least have to explain what it is that you’re arguing.

great, then go back to my past posts and comment on the issues I presented you that you have yet to touch in your communications. I am totally in line with that and would enjoy the discussion in such circumstances. But I am not going to rewrite all those posts over again when they are available to you now still in this thread.

A closing thought for you, I am not as an example a physicist and if I refer you to a link containing information pertinent to physics it is to your interest I refer it. I can not misquote something if it is directly offered to you. I have in past threads explained to you the fact that the theories of the creation of the universe such as the “big bang theory” and such are leading ever closer in origin to God or a “supernatural intelligence” if you prefer it said differently. I would think if you were interested in such information, you would be responding to the references not asking for encapsulated briefs to avoid having to read the findings and where the findings were derived from.