Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
So going by your logic, if I write a book, and in the footnote I state "This is the greatest work of literature of all time", my work would dwarf the combined contributions of Shakespeare.
You can not use the bible to support any claims from the bible.
Agreed. But that’s nothing like the claim being put forth.
For one, we have 4 independent sources (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), which just so happen to be in the Bible. But they were written by different people with different purposes during different times. They are, for all intents and purposes, 4 separate accounts.
Secondly, the historical accuracy of these 4 accounts is not being asserted. They need not be historically accurate to be historical accounts. Many varying historical accounts contradict others but it doesn’t take away from their being historical accounts. It shows bias on the part of the author.
@JoC,
Four independent sources? Are you not aware that Matthew and Luke copy extensively from Mark? See my post elsewhere about the Gospels being historical narratives.
Nonsense, that's not how claims are validated by any unbiased open minded person. They look for objective evidence from other sources to corroborate the claims.
"In Misquoting Jesus Ehrman recounts becoming a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager. He recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and also textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled. He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
Again. Agreed. This thread doesn’t claim that the gospels are historically accurate. It claimes they are historical account which even Bart Ehrman admits. He’s even believes, based on the evidence, that a Jesus associated with the founding of Christianity existed.
An historical account that is historically innacurate?
That's about as useful as a snooze button on a smoke alarm.
There’s a bunch of historically inaccurate historical accounts. An example off the top of my head is the account of the great fire of Rome. We have 3 sources, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, Suetonius. They disagree with the cause of the fire. But taken together, we can come up with some facts we’d know about the great fire of Rome, like the fire actually happened, and that Nero used this incident to blame the Christians and started persecuting them.
Even if they disagree with the cause which are contradictory, it doesn’t take away from the fact that they are historical accounts which may have historical inaccuracies. It’s how we sift through the inaccuracies that matters.
JoC,
Don't you know that people lie? The character was trying to sell his delusion to nitwits. Do you expect him to start off his story by saying that he's lying?
Here's a simple task for you. Think back to January 2000. Write down everything that you did during that month and who you spoke to and the exact words everyone said. Please let us know how that turns out.
@ Diotrephes
Sometimes I really agree with you. Want that 100 like button.
@Dio Re: Write down everything from January 2000
Damn, that was smart, and it makes a most excellent point. I think I will lobby with Old Man to get that "100 Agrees" button installed in here.
Tin-man,
Some people say that they have excellent memories. Mine is about 5 nanoseconds long. I write down things I consider to be important and then forget where I put the notes. If I could become ruler of the universe just by writing down everything that I did and all of my conversations during the month of January 2000 I would fail because I have no clue as to what I did or said during that time at all.
@Dio Re: Memory and Lists
Oh, man. I write out a grocery list before going to the store and then totally forget to take the list with me. And five nanoseconds would actually be considered long-term memory for me. LOL
@JoC,
No doubt Luke collected various stories and assorted accounts that supported his theological understanding, editing them as necessary. That is, the doctrine of some Christian group that supported that theological interpretation was molded into a gospel. This is not exactly writing history! It's a case of back filling based on the accepted doctrine of the group, which was probably put into writing as a safeguard against changing times. Apparently, Luke's group accepted the doctrine that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem, so a story was supplied to get Mary there. Unfortunately, it totally contradicts the story given by Matthew! Matthew and Luke were both copying extensively from Mark, but on this issue Mark had nothing to say. So, each group faithfully searched the scriptures and came up with their own imaginative back-fills. Not being aware of each other's efforts, or not caring, they managed to come up with totally contradicting stories!
Correct, and even if we could it would tell us nothing whatsoever about the validity of the claims in the bible. We can however assert with a high degree of certainty the following:
1. It's a fact that humans create fictional deities.
2. No one has demonstrated any objective evidence for any of them.
3. They axiomatically can't all be true, but could conceivably all be false.
Wrong concepts. The gospel writers were writing from a religious/symbolic viewpoint. The concept of history wasn't there. The point was a teaching narrative on belief with the symbolism that would make sense to the group being instructed.
The sermon is either on the mount or the plain depending on the audience. To the Jewish audience, the sermon is on the Mount because God spoke to the Jews from Mt. Sinai.
To the pagans in the empire, the sermon is on the plain as the audience understands the stories of the gods coming from heaven to walk among humanity. The point is the importance of the message.
MPO, you wrote, “The gospel writers were writing from a religious/symbolic viewpoint.”
How did you come by this knowledge?
@Mrs. Owczarek,
I agree with your idea that the Gospels were not historical narratives. But neither were they wholly symbolic. Both Matthew and Luke went to some pains to justify Mary's being in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. That looks very much like an attempt to manufacture a bit of "history." Unlike a real historical narrative it is not based on observed facts and probably comes from imaginative interpretations of existing scripture. That is to say, they were not deliberately lying. Nor were they recounting historical facts. They were trying to find truth as they understood it in terms of their evolved doctrines.
Define historical account please. As you seem to be implying that such accounts infer reliable factual truths rather than someone's opinion?
If the battle of Hastings took place in 1065 I'm not particularly phased. If there were no archers at the battle of Agincourt it'd be a shock, but ultimately it doesn't change my worldview.
You're implying ancient tales of hokum appeals to magic are valid if the author gets the dates right and the authenticity of the authorship is reliable.
Historical claims are not comparable to claims that appeal to the supernatural. Jesus being a real person is simply an assertion that is not conclusively evidenced. The ramifications are obvious, not least because of the superstitious nature of the claims that are assigned this name.
Wheezy will protest, but you can't build evidence for the supernatural in this way. It's irrational and fairly disingenuous.
Actually, since the only thing I’m saying is hat they are historical documents, then it may be asserted that not everything is factually correct. There may be inconsistencies in the text, etc.
The thing I’m driving at is that the Gospel writers when they were writing their works, were intending to write a historical account and not a fictional story or a myth. We’re looking at intent.
A historical account is a document which aims to record actual events which happened.
As you will no doubt agree, historical accounts will be biased based on the writer for the text. For example, none of the gospels show Judas Iscariot in a favorable light. And understandably so.
For example, the great fire of Rome has differing accounts on how it happened (3 accounts survive). Taken collectively as historical accounts, we can piece together what was the most likely event that happened. We don’t look at one account and conclude that everything he says is true. We take these things collectively.
For the gospels, we can actually take them collectively to piece together the historical Jesus. Add that to whatever non-Christian sources like Josephus and Tacitus have to say about Jesus and the early Christians.
Thanks for mentioning Hastings because that reminded me of a good historical example of people sharing the same name. There were 2 king Harold, (both lost) fighting for the English throne in 1066. As well as all the Ceasers, Lepidi, and people named Marcus, there are plenty of examples in history of people sharing the same name. Hell before Jesus there were a grand total of 3 major names in Carthage so it's not a leap for there to be several Jesus' in a story from antiquity.
Actually, that’s actually my point. In most historical accounts, you would expect people to have the same name with other people in the narrative. That’s coz the author doesn’t have any choice but to use their actual names (Ceasar isn’t a name, btw).
In fiction writing, we expect different names for people in the same group so as not to confuse the reader.
Even in Jesus own 12 apostles, we have two Simons, 2 James, and 2 Johns. Among the women followers of Jesus, there are multiple Marys.
@ JoC
Doubting Thomas was also Judas Thomas....
Go to Greece everyone's named Nick. Go to Rome everyone's named Tony or Anthony. Go to Norway everyone is named Otto or Gunter. Go to Sweden everyone is named Swen or Lars. Go to Russia everyone is named Mikail. Fuck names are names and all extremely common. Who the fuck cares. The name "jesus" wasn't even invented until the 2nd century anyway as "J" was not used until then.
I marvel at how many people name their sons Hunter and their daughters Megan. In my day everyone was named Mike.
I miss the good old names like Doris and Betsy. The WWII names were really cool earthy! Maybalene, Hank, Lou, Burt or Bert, Sal, Cyril all great names!
@ Myk
Just so Diotrephes doesnt get in a snit....gotta correct "until the 2nd century anyway as "J" was not used until then."
Letter j was starting to be written in the 9th century but not commonly used as a different letter or pronounciation until the 16th Century.
"Gian Giorgio Trissino (1478–1550) was the first to explicitly distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds, in his Ɛpistola del Trissino de le lettere nuωvamente aggiunte ne la lingua italiana ("Trissino's epistle about the letters recently added in the Italian language") of 1524." Wikepedia
Jesus could not have existed as a concept word before 1524....Iesu, Yeshua, whatever yep...but not our lovely Jesus. Christians hate that idea.
This is actually missing the point.
Jesus is an english transliteration of his actual name. Saying he never existed because he letter J never existed back then is just silly. It’s like saying Mao Zedong or Kim Jong-un never existed because the letters Z and J don’t exist in the Chinese and Korean alphabets respectively.
These are english transliterations, is all.
JoC,
"Jesus" isn't an English transliteration of Yeshua. The name was cooked up by two Dutch con men who were printing Bibles. The name was used in a lawsuit filed against them.
As the guy says...
"In fact, in my research, I can find NO published name spelled precisely as: "Jesus" prior to June of 1632.
If anyone here can present a link to an official - original document with the precise spelling "JESUS" prior to June 1632, I would LOVE to see it."
https://www.quora.com/If-the-letter-J-wasnt-invented-until-1600-how-did-...
@ Diotrephes.
Again I have to agree, the letter J wasn't in common use at all until 1633 in English and only earlier in French from the earlier Italian.
It did appear in numerology (roman) but never as part of a name or word. It was sometimes written in manuscripts but was always an elongated i and pronounced as the starting y sound as in Iesu, or iesus.
From Wiki
Gian Giorgio Trissino (1478–1550) was the first to explicitly distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds, in his Ɛpistola del Trissino de le lettere nuωvamente aggiunte ne la lingua italiana ("Trissino's epistle about the letters recently added in the Italian language") of 1524. Originally, 'I' and 'J' were different shapes for the same letter, both equally representing /i/, /iː/, and /j/.
There are more in depth studies of this and other interesting additions to the language that have affected religious and social thought and expression, They make great reading if you have the time to follow the rabbits down the hole.
Hahahahaha. That’s actually part of my point. If I go to Greece and write about all the people I met there and say i listed down 100. And of all of them I only listed down one Nick, you’d probably raise your eyebrow.
Or if I went to Japan and did the same thing but only listed down one person who’s family name is Suzuki, you’d be like, “Are you sure you went to the same Japan?”
Nope, I'd not bat an eyelid, why would I? A coincidence is a natural phenomenon that humans perceive as extremely unlikely, so what? Something is either true or it is not, and it's not coincidences that determines how likely something is to true, it is objective evidence. Besides if you're going to do down this route and start extrapolating the likelihood of something based on how often such events happen, then what does this line of reasoning do to claims for miracles?
Pages