The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[AntiTheist]

Just for the sake of some clairification, the post from me in question concerns conclusions made my authors who specifically are proponents of the Quest for the Historical Jesus movement. The post can be located with this link:

Therein is a wide range of conclusions as to who Jesus was. But in terms of authorship of the gospels, I simply don’t know if these same authors present a range of different opinions. I suspect that they do, I just don’t happen to know for certain.

Clarification noted.

Some modern scholars (who are not necessarily part of the Quest for the Historical Jesus movement) believe that the gospels were recorded by disciples of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (much in the way Plato gives us the teachings of Socrates). Other scholars attest to the traditional authorship.

The Plato/Socrates thing is a good comparison, one I’ve used before.

The only real evidence we have to Socrates existed is the writings of Plato, and some have claimed that Plato just made him up. Or hey, maybe Plato fabricated some of the stories or teachings.

So why do I accept that Socrates existed and not accept that the Jesus of the Gospels did? I’m so glad you asked.

The reason is that the claims are completely different. Socrates is a name attributed to ideas – I have no problem accepting as a convention the notion that this set of ideas belong to a character called Socrates. And in speech, I will employ the convention of referring to them as “Socrates’ ideas.”

No one is claiming that Socrates did magic or rose from the dead. If they did, I would not accept those claims simply on the say-so of Plato (even if Plato’s stories feature eye-witnesses to this magic, eye-witnesses whose accounts are recorded nowhere else).

Magical claims have a much higher burden of proof. Testimony – even if it’s eye-witness, which is far from certain in the case of the Gospels – cannot demonstrate that magic happened.

 

[Pieman333272]

But most of ancient history doesn’t include magical claims! That’s the whole bloody point of this thread!

How many magical claims do you accept on the say-so of ancient historians?

The point of this thread is to prove the Gospels are Myths. You failed miserably. Jesus is a real person. End of discussion, case closed. You didn’t say we had to prove the supernatural parts, the resurrection, etc. You said the Gospels were myths, and we proved you wrong. Don’t shift the burden of proof, you said the point of this thread was for you to prove the Gospels are myths, not for us to prove the miraculous parts or the resurrection. If you want us to, then you will have to come out of your dark hole and acknowledge that if we have the HISTORICAL evidence, you have to accept the resurrection, even though it’s SCIENTIFICALLY implausible. If you want to discuss the resurrection, you HAVE TO do that. Otherwise, NOTHING will convince you. Honestly, I’ve been through this before. I’m tired of hearing people say it’s scientifically implausible and dismissing all the historical evidence just like that. I’m tired of people quoting Carl Sangen, who was NOT a Biblical Scholar, as an excuse for dismissing the evidence. If you want to discuss, I and others are more than happy to give evidence if you don’t dismiss it all saying “miracles aren’t possible according to science, so this evidence is discredited and meaningless”.

 

[tonyrey]

But most of ancient history doesn’t include magical claims! That’s the whole bloody point of this thread!

How many magical claims do you accept on the say-so of ancient historians?

Don’t you accept the magical claim that persons, purpose, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice and love have been produced from atomic particles on the say-so of certain modern scientists without any eye-witnesses or contemporary evidence of any description? Now that is a colossal act of faith which does not even correspond to the way you live and treat other people - unless you regard yourself and them as robots in a vast machine which just happens to exist for no reason whatsoever! Is that what you tell your family and friends?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

*The only real evidence we have to Socrates existed is the writings of Plato, and some have claimed that Plato just made him up. Or hey, maybe Plato fabricated some of the stories or teachings. *

This is not true. Xenephon also wrote a lengthy biography of Socrates, and Aristophanes lampooned Socrates in one of his plays… They, like Plato, were contemporaries of Socrates. Do you think all three conspired in their writings to create a phony character?

The existence of Jesus is likewise attested to by all the writers of the New Testament, including Mark, Matthew, John, Luke, Paul, Peter, James, and he is referenced by the Jewish historian Josephus. So do you think all these people also conspired to make up a fictional character?

Here is a passage from Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities:

“About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvelous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.”

Acts 11:26 >>

New International Version (©1984)
“So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”

Called Christians why? In honor of the man who founded their Church. Read more of Acts to see how seriously Jesus was taken by the apostles and disciples. Was Luke also constructing a phony history of the apostolic era?

 

[EricFilmer]

so why do I accept that Socrates existed and not accept that the Jesus of the Gospels did? I’m so glad you asked.

The reason is that the claims are completely different. Socrates is a name attributed to ideas – I have no problem accepting as a convention the notion that this set of ideas belong to a character called Socrates. And in speech, I will employ the convention of referring to them as “Socrates’ ideas.”

And I think Christians can appreciate this distinction as well. Along the lines of what you stated, ultimately it does not matter if Socrates existed as a living person, or if he was a character invented by Plato. The importance of Socrates is not so much as to who he was, but rather on what he taught. Someone can be a proponent of Socratic ideas and the Socratic Method without even believing that Socrates actually existed. After all, the teachings are what are important, and obviously somebody taught them at some point. Whether or not it was Socrates, Plato, or a guy named Bubba doesn’t affect the essence of the ideas being expressed.

But in terms of the sayings of Jesus, he declared that being his follower meant not only following his teachings, but also being in a real relationship with him. This concept is not found much in other religions, if at all. For example, a Jew can follow the Law of Moses without attempting to be in an actual relationship with Moses (naturally Jews would say that Judiams involves a relationship with someone, and that someone is God, but I am speaking in terms of what it means in Judiasm to follow the teachings of a prophet). Moreover, a Buddhist can follow the teachings of Buddha without being in an actual relationship with Buddha. And so on and so on. But an actual relationship with Jesus is foundational to Christianity. No one can be in an actual relationship with an idea or a teaching, but only with a person. Nor can a person today be in an actual relationship with someone who lived and died 2000 years ago, unless that person rose from the dead and is now alive today.

Of course, what I’ve said about relationships in this post is not applicable for historical evidence supporting gospel claims. And I really don’t want to risk going “off-topic” again, so I’m not bringing this up to make it an issue for debating by people in this thread. But my point here is that even if Jesus did not perform any other miracles, the specific miracle of the resurrection is the essence of the Christian Faith. Hence, I thought this was something worth at least being clearly stated in this thread discussion.

With Jesus, I don’t have the option I do with Socrates. Like I said before, I can follow Socrates without having to believe he actually lived. Whether or not he lived does nothing to invalidate his teachings. As you correctly stated above, with Socrates what we are really talking about are ideas. But even if Jesus taught some really good things, he also taught that he has the power to forgive sins, that he will judge every human being, that he will rise from the dead, that all his followers throughout time are expected to be in an actual relationship with him, and that not only is there a heaven and hell, but that acceptance or rejection of him (personally) is the determining factor as to where someone ends up. Simply put, if Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, then he was a lunatic. So in that regard, I would not even want to simply consider him a moral teacher who maybe said some good things worthy of following in addition to some insane proclamations. I think it is dangerous to pick and choose what is worthy of following from the proclamations of a madman, and then live ones life accordingly. But if Jesus did, indeed, rise from the dead then that validates what he taught. We can accept everything he said, including what sound like outlandish claims.

Readers of C.S. Lewis will recognize in my words a little spin on Lewis’ “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” concept. And it probably goes without saying that, generally speaking, we Christians believe that we have experiences of real relationships with Jesus. There are exceptions of course (otherwise we would never hear of certain Christians “losing their faith”).

Regardless of whether or not I have good objective, historical evidence as to whether or not at least one miracle in the gospels took place (the resurrection), if Christianity is truly going to be a part of my life, then I have to make the specific choice to believe in the resurrection or not. If I happen to simply think that Christianity is interesting, and I like to examine what the gospels say, but I do not make this choice, then I am not truly a follower of Jesus, but rather simply a student who studies Christianity (much like a historian would).

 

[AntiTheist]

The point of this thread is to prove the Gospels are Myths.

Well, what do you know? Someone who hasn’t read the OP.

If you had read the OP, you would have seen me say explicitly that it’s probable that there was a real guy upon whom the Gospel stories were based (in the same way that there probably was a real king upon whom the King Arthur stories were based).

It’s the magical parts of the legends that I’m saying we do not have sufficient evidence to accept. You people really need to start paying attention to what others are actually saying.

EricFilmer:

Readers of C.S. Lewis will recognize in my words a little spin on Lewis’ “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” concept.

And you and Lewis both miss the obvious fourth option: that Jesus was Legend.

There may very well have been a real moral teacher who was a thorn in the side of the authorities and who attracted a cult of followers. It would not at all be surprising that a mythologized account of his life – complete with magic – sprung up in the decades after his execution.

And it probably goes without saying that, generally speaking, we Christians believe that we have experiences of real relationships with Jesus.

Sure, just as it goes without saying that there are Hindus who believe that they have real spiritual encounters with Shiva; just as it goes without saying that there were ancient (and modern!) pagans who believe that they have spiritual experiences of the old gods; just as it goes without saying that there are believers in psychic powers who believe that they have had the experience of premonitions; just as it goes without saying that there are believers in UFOs who believe that they have been abducted.

Frankly, the human mind is quite easy to fool, and it’s not in the slightest bit surprising that human beings are really good at talking themselves into supernatural beliefs. If all you want to do is indulge in these kinds of daydreams, then have at it, but if you want other people to take your claims seriously, or if you yourself care about whether your beliefs are actually true (or whether they are just comfortable delusions), then you’re going to have to do a lot better than strong daydreams.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist
*
There may very well have been a real moral teacher who was a thorn in the side of the authorities and who attracted a cult of followers. It would not at all be surprising that a mythologized account of his life – complete with magic – sprung up in the decades after his execution.*

Then the shoe fits on the other foot too. It may very well be that his life was not mythologized, that he was who he claimed to be, and that the miracles really did occur.

Frankly, the human mind is quite easy to fool, and it’s not in the slightest bit surprising that human beings are really good at talking themselves into supernatural beliefs.

Frankly the human mind is easy to fool, and it’s not the least bit surprising that human beings are really good at talking themselves out of belief in God.

Sure, just as it goes without saying that there are Hindus who believe that they have real spiritual encounters with Shiva; just as it goes without saying that there were ancient (and modern!) pagans who believe that they have spiritual experiences of the old gods; just as it goes without saying that there are believers in psychic powers who believe that they have had the experience of premonitions; just as it goes without saying that there are believers in UFOs who believe that they have been abducted.

Just it goes without saying that some people who believe there is nothing to be known outside science can talk themselves into believing in parallel universes. Just as people who believe in science only can talk themselves, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, in visiting alien civilizations in other galaxies. Just as people who believe that if there is a God it must be possible to demonstrate His existence in a scientific laboratory. Just as a scientist can refuse to believe in miracles despite the abundant evidence that they still occur in the modern world. Etc., etc.

 

[EricFilmer]

There may very well have been a real moral teacher who was a thorn in the side of the authorities and who attracted a cult of followers. It would not at all be surprising that a mythologized account of his life – complete with magic – sprung up in the decades after his execution.

But such accounts did not spring up decades after his execution. From a purely objective historical examination of the gospel texts, it is widely believed that they all began as oral accounts which were only later put into writing. The same sort of thing also happened with ancient epic poems and many books of the Old Testament. When such things are put into writing, they preserve the techniques that were in place to help people commit the material to memory. Here is a link for just one of these techniques, called a chiasm, with some examples from epic poems and the Bible:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure

Also consider what the gospels writers stated they were doing. For example, Luke states that he was giving someone named Theophilus a written record of what had been passed down from eyewitnesses. The Book of Acts (also written by Luke) ends with Paul awaiting trial, but does not go on to state that Paul was condemned and executed. Why would Luke leave out such facts? Because they hadn’t happened yet. Paul was under house arrest in Rome awaiting his trial around A.D. 62. All this gives a strong indication of the written account of Luke being in the early 60s. Some people date the written version of Mark even earlier.

In Acts, Luke describes the speeches that the Apostles (who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the gospel events) gave in many locations beginning immediately after the time of Jesus on earth. These speeches were basically minitature versions of the gospel message. Peter’s speech recorded in Acts 10:34-43 is a good example, and is believed to be the structual format that Mark used in compiling his own gospel.

At this time, let me be clear what my point is. I am not saying that the claims of eyewitnesses make for good, objective historical evidence. Rather, my point here is that there is good, objective historical evidence that demonstrates that the gospel accounts of Jesus, including his teachings and miracles, were being told by Christians beginning right after the events centered around Jesus’ death. This, of course, does not prove that these miracle accounts actually happened. But it does demonstrate that these accounts, whether embellishments or truth, were being told “from the get-go” and were not crafted over an expanse of time.

EricFilmer: And you and Lewis both miss the obvious fourth option: that Jesus was Legend.

Very few historians, including secular ones, discount Jesus as being an actual 1st Century Jewish preacher. We have just as much reason to believe the records of what he preached as we would with any other ancient historical figure, maybe even moreso.

For your premise above to be correct, then Jesus would have had to be a complete fabrication, concerning enormous public events, being told by Christians to people who lived in the described places at the described times. For example, they would have been telling the citizens of Jerusalem about someone who recently had committed a spectacle in the temple and been put on public trial and then executed. These would not have been “Once upon a time a man named Jesus came to Jerusalem…” stories. Rather they would have been along the lines of, “You remember that Jesus guy who chased moneychangers out of the temple and later got executed? He’s the Messiah.” And if that story was a complete fabrication, then the person would reply, “Dude, I was here, and none of that ever happened!”

So Jesus was a popular public figure who attracted very large crowds, and therefore great numbers of people heard him speak. Among other things, the gospels record what he said. Furthermore, he was condemned by the Jewish authorities based on what he said (i.e., it was their opinion he was a dangerous blasphemer). And the Romans executed him based on what he said, either in terms of what Jesus said during the trial, or what was related to Pilate concerning the claims Jesus made in the past (note that a claim to be a king is an act of teason against the emperor).

In keeping with all this, there is good historical reason to believe that the gospels tell of a person who actually lived, and give an account of what he actually said. Lewis’ “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” concept focuses on what Jesus said, not on the miracles. Whether or not Jesus actually multipled loaves of bread and fish is does not factor into this.

If all you want to do is indulge in these kinds of daydreams, then have at it, but if you want other people to take your claims seriously, or if you yourself care about whether your beliefs are actually true (or whether they are just comfortable delusions), then you’re going to have to do a lot better than strong daydreams.

In terms of my own beliefs, they are grounded upon many things and, as far as I’m concerned, they cannot be simply passed off as strong daydreams.

In terms of what you said about convincing others, I’ll keep that in mind if I ever find myself on an atheist internet forum trying to convince people that God exists. But I don’t even see myself as needing to do such a thing.
As far as I’m concerned, everyone believes in God, it’s just a question of when.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Eric

*As far as I’m concerned, everyone believes in God, it’s just a question of when. *

Now or at the hour of our death.

 

[twb1621]

I don’t reject the idea of miracles or the supernatural
-TS

First I do not recommend one’s faith be based on miracles, I want to make that clear. I would have to ask you in all sincerity exactly what kind of proof you would expect to have for someone rising from the dead other than eye witness accounts. You could not have a body, they would no longer be dead. There would not be evidence of them being dead as the evidence would be annulled by their resurrection. Therefore it is irrational to expect proof other than eye witness accounts to such an event. If However when referring to miraculous events and the non-biased findings of such, I suggest a bit of research into “Eucharistic Miracles“ as an example, especially those of recent times, where independent expert criminal labs were utilized to perform rigorous analysis on samples submitted only as “unidentified sources”. A dear brother in Christ recently brought such an inquiry to me and I will leave the subject at that. The Church does not demand belief in miraculous events, just to make that clear.
I do recognize the point you are presenting. and I also find it interesting that you relate having belief or faith without direct tangible proof to something that could be “offensive” to you or someone on a personal level. You do realize or perhaps not, that a position of taking offense in such a case is nothing more than defense of one’s pride… This I point out simply because if all choices of faith in daily life were disregarded due to the sheltering of one’s pride, man could not exist as a communal being or progress in any way, let alone in any relationship. Faith in itself never consists of tangible proof. We (including you) often even without awareness choose to invest our faith in events and people around us on a daily basis and it is not reasonable to reject the existence of God solely on lack of sense perceptible or direct physical evidence. It should also be noted that in reality, no one “asks” one to believe or have faith in God without the resources for one to pursue learning of Him. We are presented with the option to learn the truth and the means to pursue the truth. To rebuff without pursing the existence of God thoroughly is to deny oneself the opportunity to credibly know and without knowing, one can only hold themselves responsible for the outcome, no matter what that may be.

It is first a personal quest one must choose to pursue the knowledge in order to seek what is most beneficial in the possibility of eternal life beyond mortality. I say “possibility” only relating to those who have no initial faith to begin with. Yes, there are those who are raised in an environment such as with family who are “asked to believe” provided at least basic teachings (hopefully) but this is initiated most respective to parents or relatives already possessing some degree of faith in God and wishing to introduce that relationship and the possibility of salvation for eternal life to their children or family. If one is to accept even just the possibility that God exists, one must recognize a True God would want us as individuals not only to have the means but the sincerity of free will to seek to learn about Him and seek a relationship with Him. From there, it is an individual responsibility to pursue the truth and subsequently that relationship. But as in any relationship, if you ask someone to prove themselves before you commit to them, you are not likely to succeed in a meaningful relationship with them, if you are not blown off from the start.
In regard to your analogy of the pickup truck, I would point out that there is nothing man can make including a vehicle that is not derived from that which God created. There is nothing man can produce that is not limited by man’s capacity to conceive. Metal, plastic, fiber, fuel or otherwise, all come from derivatives man manufactures from resources God created, although not necessarily intended for such use, but that is another issue. Even crossbred grapes for example come from two already existing varieties.
In your reference indirectly comparing man to God, your analogy fails to recognize the difference between what man already knows due to his human limitations, and what man can not comprehend in a supernatural existence such as God. The fundamental reason we would know we were rightfully to be skeptical of a claim that you “…had a pickup truck that could take (you) to the surface of the moon and back, and that (you’ve) driven it there many times”, is our personal knowledge and experience with our own human limitations and experiences. However, your denial of God and the resurrection of Christ is also based on human limitations and experience, but inappropriately so. Just as you are not a supernatural being to determine the possibilities of such supernatural events, God is not human nor bound by human limitations although you are judging the existence of God according to such limitations.

A judge could not deny the possibility of the resurrection either. However, considering the vast majority of the world population does believe in the resurrection of Christ, I would not recommend wagering on a jury finding against the resurrection. Further, I have no doubt that testimony from a compilation of scholars in their various respective fields of expertise could present a very credible circumstantial case. As far as hearsay evidence is concerned, I refer again to numerous archeological discoveries and artifacts regularly recovered verifying places, events, and methods previously questioned, since verified. I also refer back to the sequence of writings we know as the Gospels through the first 4 centuries of ancient texts of the Apostolic Fathers and of non-Christian Roman historians, all of which provide consistency in the witness and teachings of the resurrection of Christ, as founded on eyewitness accounts.

continued…

 

[twb1621]

OK, I’m not asking for you to do any of that.
Thanks for the comments.
-TS

It is ludicrous to claim that because the Apostles did not personally write the gospels, they were not witnesses to the resurrection or the texts were not written by their proclamations. It is clear by the personal writings of the Apostolic Fathers who did know and were educated personally by the Apostles (many who succeeded them) that these writings were compliant with Apostolic accounts and their teachings and it is further obvious the actual writers were scribes or members of the Apostolic Faith or disciples of the apostles.
Using the gift of reason, consider yourself as an example for instance; would you be willing to suffer imminent prolonged horrid torture and death for your belief there is no God? I doubt you would. Now consider this; would you be willing to suffer prolonged horrid torture and death for proclaiming something you knew was false or contrived or that you had no substantial reason to firmly believe in? The martyred apostles and their immediate students and successors knowingly faced such imminent torture and death for proclaiming the resurrection of Christ and His Teachings. After being taken into custody, they had the choice to stop spreading the teachings of Christ or suffer the consequences and I am sure in accordance with human nature, they would not have chosen to die such as they did let alone by the methods presented them had they not witnessed the resurrection. Until Christ’s appearances after the resurrection, they remained in hiding in fear of their own capture. Hundreds of witnesses aside from the Apostles witnessed Christ after the resurrection as well. And numerous martyrs died attesting to what they knew as the Truthful promise of eternal life. All of us with the distance of time become weakened by doubts but that again is human nature. Time requires deeper faith.
Your reference to the “entire unbelieving community” of atheists refers to roughly 2.3% of the world population. As far as the resurrection of Christ is concerned, you have proven to yourself you can choose to believe or not believe. As far as “unbelievers are just desperate to avoid the truth", in some cases this I do not doubt, but not in all cases. Then there are others who determined there is no God after expecting God to prove himself by the obvious response to a prayer of desperation. Now in your case, who proved to you that you were foolish for believing in God or Christ I wonder? Surely they provided you proof or you would not have felt your pride offended. You see, if you knew the facts you would have had a true relationship with God and in such would have had your reassurances. But as in any relationship, if you approach it with only the interest of taking from it without giving to it, it goes no where. You know how relationships begin and what is involved to continue and grow in them. It is no different when it comes to a relationship with God.
Please take no personal offense but in reference to your statement “one reason secularism and atheism is on the rise in the last few decades is because our understanding of the natural role of religion in human psychology and culture is becoming more robust and substantial all the time”, is a twisted version of wishful thinking reflecting some misguided recognition of improvement in our social, moral living. And a noticeable path of “modern psychology” today reflects our tendency to come up with psychological reasoning or as I prefer to call them, desired excuses, for many of the perversions of our society today attempting to distinguish the perverse from the self righteous while rejecting acknowledgment of God. Sadly, this is not just referring an attitude of atheists. I’ve grown and lived the last 50 years of social change deep within the bowls of society as myself being one of the “arrogant worldly” along with many of those who introduced it’s departure from faith and God to our children, many of today’s young adults. What you speak of was born from the era of “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” and the “peace, love” mindset that opened the door to moral negligence for self indulgences at practically any expense without the interference of a guilty conscience. Sounds like preaching but its just fact.

As I posted previously in a description commonly reflecting our current society and that of the ancient Roman Empire, our society today has already adopted most of the “principles” and moral abandonment as that of the Caligula society during the first century Roman empire. A society I will point out established by a ruler who through history is recognized as psychotic and delusional to a degree of insanity and even madness according to our modern understanding of the terms.

Are we better off today? Lets see…

Continued…

 

[twb1621]

OK, I’m not asking for you to do any of that.
Thanks for the comments. -TS

Our political representatives (they who represent you and I through our vote) as well as our judicial system have pursued the complete removal of any audible or visual expressions of prayer to our Lord and God in schools and public buildings to a degree that it is against the “law”, an infringement on others. In fact, the separation of church and government was a large part of the premise behind this movement but it was twisted in order to accomplish this. In the founding of our country, this separation was meant only to keep government from adopting one faith and forcing that faith on all citizens as it was in England before our independence. It was never meant to eliminate God from our founding principles and regardless of who resents that, our country was founded on the belief and the principles of God.

We have enacted laws and given our support for random abortions, this to a point abortion has been for some more commonly utilized than birth control let alone consideration to morality, self respect or abstinence; We have legalized some barbaric means to pursue stem cell research. Yet those who support abortion raise “hell” should anyone display explicit photos of the methods and results of abortion to the unborn as if those displaying the results are perverted or disgusting for showing what the pro-abortionists have promoted; We are working toward limiting the available medical care to senior citizens based on a determined monitory value of life according to age; We are working diligently to eliminate the words “In God We Trust” from our currency; We are in a growing number of our states, supporting the legalization of “same sex” marriages and have produced a higher court judge who questions the legality of marriage itself as prejudicial. We have introduced a mindset producing common practices such as “drive-by” mass shootings and assaults performed against our youth by our youth; Our schools have disciplined children for outward signs of affection when they so much as hug a friend on school grounds; We produce serial killers in pairs who select people at random, look down the sights of a sniper rifle while hidden and end a life for amusement with absolutely no hesitation; We have school massacres performed by our children gunning down our children, very adept in the use of firearms but no real knowledge of faith or God; Increasing frequency of fathers and mothers not only killing each other but killing their own infants and children before committing suicide; We have families destitute and living in cardboard boxes under bridges while some corporate executives receive hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus money in one quarter (not including their regular income) while their company finances are in the negative. Many institutions including commercial businesses will not allow employees to say the Words “Merry Christmas” as a greeting. But it still represents the Celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ whether some like it or not.

You say “human beings are “pre-wired" for imagining gods and for superstitious imaginations”, I say human beings prove there is a God by the results that are produced when they deny His existence. Have you ever looked back at your past deeply enough to pick out the patterns in your life or at the bad events and noticed what followed as opposed to what could have followed? Did you ever consider how it is that there is so much we can not comprehend that occurs around us yet we are so eager to write things off as unacceptable because they are not sense perceiving?
I acknowledge the fact you were in your way devoted and lost your ability to justify your faith, it happens. Let me just say that bad events and misunderstanding can for some raise question followed by disillusionment and abandonment and not everyone is as deeply into that Spiritually intimate relationship as they may believe they are.

Just an opinion but I would suppose yours is possibly a lack of understanding and denial based on misguided blame that led you away. Had you possessed a true relationship with God, I don’t believe anything could have been misunderstood. Scripture is multifaceted and is not nor was not intended to be the exclusive instrument to teach faith or enter into a relationship with God. It is an integral part of knowing God, but it is not God in itself. If one is to accept scripture as the Inspired Word of God, one must accept the Teaching Authority that introduced it, the meaning that was presented in the first teachings and that led to the writings of the text, and for the purpose it was introduced. Otherwise, it becomes abused.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

twb

Well said!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here are William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens debating the meaning of life.

youtube.com/watch?v=x9NlRKJBKt4&NR=1

 

[AntiTheist]

it is widely believed that [the Gospels] all began as oral accounts which were only later put into writing. The same sort of thing also happened with ancient epic poems and many books of the Old Testament.

You’re just digging yourself deeper with this comparison to epic poems.

Yes, it appears that there was a Trojan War, and an account of it is provided in the oral poem that was eventually written down as the Iliad – but do you believe in the magical parts of the story?

This, of course, does not prove that these miracle accounts actually happened. But it does demonstrate that these accounts, whether embellishments or truth, were being told “from the get-go” and were not crafted over an expanse of time.

But potential embellishments could have been crafted over an expanse of time, as it happened with the stories about the Trojan War.

As far as I’m concerned, everyone believes in God, it’s just a question of when.

If you say so…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

In your signature quote from Thomas Jefferson you conveniently ignore a letter written three years after the letter to John Adams which you cite. I’m including here parts of that letter in which Jefferson surely contradicts what he said in an earlier letter. I’m also including a poem from Jefferson written for his only surviving child weeks before his death, which shows that even Jefferson was able to overcome his youthful theological folly.

(Excerpts, letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823)

“I can never join Calvin in addressing his God. He was indeed an atheist, which I could never be; or rather his religion was daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5 points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin…. (Here Jefferson goes on to talk about the French atheists.) The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say, then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite members of man who have existed through all time, they have believed in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis.”

Jefferson’s last poem to his daughter.

A Death Bed Advice from T.J. to M.R.

Life’s visions are vanished, its dreams are no more,
Dear friend of my bosom, why bathed in tears,
I go to my fathers, I welcome the shore,
Which crowns all my hopes or which buries my cares.

Then farewell my dear, my loved daughter adieu,
The last pang of life is parting from you.
Two seraphs await me long shrouded in death,
I will bear them your love on my last parting breath.

As Eric pointed out:

*As far as I’m concerned, everyone believes in God, it’s just a question of when. *

Now or at the hour of our death.

 

[twb1621]

You’re just digging yourself deeper with this comparison to epic poems.

Yes, it appears that there was a Trojan War, and an account of it is provided in the oral poem that was eventually written down as the Iliad – but do you believe in the magical parts of the story?

But potential embellishments could have been crafted over an expanse of time, as it happened with the stories about the Trojan War.

If you say so…

If I may, why not take time to research some of the more recent miracles and prophecies that have been investigated by non-biased sources and see if you find any difference in them to be proven false than those of scripture? I say this not suggesting one have faith soley based on miracles, but to consider if such occur today and throughout history, it should not be so questionable that Jesus performed them as recorded. Granted, all should be questioned and more often have been refuted by the Church, but none considered credible miraculous events have been refuted other than with unfounded disbelief. Just a suggestion…
Peace

 

[StrawberryJam]

If I may, why not take time to research some of the more recent miracles and prophecies that have been investigated by non-biased sources and see if you find any difference in them to be proven false than those of scripture? I say this not suggesting one have faith soley based on miracles, but to consider if such occur today and throughout history, it should not be so questionable that Jesus performed them as recorded. Granted, all should be questioned and more often have been refuted by the Church, but none considered credible miraculous events have been refuted other than with unfounded disbelief. Just a suggestion…
Peace

Tell us what “recent” miracles should be researched, and what the non-biased sources say about it. Please document it fully.

 

[Windfish]

EricFilmer:

In any event, the gospels can be considered anonymous in the sense that none of the surviving ancient manuscripts actually list the name of the authors. For example, the manuscripts for the Gospel of Mark do not actually have “The Gospel of Mark” written on them.

Unless all of my books on the subject are mistaken (and this is certainly possible), this isn’t true. In fact, the earliest manuscripts we have do attribute authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

 

[lemondiesel]

Unless all of my books on the subject are mistaken (and this is certainly possible), this isn’t true. In fact, the earliest manuscripts we have do attribute authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Is that why there are biblical scholars who believe John was written by a woman?