I have attempted to discredit Christianity by hitting it at all angles, leaving it looking like a spike ball. Some of these points will not persuade all, but all will be persuaded by some.
http://www.kyroot.com
http://www.kyroot.com
-
Features
120 Reasons to Reject Christianity
- Thread starter kyroot
- Start date
Underseer
Contributor
That's a very comprehensive list.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
You're back again!
And still judging Christainity by any damned standard you can throw at it.
Clearly, you just hate Christainity in the first place and these are all the rationalizations you can come up with.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,566
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
one (Reason #1) down, 121 to go
I'll go through some of the "122 Reasons," taking them in order, so as not to leave out any that are more difficult. I might drop dead before reaching to the very end, but if I refute the first 20 or 30 in order, that's a good indication that the remaining ones also will collapse into the trash heap of traditional Bible-bashing Christ-bashing tirades.
Your challenge is extremely imprecise and poorly worded (What does "discredit Christianity" mean?). So I'll have to give my own statement of what you are claiming to refute, or rather, what I claim you have not refuted.
I claim that it is reasonable to believe in Christ, or to put one's hope in Christ as a means to gain eternal life. Which means gaining salvation, or Life after Death, or "immortality" or some kind of more "perfect" kind of life which is realized after one dies. I won't include claims about Christ-believers being somehow better or happier in this life.
And your 122 "Reasons" do not discredit this proposition I'm making. They are good points for philosophical debate and for doing some reinterpretation and further study and philosophising, but not good reasons for abandoning one's faith in Christ.
It's not clear what "authentic" means. The accounts of these were written down many years later, and so there could be many inaccuracies as to the details.
But this does not mean that the sayings and deeds, as recorded, are inaccurate in presenting a picture of what Jesus did and said. There is likely a small degree of inaccuracy. But this does not mean that the total picture presented is inaccurate or inauthentic.
There could also be a significant amount of inaccuracy without this preventing the reader from gaining a sufficient knowledge of the deeds and sayings of Jesus to provide good reason to believe in him as having power to give salvation, even though there may also be some inauthentic representations in the accounts.
One can identify various figures from history like Confucius and Socrates and Pythagoras and Achilles and Hector and Aeneas and Alexander the Great and Zoroaster and Hercules and so on and can reasonably believe much about them even though much else is unknown and there is also much mythology surrounding them.
Just because there are legendary elements also contained in the record does not falsify the whole account or identification of the legendary person who is still a real person and can be known sufficiently. Believing in Christ does not necessarily include having a complete knowledge of all the particular facts or details of his life, nor is this belief falsified if there are also some mythical elements as part of the picture. E.g., just because Alexander the Great is said to have been born of a virgin does not exclude us from identifying him and having a good knowledge of his life and forming judgments about him.
None of this necessarily undermines one's faith in Christ. All of these biographical details are of minor importance, even though they may be cherished traditions. The basic belief in Christ is not dependent on biographical details like these. I.e., the basic identification of the person Christ is not dependent on these exact biographical details.
The healings of Jesus cannot be explained by modern medical science. They are evidence of great power that he possessed. Disproving that he performed these acts would be a significant argument against Christian belief.
We don't know for certain which of these acts he did, but there is good reason to believe that he did perform such acts as these. Your dogmatic premise, or that of your seminarians, that such acts cannot happen is not any argument that they did not happen.
The accounts of these acts recorded in the N. T. documents give us reason to believe that he did perform such acts, though they are not hard proof. Belief in Christ's power is reasonable based on these accounts, even if they are not the strongest evidence or "proof" that might be demanded. There are many historical facts that are accepted on less evidence than that of these acts of Jesus recorded in the N.T. The only reason to reject these reported acts of Jesus is the dogmatic premise that such acts are ipso facto impossible.
It is debatable exactly what the charge was against Jesus. It is not important for one's belief in Christ that it be established exactly what was the motive of the Romans. It is not necessary to establish the exact accuracy of the N. T. quotes of Jesus and his accusers at the trial. Rather, it is necessary to believe that he was crucified and that this was preceded by some kind of trial similar to that described in the gospel accounts.
It isn't necessary to get bogged down in the exact details of these events, such as the exact words of Jesus and others, as an essential element of Christian belief.
Those who draw this conclusion did not do so as a result of participating in this "seminar" -- they are only giving us their prior belief which they already held. It is based on their premise that a resurrection from the dead is impossible. Their bias, based on their premise that such an event ipso fact cannot happen, is not any argument against believing in the resurrection.
The empty tomb accounts are not hard proof that the resurrection happened, but they are evidence that cannot be dismissed. It is reasonable to believe that it did happen based on these accounts. Again, this kind of evidence is generally accepted as a basis for historical fact, aside from the premise that such events per se absolutely cannot happen.
It isn't wrong to demand a higher standard of evidence for "miracle" events. But this does not constitute a refutation of the reported event. It simply means there is greater doubt. It doesn't eliminate the basis for reasonable belief.
The scholars at this "seminar" have no evidence to prove that the empty tomb story is fiction.
There were many other eye witnesses than these.
In your webpage link above there are a number of critics who deny that all of them were "highly qualified."
There is no reason why anyone should accept the outputs of this "seminar" as more authoritative than the thousands of other publications and seminars and studies pretending to give us the absolute Truth about the claims of Christianity.
You have to go through their arguments one by one and deal with each one individually on the merits. Their conclusions are not somehow authoritative just because they claim to be experts and have credentials or PhD titles. The Pope is also a scholar who probably has more titles than a dozen of these experts combined.
Only if you go through each argument one by one. Appeal to authority has no validity. The College of Cardinals has just as much authority.
This "Reason" #1 is worthless. Hopefully the remaining 121 "Reasons" will have real substance.
Their "qualifications" are challenged in your wiki quote above. They offer nothing that was not known, or was not predictable, from the very beginning, before the seminar. They are just giving their predictable biased opinions which they started out with. You don't increase the strength of the argument by combining larger numbers of the advocates and increasing their volume and giving them a fancy title.
So let's get on to the real arguments. You should not waste our time with phony arguments like this. It will take forever to get through the 122 if you burden it down with this kind of unnecessary obstruction to getting at the real arguments.
I'll go through some of the "122 Reasons," taking them in order, so as not to leave out any that are more difficult. I might drop dead before reaching to the very end, but if I refute the first 20 or 30 in order, that's a good indication that the remaining ones also will collapse into the trash heap of traditional Bible-bashing Christ-bashing tirades.
Your challenge is extremely imprecise and poorly worded (What does "discredit Christianity" mean?). So I'll have to give my own statement of what you are claiming to refute, or rather, what I claim you have not refuted.
I claim that it is reasonable to believe in Christ, or to put one's hope in Christ as a means to gain eternal life. Which means gaining salvation, or Life after Death, or "immortality" or some kind of more "perfect" kind of life which is realized after one dies. I won't include claims about Christ-believers being somehow better or happier in this life.
And your 122 "Reasons" do not discredit this proposition I'm making. They are good points for philosophical debate and for doing some reinterpretation and further study and philosophising, but not good reasons for abandoning one's faith in Christ.
It's not clear what "authentic" means. The accounts of these were written down many years later, and so there could be many inaccuracies as to the details.
But this does not mean that the sayings and deeds, as recorded, are inaccurate in presenting a picture of what Jesus did and said. There is likely a small degree of inaccuracy. But this does not mean that the total picture presented is inaccurate or inauthentic.
There could also be a significant amount of inaccuracy without this preventing the reader from gaining a sufficient knowledge of the deeds and sayings of Jesus to provide good reason to believe in him as having power to give salvation, even though there may also be some inauthentic representations in the accounts.
One can identify various figures from history like Confucius and Socrates and Pythagoras and Achilles and Hector and Aeneas and Alexander the Great and Zoroaster and Hercules and so on and can reasonably believe much about them even though much else is unknown and there is also much mythology surrounding them.
Just because there are legendary elements also contained in the record does not falsify the whole account or identification of the legendary person who is still a real person and can be known sufficiently. Believing in Christ does not necessarily include having a complete knowledge of all the particular facts or details of his life, nor is this belief falsified if there are also some mythical elements as part of the picture. E.g., just because Alexander the Great is said to have been born of a virgin does not exclude us from identifying him and having a good knowledge of his life and forming judgments about him.
None of this necessarily undermines one's faith in Christ. All of these biographical details are of minor importance, even though they may be cherished traditions. The basic belief in Christ is not dependent on biographical details like these. I.e., the basic identification of the person Christ is not dependent on these exact biographical details.
The healings of Jesus cannot be explained by modern medical science. They are evidence of great power that he possessed. Disproving that he performed these acts would be a significant argument against Christian belief.
We don't know for certain which of these acts he did, but there is good reason to believe that he did perform such acts as these. Your dogmatic premise, or that of your seminarians, that such acts cannot happen is not any argument that they did not happen.
The accounts of these acts recorded in the N. T. documents give us reason to believe that he did perform such acts, though they are not hard proof. Belief in Christ's power is reasonable based on these accounts, even if they are not the strongest evidence or "proof" that might be demanded. There are many historical facts that are accepted on less evidence than that of these acts of Jesus recorded in the N.T. The only reason to reject these reported acts of Jesus is the dogmatic premise that such acts are ipso facto impossible.
It is debatable exactly what the charge was against Jesus. It is not important for one's belief in Christ that it be established exactly what was the motive of the Romans. It is not necessary to establish the exact accuracy of the N. T. quotes of Jesus and his accusers at the trial. Rather, it is necessary to believe that he was crucified and that this was preceded by some kind of trial similar to that described in the gospel accounts.
It isn't necessary to get bogged down in the exact details of these events, such as the exact words of Jesus and others, as an essential element of Christian belief.
Those who draw this conclusion did not do so as a result of participating in this "seminar" -- they are only giving us their prior belief which they already held. It is based on their premise that a resurrection from the dead is impossible. Their bias, based on their premise that such an event ipso fact cannot happen, is not any argument against believing in the resurrection.
The empty tomb accounts are not hard proof that the resurrection happened, but they are evidence that cannot be dismissed. It is reasonable to believe that it did happen based on these accounts. Again, this kind of evidence is generally accepted as a basis for historical fact, aside from the premise that such events per se absolutely cannot happen.
It isn't wrong to demand a higher standard of evidence for "miracle" events. But this does not constitute a refutation of the reported event. It simply means there is greater doubt. It doesn't eliminate the basis for reasonable belief.
The scholars at this "seminar" have no evidence to prove that the empty tomb story is fiction.
There were many other eye witnesses than these.
In your webpage link above there are a number of critics who deny that all of them were "highly qualified."
There is no reason why anyone should accept the outputs of this "seminar" as more authoritative than the thousands of other publications and seminars and studies pretending to give us the absolute Truth about the claims of Christianity.
You have to go through their arguments one by one and deal with each one individually on the merits. Their conclusions are not somehow authoritative just because they claim to be experts and have credentials or PhD titles. The Pope is also a scholar who probably has more titles than a dozen of these experts combined.
Only if you go through each argument one by one. Appeal to authority has no validity. The College of Cardinals has just as much authority.
This "Reason" #1 is worthless. Hopefully the remaining 121 "Reasons" will have real substance.
Their "qualifications" are challenged in your wiki quote above. They offer nothing that was not known, or was not predictable, from the very beginning, before the seminar. They are just giving their predictable biased opinions which they started out with. You don't increase the strength of the argument by combining larger numbers of the advocates and increasing their volume and giving them a fancy title.
So let's get on to the real arguments. You should not waste our time with phony arguments like this. It will take forever to get through the 122 if you burden it down with this kind of unnecessary obstruction to getting at the real arguments.
The means of transport of santa claus cannot be explained by modern physics. It is evidence of great power that he posseses. Disproving that he travels all pver the world in one night would be a significant argument against belief in santa claus...
do you realize how naive you really are?
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,566
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
two down, 120 to go
The Bible is a source of information about the real world. One can reasonably believe in Christ, using the Bible/N.T. as a source, regardless whether this source is 100% accurate. To disprove Christian faith you must prove that there is no reliable contact to the Christ figure of 2000 years ago, i.e., that the N.T. is unreliable to provide to us any reliable knowledge of him.
The world it describes is the same as the ancient world we read of in Tacitus and Suetonius and Josephus and all the others. You cannot dismiss this source of information any more than you can dismiss those sources.
It is not necessary for the believer to prove that the Bible is any more reliable than these other ancient sources. Only that it is also a reliable source just as those other sources are reliable. A Christ-believer can deal with the Bible text critically and with doubt and come to reliable conclusions that are consistent with belief in Christ. Even if there are recognized critical problems with the text and some accounts that are less credible. We can believe the historians even though some of their accounts are unreliable. Even the epic poets are partly reliable for historical truth.
One can believe in Christ without believing these particular stories. If one believes these stories, and if they are fictitious, these false beliefs do not negate other beliefs which are true. I.e., one's belief in Christ is not negated or falsified if it is accompanied by beliefs such as the above. These "superstitious" beliefs do not negate the more important belief in Christ, which is fundamental. Many Christians today do not take seriously all the "superstitious" beliefs referred to here.
It's also the world of Homer, and yet the Trojan War did really happen. The element of miracle stories which might not have happened does not mean that the whole accounts are all fictitious.
Intermixed with the fictional element is the factual element, which is actually more prevalent. We can use our intelligence to separate these. Some of the miracle stories are more believable than others, and we can discern the difference.
The miracles of Jesus are likely true, whereas some other miracle stories likely are not. There is good reason to distinguish these. There is no logical compulsion to lump all of them together and pronounce them all as fictional.
None of this is any reason not to believe in Christ. None of this falsifies the general N.T. account of Jesus. If it does, then it also falsifies everything written in any of the ancient accounts about anything. You might as well claim that nothing happened in history prior to the invention of printing, because back in those days there were widespread fictitious beliefs, which therefore discredits any accounts about anything, including the histories of Herodotus and all recorded history up to about 1500.
Most sources of information back then contain some elements of superstitious beliefs, and yet most of the accounts are generally credible and are relied upon for historical information.
Every example you give here is probably fictitious and not a necessary part of belief in Christ.
However, on the last example, a little thoughtfulness helps to clarify what the likely truth is, and you are not taking the trouble to do that thinking.
What happened in the account of the pigs that ran off the cliff? I think there's a simple explanation for this.
Jesus healed the demoniac(s) in this story, and a nearby herd of pigs suddenly stampeded over a cliff. Why did the herd stampede? The victim being healed was severely deranged and likely emitted a loud cry, which could have startled some of the pigs and sent them into a stampede.
It's much easier to explain the story this way than to just laugh it off as total fiction, because as total fiction it makes no sense. If it's pure fiction, why was it written? This story makes Jesus look bad. The local people come out and are angry at Jesus and demand that he get out of their neighborhood. A later Christian writer would not invent a story like this, because it portrays Jesus in a negative rather than positive way.
The real event was more likely a healing of this mentally-deranged person, and when the pigs stampeded, someone imagined it was the demons going into the herd.
If all you want to do is just ridicule the source text as a joke, then you're not giving a rational argument against believing in Christ. Reason #2 goes down the drain if all you can offer is ridicule and joking.
The fact that believers held some of these superstitious ideas shows that the intent of Christ was to make contact with these ordinary people and offer them something they wanted. And many of them believed in him and brought their superstitious beliefs with them. Christ did not demand intellectual or academically-learned scholars only to respond to him. He wanted the simple-minded ones also.
What matters is the power that Christ showed with his ability to heal on a large scale, including power to heal mental illness. All the rest is detail, and it is not suprising that there is a mythical or superstitious element that got mixed into the story.
It's all irrelevant, because believing in Christ does not require any of this. The historical figure of Christ is not dependent upon any of these events. Virgin birth stories are common at this period, but it doesn't mean that people were not born or did not exist. One can dismiss these stories as fiction, but the real people, including Christ, did exist whether the virgin birth story is true or not. It is not essential whether his mother had sex.
We don't know if there is any place of "punishment" or "eternal torture." There are different interpretations about this. It's not clear what Jesus taught about it. Leaving this open to doubt does not negate one's belief in Christ. Most Christian believers probably have a hope, perhaps secretly, that there is no literal eternal torture of non-believers. Preaching about Hell fire and damnation is done mostly for symbolic reasons rather than a sincere wish to banish unbelievers to eternal torment.
Does there have to be a place of "torment" to counterbalance the "Heaven" place which is pleasant and happy? It isn't necessary to dwell on this kind of question, or claim to have an absolute anwer to it, in order to believe in Christ. Believing in Christ does not require having answers to all imaginable questions about the after-life.
The traditional/Biblical teaching is that everyone is undeserving to be saved or preserved to eternal life and away from "damnation" -- because it is only belief in Christ which saves one from the "damanation" (whatever it is), and not anything meritorious, like good works. This is the important point about "heaven" vs. "hell" and not what is the exact nature of the "hell" such as whether there is eternal torment or perhaps simply death and thus the annihilation of that individual consciousness. The element of "punishment" might be just a symbol used to implant fear in order to induce better behavior from people, in which case it is not a literal on-going torment like physical pain. Perhaps this is a religious myth only which Christians adopted.
However, it is better to simply say we don't know. If there is some kind of place of eternal "punishment" then so be it. If there is such a place where God tortures people just like some tyrant like Count Dracula (the real one) tortured his victims, and they scream in anguish forever, then I would go so far as to say that God is not a very nice guy. But even so, I want the "eternal life" that Christ promised. Whatever "Hell" is, it does not negate the desire for "eternal life" or the happy place, or the "Pure Land" or "Paradise" place or whatever it might be called.
If there is no eternal punishment but simply death and annihilation, then we need salvation from that so we can live on past death. On the other hand, if there is eternal punishment, then we need salvation from that punishment. So either way, we need the eternal life that Christ offered.
In some of these stories, the proclamation event may have actually happened. It doesn't matter exactly who it was who made the proclamation.
Believing in Christ does not require believing in every angel story, or in every claim that it was an angel that spoke.
But further, it is possible that events happened in which a non-human person of some kind communicated to humans. There is no reason to absolutely rule that out. You could also explain it as some kind of vision. The exact explanation is not important.
Believing in Christ does not require any of this. The writers of the Bible accounts may have held some of these beliefs, but that doesn't mean everything they wrote was based on these beliefs. The essential accounts about Christ can easily be true even though the events took place in a culture which had these bad practices. Showing that there are some bad practices going on does not provide evidence to contradict everything in the written accounts of that culture.
At the time of the crucifixion per se, this idea did not exist. It was only later that theologians did this kind of interpretation. So one can believe in the Christ of 30 AD without subscribing to this kind of interpretation.
But further, no one really thought or said that "God feels that he must kill his own son because he can find no other way to forgive people of their sins."
Those are your words, not the words of anyone from the world of the Bible or whoever or whatever you're attributing them to. And although there are similar words spoken by some theologians, you cannot properly critique them without first stating their belief as they understand it, rather than according to these words you put in their mouth.
No Sunday School teacher ever taught the kids that "God feels that he must kill his own son" as you're characterizing it here. "Reasons" to believe or not to believe something have to be properly worded and based on critical thought rather than emotion or impulsive sensationalist hyperbole.
There are differences and similarities. Many of the same ideas are still prominent today. But granting the differences, how does that prove that anything is "untrue" or not "authentic"? What is wrong with using sources from the distant past where there were some differences from today? or from a culture different than ours?
We have an important event at about 30 AD which might have relevance for us today. How is this event contradicted or rendered "untrue" simply because there are some differences between the world today and the world back then?
You think an entire world or an entire culture is invalidated because it is different than ours today? How "strange" is "very strange"? There are plenty of "strange" things today that are shocking perhaps beyond that of the Bible world you're referring to.
It is more appropriate to focus on the facts about what actually happened, such as the facts about the historical Jesus and what it meant, rather than gawking over how "strange" that world was compared to this world.
And so "Reason #2" concludes with the argument that you are superior to those who believe differently than you, because they cannot "understand" or "grasp" or "figure this whole thing out" as you have figured it out because you're more mature and grow-up. And that's supposed to be a "Reason" that proves Christianity is untrue and inauthentic?
Hopefully "Reason #3" will be something of more substance.
The Bible is a source of information about the real world. One can reasonably believe in Christ, using the Bible/N.T. as a source, regardless whether this source is 100% accurate. To disprove Christian faith you must prove that there is no reliable contact to the Christ figure of 2000 years ago, i.e., that the N.T. is unreliable to provide to us any reliable knowledge of him.
The world it describes is the same as the ancient world we read of in Tacitus and Suetonius and Josephus and all the others. You cannot dismiss this source of information any more than you can dismiss those sources.
It is not necessary for the believer to prove that the Bible is any more reliable than these other ancient sources. Only that it is also a reliable source just as those other sources are reliable. A Christ-believer can deal with the Bible text critically and with doubt and come to reliable conclusions that are consistent with belief in Christ. Even if there are recognized critical problems with the text and some accounts that are less credible. We can believe the historians even though some of their accounts are unreliable. Even the epic poets are partly reliable for historical truth.
One can believe in Christ without believing these particular stories. If one believes these stories, and if they are fictitious, these false beliefs do not negate other beliefs which are true. I.e., one's belief in Christ is not negated or falsified if it is accompanied by beliefs such as the above. These "superstitious" beliefs do not negate the more important belief in Christ, which is fundamental. Many Christians today do not take seriously all the "superstitious" beliefs referred to here.
It's also the world of Homer, and yet the Trojan War did really happen. The element of miracle stories which might not have happened does not mean that the whole accounts are all fictitious.
Intermixed with the fictional element is the factual element, which is actually more prevalent. We can use our intelligence to separate these. Some of the miracle stories are more believable than others, and we can discern the difference.
The miracles of Jesus are likely true, whereas some other miracle stories likely are not. There is good reason to distinguish these. There is no logical compulsion to lump all of them together and pronounce them all as fictional.
None of this is any reason not to believe in Christ. None of this falsifies the general N.T. account of Jesus. If it does, then it also falsifies everything written in any of the ancient accounts about anything. You might as well claim that nothing happened in history prior to the invention of printing, because back in those days there were widespread fictitious beliefs, which therefore discredits any accounts about anything, including the histories of Herodotus and all recorded history up to about 1500.
Most sources of information back then contain some elements of superstitious beliefs, and yet most of the accounts are generally credible and are relied upon for historical information.
Every example you give here is probably fictitious and not a necessary part of belief in Christ.
However, on the last example, a little thoughtfulness helps to clarify what the likely truth is, and you are not taking the trouble to do that thinking.
What happened in the account of the pigs that ran off the cliff? I think there's a simple explanation for this.
Jesus healed the demoniac(s) in this story, and a nearby herd of pigs suddenly stampeded over a cliff. Why did the herd stampede? The victim being healed was severely deranged and likely emitted a loud cry, which could have startled some of the pigs and sent them into a stampede.
It's much easier to explain the story this way than to just laugh it off as total fiction, because as total fiction it makes no sense. If it's pure fiction, why was it written? This story makes Jesus look bad. The local people come out and are angry at Jesus and demand that he get out of their neighborhood. A later Christian writer would not invent a story like this, because it portrays Jesus in a negative rather than positive way.
The real event was more likely a healing of this mentally-deranged person, and when the pigs stampeded, someone imagined it was the demons going into the herd.
If all you want to do is just ridicule the source text as a joke, then you're not giving a rational argument against believing in Christ. Reason #2 goes down the drain if all you can offer is ridicule and joking.
The fact that believers held some of these superstitious ideas shows that the intent of Christ was to make contact with these ordinary people and offer them something they wanted. And many of them believed in him and brought their superstitious beliefs with them. Christ did not demand intellectual or academically-learned scholars only to respond to him. He wanted the simple-minded ones also.
What matters is the power that Christ showed with his ability to heal on a large scale, including power to heal mental illness. All the rest is detail, and it is not suprising that there is a mythical or superstitious element that got mixed into the story.
It's all irrelevant, because believing in Christ does not require any of this. The historical figure of Christ is not dependent upon any of these events. Virgin birth stories are common at this period, but it doesn't mean that people were not born or did not exist. One can dismiss these stories as fiction, but the real people, including Christ, did exist whether the virgin birth story is true or not. It is not essential whether his mother had sex.
We don't know if there is any place of "punishment" or "eternal torture." There are different interpretations about this. It's not clear what Jesus taught about it. Leaving this open to doubt does not negate one's belief in Christ. Most Christian believers probably have a hope, perhaps secretly, that there is no literal eternal torture of non-believers. Preaching about Hell fire and damnation is done mostly for symbolic reasons rather than a sincere wish to banish unbelievers to eternal torment.
Does there have to be a place of "torment" to counterbalance the "Heaven" place which is pleasant and happy? It isn't necessary to dwell on this kind of question, or claim to have an absolute anwer to it, in order to believe in Christ. Believing in Christ does not require having answers to all imaginable questions about the after-life.
The traditional/Biblical teaching is that everyone is undeserving to be saved or preserved to eternal life and away from "damnation" -- because it is only belief in Christ which saves one from the "damanation" (whatever it is), and not anything meritorious, like good works. This is the important point about "heaven" vs. "hell" and not what is the exact nature of the "hell" such as whether there is eternal torment or perhaps simply death and thus the annihilation of that individual consciousness. The element of "punishment" might be just a symbol used to implant fear in order to induce better behavior from people, in which case it is not a literal on-going torment like physical pain. Perhaps this is a religious myth only which Christians adopted.
However, it is better to simply say we don't know. If there is some kind of place of eternal "punishment" then so be it. If there is such a place where God tortures people just like some tyrant like Count Dracula (the real one) tortured his victims, and they scream in anguish forever, then I would go so far as to say that God is not a very nice guy. But even so, I want the "eternal life" that Christ promised. Whatever "Hell" is, it does not negate the desire for "eternal life" or the happy place, or the "Pure Land" or "Paradise" place or whatever it might be called.
If there is no eternal punishment but simply death and annihilation, then we need salvation from that so we can live on past death. On the other hand, if there is eternal punishment, then we need salvation from that punishment. So either way, we need the eternal life that Christ offered.
In some of these stories, the proclamation event may have actually happened. It doesn't matter exactly who it was who made the proclamation.
Believing in Christ does not require believing in every angel story, or in every claim that it was an angel that spoke.
But further, it is possible that events happened in which a non-human person of some kind communicated to humans. There is no reason to absolutely rule that out. You could also explain it as some kind of vision. The exact explanation is not important.
Believing in Christ does not require any of this. The writers of the Bible accounts may have held some of these beliefs, but that doesn't mean everything they wrote was based on these beliefs. The essential accounts about Christ can easily be true even though the events took place in a culture which had these bad practices. Showing that there are some bad practices going on does not provide evidence to contradict everything in the written accounts of that culture.
At the time of the crucifixion per se, this idea did not exist. It was only later that theologians did this kind of interpretation. So one can believe in the Christ of 30 AD without subscribing to this kind of interpretation.
But further, no one really thought or said that "God feels that he must kill his own son because he can find no other way to forgive people of their sins."
Those are your words, not the words of anyone from the world of the Bible or whoever or whatever you're attributing them to. And although there are similar words spoken by some theologians, you cannot properly critique them without first stating their belief as they understand it, rather than according to these words you put in their mouth.
No Sunday School teacher ever taught the kids that "God feels that he must kill his own son" as you're characterizing it here. "Reasons" to believe or not to believe something have to be properly worded and based on critical thought rather than emotion or impulsive sensationalist hyperbole.
There are differences and similarities. Many of the same ideas are still prominent today. But granting the differences, how does that prove that anything is "untrue" or not "authentic"? What is wrong with using sources from the distant past where there were some differences from today? or from a culture different than ours?
We have an important event at about 30 AD which might have relevance for us today. How is this event contradicted or rendered "untrue" simply because there are some differences between the world today and the world back then?
You think an entire world or an entire culture is invalidated because it is different than ours today? How "strange" is "very strange"? There are plenty of "strange" things today that are shocking perhaps beyond that of the Bible world you're referring to.
It is more appropriate to focus on the facts about what actually happened, such as the facts about the historical Jesus and what it meant, rather than gawking over how "strange" that world was compared to this world.
And so "Reason #2" concludes with the argument that you are superior to those who believe differently than you, because they cannot "understand" or "grasp" or "figure this whole thing out" as you have figured it out because you're more mature and grow-up. And that's supposed to be a "Reason" that proves Christianity is untrue and inauthentic?
Hopefully "Reason #3" will be something of more substance.
Last edited:
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,566
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
False analogy.
It can be disproved that any physical visible being such as santa claus travels all over the world in one night and visits every household. There's abundant evidence to disprove it, leaving aside the matter of inconceivability (mathematically/spacially/physically). The absence of serious sightings disproves it empirically. (You already know this.)
But there is no evidence to discredit the miracle acts accounts of Christ recorded in the N.T. All you have is just the dogmatic premise that any such thing has to be impossible.
Also, the santa claus narrative can easily be explained, as to the popular mythology element. But the Christ miracle healing acts cannot be explained similarly. These are best explained as originating from actual events that occurred at a particular time and place and were retold by witnesses.
You have made some good points, and I respect your beliefs and analysis. I am not saying that I know I am correct, just that, based on those 122 points, I feel it is more likely that the core theology of Christianity is based on myth and that Jesus was a human who died and will not return.
Do you want me to post your rebuttals on my website?
Do you want me to post your rebuttals on my website?
Underseer
Contributor
I thought you were going to explain how belief in Santa Claus is different from Christianity.
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,338
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
It has occurred to you that the New Testament accounts of miracles might, might I say, be totally made up?
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,566
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Reason #3
Not necessarily. The subject of Hell is unavoidable, but one simple escape from the problem of Hell is that Jesus did not preach Hell and that all the sayings are just words put into his mouth by later writers. Which is quite plausible. And that refutes the argument.
Except, that it is possible that Jesus did preach Hell.
And there is one combination that is uncomfortable: Jesus preached Hell and yet Hell does not exist.
Both of these components might be false: Maybe Hell DOES in fact exist, and also it's possible Jesus did not preach Hell.
So of all the combinations, only this one is problematic for a believer: Jesus taught the existence of Hell and yet Hell does not exist.
This combination is difficult. Because it is then necessary to explain how or why he would teach something that's not true.
But we don't know the answer to either of these. We don't know if there's a Hell and we don't know if Jesus preached Hell.
So the only argument is quite hypothetical: IF he taught the existence of Hell, and IF there is no Hell, then what? And we don't know the answer to either of these.
So I reject this argument because it is based on 2 hypotheticals that we cannot determine the answer to. I concede that if both these hypotheticals are true, it is problematic for the believer. But there's no way to know if they're true.
And even if they are, there are various possible answers. I don't like any of them very much, but there are possible answers, and the difficulty does not lead to any conclusion that Christ then did not have power, which is the main point, i.e., whether he had the power such as the gospel accounts describe.
One thing we know for sure is that those who quoted the teachings about Hell and eventually wrote them down believed in Hell already, regardless what Jesus said. It wasn't from Jesus that they acquired their belief in Hell. They obviously used Jesus as a means to communicate their belief in Hell. We are getting these teachings from them and from earlier sources rather than from Jesus.
If Hell actually does exist, in some sense, like a real place of torment or agony or suffering etc., then is there any argument left? Is Christ belief undermined or discredited by the fact that this "punishment" place actually does exist?
Obviously the only argument has to be that Hell does not exist and that Christ was wrong to teach something that is false. If it does exist, then what is the argument? He was only teaching the truth. He can't be wrong if he teaches the truth, can he? You expect him to teach only what feels good and not mention something that is bad even though it is true?
If Christ had power such as the gospel accounts describe, then it's not overridingly important how we explain the teaching about Hell. The worst-case scenarios are that he knew there was no Hell and yet taught it as some means to win believers, or he really believed in Hell, along with most people of the time, and so held an incorrect belief. But we have no way to know if either scenario is correct.
Neither of these possibilities, which are the worst that can be imagined, negate the fact of the power he exhibited in his miracle healing acts and in his resurrection. The psychology of Jesus, or his motivation, or his methodology or mode of communicating to his listeners may be interesting to speculate on, but they are not fundamental to whether he had power.
I don't think the argument against believing in Christ is strong if it depends upon hypotheticals that we don't know the answer to. It's just a dilemma to ponder about, i.e., what if there really is no Hell and yet Christ taught that there is a Hell. Wouldn't that be embarassing?
Would that be similar to a question like: What if Christ taught that demons exist and yet they do not really exist? I don't think questions like these which have no real answers can serve as an argument for believing or not believing.
You could name a lot of things God should not have "allowed."
Why didn't God just stamp out the idea of Hell long before Christ existed? Why didn't God stamp out every false idea that anyone ever held? Why didn't God raise up humans who always believed only truth and never any falsehoods?
One needn't have answers to questions like these in order to believe in Christ.
The fact that the Bible contains in it many popular beliefs of the time, maybe some not true, does not mean Christ did not resurrect from the dead. The Bible is not required to first be purged of all ideas that might be flawed before one can believe in Christ.
There are differing ideas among believers about Bible "inerrancy" and whether it is "infallible" or accurate in every point.
It isn't necessary to proclaim what God would allow or not allow to be in these writings. This is like saying the existence of the Bible is proof that God could not exist, because no God would allow such a book to exist. Or no God would allow a book like this one to say such things.
We don't know if Hell exists. It is possible that it does, as something bad that happens after death. The contents of the Bible do not prove that there is or is not a Hell, or are not discredited because of the mention in it of Hell and damnation, or are not some proof that God was remiss in allowing those contents to exist.
If some Bible writers were extra adament about Hell, it is only because they believed so strongly that it matters that people respond to Christ, or believe in him, or obey him, that they added extra warnings of doom and damnation to persuade the readers. The writers had no reason to withhold their belief about Hell and try to exclude it.
If believing vs. not believing has serious consequences, then this dichotomy of belief vs. nonbelief is what really matters rather than the particulars of what the consequences are, such as how much pain or suffering happens to a non-believer or if there really is suffering. Such dire warnings expressed in graphic detail are not what is important.
The worst-case scenario, that Christ taught Hell and yet there is no Hell, is less appealing than the other 2 possibilities: He did not teach it but the words were put into his mouth by the writers, or there actually is a Hell and so the Hell teaching was basically true.
You can offer the above worst-case scenario as a weak argument that damages Christ belief somewhat, but it is not a devastating argument -- just a minor nuisance. As an argument, it only says that one should not believe in Christ because then you are faced with some hypothetical questions that you won't know definite answers to. Believing in Christ does not require having answers to the all the possible hypothetical question one can imagine about what Christ might have said or what he meant if he did say it and so on.
First, there IS credible evidence. (You may claim there's insufficient "proof" but not that there's no credible evidence.)
But more importantly, it's not clear if you mean that you just don't believe there is any such "punishment" or that you accept it as a possibililty and simply condemn God for doing this.
Suppose this "punishment" place does exist and is very horrific. If this place does exist, is it wrong to teach it, or to warn about it, or to offer a way of escaping it?
So if it really does exist, then there is no argument, right? It's good to warn against it and thankfully there is an escape from it which is available.
So your only argument is simply that it cannot be, and so because there can be no such place, then it is cruel to speak of it or threaten people with it.
But the truth is that we don't know if there is such a place.
All we know is that we live now and we're going to die. And Christ offers us an "eternal life" which would let us resume living beyond death.
Since he showed life-giving power, what is unreasonable about hoping for this as an escape from death? What is "untrue" or not "authentic" about hoping for this means of escape from the annihilation of death?
What difference does it make whether there is also a "Hell" for those who don't find the Christ escape that is provided? This prospect only increases the urgency of spreading the news about the escape that is offered to us.
Again, does this observation stem from the premise that Hell does not exist? If so, and if Hell does in fact exist, then this argument is meaningless. What sense does this angry outburst make if Hell actually does exist? What do you accomplish, as you're sinking down in the lake of fire, to raise your fist and accuse God of being worse than Hitler?
So if there is a Hell, your argument, i.e., your angry outburst, is meaningless. And if there is no Hell, then it's not true that God is doing something worse than Hitler did.
But if Hell really does exist, Christianity did not invent it and so is not inflicting the punishment and is not violating the Constitution. And if Hell does NOT exist, then there is no such punishment, and so there is no violating of the Constitution if no such punishment is actually happening.
It's better to leave this in the "we don't know" category.
We know there is some pain and suffering. So either there is no God at all, or there is a God which allows or cannot prevent this pain and suffering.
So then you are just giving a classic "no God" argument because of the existence of pain and suffering.
To add the extra prospect of suffering after death in Hell does not change the basic argument. It's not really an argument about Christ or about the Bible or about Hell, but just another argument that there cannot be any God.
One can believe in Christ without needing to answer these classic "no God" arguments. The arguments do undermine the notions about "all-good" and "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" characteristics, but it isn't necessary to get bogged down in these abstractions in order to believe in Christ.
What makes sense is to say you hope there's no Hell. That's fine. But what if it turns out that there IS a Hell? In that case, what is the point of saying it makes no sense?
Pain and suffering in the world we know now "makes no sense" either, and yet it happens.
The agnostic position is better: We don't know if there's a Hell and we hope there isn't. That's all you can reasonably say.
No. If there actually IS a Hell, then it obviously was not an error that it's included in Christianity.
On the other hand, if there is no Hell but there is still the possibility of eternal life by believing in Christ, then the threat of Hell probably caused some people to believe and they gained eternal life. So they're better off.
The reality is that fear of harm can often be an incentive to a decision more than desire for a benefit.
So your real argument is not about the unreasonableness of Hell, but the unreasonableness of any belief in something beyond death, including eternal life or Heaven.
You have to shape your argument to focus on any notion of afterlife and not obsess on Hell only. The anti-Hell argument by itself is not a good argument for not believing in Christ. Its only attraction is the emotional or impulsive element of escaping the depressing negative imagery of the Hell idea. Its appeal is the "let's only talk about nice things" syndrome.
Not necessarily. The subject of Hell is unavoidable, but one simple escape from the problem of Hell is that Jesus did not preach Hell and that all the sayings are just words put into his mouth by later writers. Which is quite plausible. And that refutes the argument.
Except, that it is possible that Jesus did preach Hell.
And there is one combination that is uncomfortable: Jesus preached Hell and yet Hell does not exist.
Both of these components might be false: Maybe Hell DOES in fact exist, and also it's possible Jesus did not preach Hell.
So of all the combinations, only this one is problematic for a believer: Jesus taught the existence of Hell and yet Hell does not exist.
This combination is difficult. Because it is then necessary to explain how or why he would teach something that's not true.
But we don't know the answer to either of these. We don't know if there's a Hell and we don't know if Jesus preached Hell.
So the only argument is quite hypothetical: IF he taught the existence of Hell, and IF there is no Hell, then what? And we don't know the answer to either of these.
So I reject this argument because it is based on 2 hypotheticals that we cannot determine the answer to. I concede that if both these hypotheticals are true, it is problematic for the believer. But there's no way to know if they're true.
And even if they are, there are various possible answers. I don't like any of them very much, but there are possible answers, and the difficulty does not lead to any conclusion that Christ then did not have power, which is the main point, i.e., whether he had the power such as the gospel accounts describe.
One thing we know for sure is that those who quoted the teachings about Hell and eventually wrote them down believed in Hell already, regardless what Jesus said. It wasn't from Jesus that they acquired their belief in Hell. They obviously used Jesus as a means to communicate their belief in Hell. We are getting these teachings from them and from earlier sources rather than from Jesus.
If Hell actually does exist, in some sense, like a real place of torment or agony or suffering etc., then is there any argument left? Is Christ belief undermined or discredited by the fact that this "punishment" place actually does exist?
Obviously the only argument has to be that Hell does not exist and that Christ was wrong to teach something that is false. If it does exist, then what is the argument? He was only teaching the truth. He can't be wrong if he teaches the truth, can he? You expect him to teach only what feels good and not mention something that is bad even though it is true?
If Christ had power such as the gospel accounts describe, then it's not overridingly important how we explain the teaching about Hell. The worst-case scenarios are that he knew there was no Hell and yet taught it as some means to win believers, or he really believed in Hell, along with most people of the time, and so held an incorrect belief. But we have no way to know if either scenario is correct.
Neither of these possibilities, which are the worst that can be imagined, negate the fact of the power he exhibited in his miracle healing acts and in his resurrection. The psychology of Jesus, or his motivation, or his methodology or mode of communicating to his listeners may be interesting to speculate on, but they are not fundamental to whether he had power.
I don't think the argument against believing in Christ is strong if it depends upon hypotheticals that we don't know the answer to. It's just a dilemma to ponder about, i.e., what if there really is no Hell and yet Christ taught that there is a Hell. Wouldn't that be embarassing?
Would that be similar to a question like: What if Christ taught that demons exist and yet they do not really exist? I don't think questions like these which have no real answers can serve as an argument for believing or not believing.
You could name a lot of things God should not have "allowed."
Why didn't God just stamp out the idea of Hell long before Christ existed? Why didn't God stamp out every false idea that anyone ever held? Why didn't God raise up humans who always believed only truth and never any falsehoods?
One needn't have answers to questions like these in order to believe in Christ.
The fact that the Bible contains in it many popular beliefs of the time, maybe some not true, does not mean Christ did not resurrect from the dead. The Bible is not required to first be purged of all ideas that might be flawed before one can believe in Christ.
There are differing ideas among believers about Bible "inerrancy" and whether it is "infallible" or accurate in every point.
It isn't necessary to proclaim what God would allow or not allow to be in these writings. This is like saying the existence of the Bible is proof that God could not exist, because no God would allow such a book to exist. Or no God would allow a book like this one to say such things.
We don't know if Hell exists. It is possible that it does, as something bad that happens after death. The contents of the Bible do not prove that there is or is not a Hell, or are not discredited because of the mention in it of Hell and damnation, or are not some proof that God was remiss in allowing those contents to exist.
If some Bible writers were extra adament about Hell, it is only because they believed so strongly that it matters that people respond to Christ, or believe in him, or obey him, that they added extra warnings of doom and damnation to persuade the readers. The writers had no reason to withhold their belief about Hell and try to exclude it.
If believing vs. not believing has serious consequences, then this dichotomy of belief vs. nonbelief is what really matters rather than the particulars of what the consequences are, such as how much pain or suffering happens to a non-believer or if there really is suffering. Such dire warnings expressed in graphic detail are not what is important.
The worst-case scenario, that Christ taught Hell and yet there is no Hell, is less appealing than the other 2 possibilities: He did not teach it but the words were put into his mouth by the writers, or there actually is a Hell and so the Hell teaching was basically true.
You can offer the above worst-case scenario as a weak argument that damages Christ belief somewhat, but it is not a devastating argument -- just a minor nuisance. As an argument, it only says that one should not believe in Christ because then you are faced with some hypothetical questions that you won't know definite answers to. Believing in Christ does not require having answers to the all the possible hypothetical question one can imagine about what Christ might have said or what he meant if he did say it and so on.
First, there IS credible evidence. (You may claim there's insufficient "proof" but not that there's no credible evidence.)
But more importantly, it's not clear if you mean that you just don't believe there is any such "punishment" or that you accept it as a possibililty and simply condemn God for doing this.
Suppose this "punishment" place does exist and is very horrific. If this place does exist, is it wrong to teach it, or to warn about it, or to offer a way of escaping it?
So if it really does exist, then there is no argument, right? It's good to warn against it and thankfully there is an escape from it which is available.
So your only argument is simply that it cannot be, and so because there can be no such place, then it is cruel to speak of it or threaten people with it.
But the truth is that we don't know if there is such a place.
All we know is that we live now and we're going to die. And Christ offers us an "eternal life" which would let us resume living beyond death.
Since he showed life-giving power, what is unreasonable about hoping for this as an escape from death? What is "untrue" or not "authentic" about hoping for this means of escape from the annihilation of death?
What difference does it make whether there is also a "Hell" for those who don't find the Christ escape that is provided? This prospect only increases the urgency of spreading the news about the escape that is offered to us.
Again, does this observation stem from the premise that Hell does not exist? If so, and if Hell does in fact exist, then this argument is meaningless. What sense does this angry outburst make if Hell actually does exist? What do you accomplish, as you're sinking down in the lake of fire, to raise your fist and accuse God of being worse than Hitler?
So if there is a Hell, your argument, i.e., your angry outburst, is meaningless. And if there is no Hell, then it's not true that God is doing something worse than Hitler did.
But if Hell really does exist, Christianity did not invent it and so is not inflicting the punishment and is not violating the Constitution. And if Hell does NOT exist, then there is no such punishment, and so there is no violating of the Constitution if no such punishment is actually happening.
It's better to leave this in the "we don't know" category.
We know there is some pain and suffering. So either there is no God at all, or there is a God which allows or cannot prevent this pain and suffering.
So then you are just giving a classic "no God" argument because of the existence of pain and suffering.
To add the extra prospect of suffering after death in Hell does not change the basic argument. It's not really an argument about Christ or about the Bible or about Hell, but just another argument that there cannot be any God.
One can believe in Christ without needing to answer these classic "no God" arguments. The arguments do undermine the notions about "all-good" and "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" characteristics, but it isn't necessary to get bogged down in these abstractions in order to believe in Christ.
What makes sense is to say you hope there's no Hell. That's fine. But what if it turns out that there IS a Hell? In that case, what is the point of saying it makes no sense?
Pain and suffering in the world we know now "makes no sense" either, and yet it happens.
The agnostic position is better: We don't know if there's a Hell and we hope there isn't. That's all you can reasonably say.
No. If there actually IS a Hell, then it obviously was not an error that it's included in Christianity.
On the other hand, if there is no Hell but there is still the possibility of eternal life by believing in Christ, then the threat of Hell probably caused some people to believe and they gained eternal life. So they're better off.
The reality is that fear of harm can often be an incentive to a decision more than desire for a benefit.
So your real argument is not about the unreasonableness of Hell, but the unreasonableness of any belief in something beyond death, including eternal life or Heaven.
You have to shape your argument to focus on any notion of afterlife and not obsess on Hell only. The anti-Hell argument by itself is not a good argument for not believing in Christ. Its only attraction is the emotional or impulsive element of escaping the depressing negative imagery of the Hell idea. Its appeal is the "let's only talk about nice things" syndrome.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,566
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
There's no empirical evidence that Santa travels around the world in one night and stops at every household. There should be numerous sightings of this if it happens. Real sightings reported seriously.
But there is historical evidence from documents at the time that Jesus performed the miracle acts. There were witnesses present.
This is not proof, but it is reasonable empirical evidence for concluding that the events took place. Which doesn't rule out doubting the events for various reasons. There can be evidence or reasons on both sides of a question, so that you can still judge against one side despite the evidence, because you think the other side is stronger. But that empirical evidence, or historical data is there, so a case can be made.
But there is no such evidence for the travels of Santa.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,566
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
That's a possibility. But it's easier to explain the existence of these accounts if we assume the events really happened.
However, to qualify, some of the Bible miracles are more likely fictional. We can pick and choose, based on each particular case.
E.g., the reported miracles in the Book of Acts are more likely fictional. These can easily be explained as "copy-cat" stories based on the Jesus miracle stories. But it is much more difficult to explain how the Jesus miracle stories originated.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,566
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
I agree that there's myth. But it's not ALL myth. There's a "core" (not peripheral) part that is true, or factual.
Whether there's a "return" or something else, I'm hoping there's more to the story. In particular, I hope there's something that goes beyond death.
Sure, if you have space. I'll do the "Reasons" in order, #4 next. It'll be slow, not like these first 3.
This is so funny I almost fell out my chair....
Your "historical evidence" consists of a single text seemingly claiming this. (Q).
There are a lot of texts describing how people has witnessed santa claus.
Thus the evidens for santa claus is actually much bigger.
DBT
Contributor
Then then the argument is the discrepancy between 'forgive your enemies' and 'love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you...'' and eternally tormenting those who do not happen to believe merely upon some fickle and petty requirement of faith.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Who?
What eyewitness accounts do we have?
How did anyone determine that they were eyewitnesses, not people writing much later?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Just out of curiosity, do you have any reference that says this is the way historical scholars evaluate ancient documents? Assume that they all record historical events, and go from there?
Any examples of this process producing useful results?
Like, have archaeologists found that the tales of Atlantis were accurate?
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,566
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
You know that there are the 4 N.T. "gospels" which give this evidence, plus also some reference in the Book of Acts and also a reference in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And the Pauline epistles refer frequently to the resurrection of Jesus, and name some of the witnesses to it.
This evidence can be classified in different ways, and you can combine some of them or overlap some. But it's incorrect to say there is only a "single text."
So you believe those were intended seriously? You believe those accounts were reported as actual observations of something real? The same as witnesses report UFOs? And those santa sightings were taken seriously and investigated by the Air Force as a UFO or something?
The accounts of the Jesus miracle acts were recorded seriously, as real events. We need serious accounts to use as evidence.