The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[carpedm9587]

Matthew was a tax collector who would keep records and know how to write. Mark was a disciple and the scribe of that fisherman, Peter, so yeah he would know how to write since that was his job, John was another fisherman but he apparently knew how to write, and Luke was a doctor and scribe to Paul, so he knew how to write. Of the 4 Luke was not an eyewitness and would not have kept notes during the time, maybe not John either. But Mark and Matthew? It is very plausible. Not to mention Jesus had many disciples, many who were rich and educated, like Lazarus, Joseph of Arimethea, and Nicodemus. They could easily have kept notes. Luke claims to have interviewed eye-witnesses to write his gospel, and it is plausible that those people kept notes and could have even been people like Joseph of A and Nicodemus and many of the Apostles themselves.

I know of no direct or indirect evidence that such notes existed. They are not reflected in an exegesis of the text, as far as I know. I have no reason to think they did, or even might have, existed.

And the NT is multiple documents from independent sources. And we have other historical and archeological sources that confirm many of the events and people of the time and area.

The NT is multiple documents - but from a single source: the faith community that became the followers of the Nazarene. There were MANY gospels written (the apocrypha), many of which grossly conflicted with the ones ultimately selected to be the "canonical" stories included. That canon was not selected until the 4th (practically) or 5th (formally) centuries, and was selected, again, by the community holding the beliefs. Three of the gospels derive significant source material from a common document.

These are not "independent" sources.

[JimL]

Matthew was a tax collector who would keep records and know how to write. Mark was a disciple and the scribe of that fisherman, Peter, so yeah he would know how to write since that was his job, John was another fisherman but he apparently knew how to write, and Luke was a doctor and scribe to Paul, so he knew how to write. Of the 4 Luke was not an eyewitness and would not have kept notes during the time, maybe not John either. But Mark and Matthew? It is very plausible. Not to mention Jesus had many disciples, many who were rich and educated, like Lazarus, Joseph of Arimethea, and Nicodemus. They could easily have kept notes. Luke claims to have interviewed eye-witnesses to write his gospel, and it is plausible that those people kept notes and could have even been people like Joseph of A and Nicodemus and many of the Apostles themselves.

All according to the bible!

And the NT is multiple documents from independent sources. And we have other historical and archeological sources that confirm many of the events and people of the time and area.
But if not notes, the society was an oral society. who pretty much had a system to hand down oral stories word for word without embellishment. It wasn't like today where we have to have everything recorded to remember anything.

You don't have any independent sources confirming the historic reality of the NT claims. You can't confirm the truth of a story through the word of the story teller.

[Sparko]

I know of no direct or indirect evidence that such notes existed. They are not reflected in an exegesis of the text, as far as I know. I have no reason to think they did, or even might have, existed.

well like you said, the Q document could have been a collection of such notes. I just tossed it out there as a plausible scenario for how they kept the gospels accurate. If I were following around someone I thought to be the Messiah I would want to record his words and deeds as much as I could and as accurately as I could. If not to write about him later, just for my own purposes. But like I also said this was a society that was based on oral tradition and passing down history accurately and memorizing every detail. It was nothing like we are today with video recorders, audio recorders and computers to do all of the remembering for us. We are lazy. They were not.

The NT is multiple documents - but from a single source: the faith community that became the followers of the Nazarene. There were MANY gospels written (the apocrypha), many of which grossly conflicted with the ones ultimately selected to be the "canonical" stories included. That canon was not selected until the 4th (practically) or 5th (formally) centuries, and was selected, again, by the community holding the beliefs. Three of the gospels derive significant source material from a common document.

These are not "independent" sources.

well golly, if a bunch of people actually experienced what is in the NT, then of course they would all end up believing and writing about the same thing. Are you just wanting contrary accounts by unbelievers? If the events happened then you would have exactly what we have: multiple sources that agree on the facts. The apocryphal gospels were all written in the 2nd century or later and are mostly written by gnostics who made up some really obviously legendary stuff like talking crosses and spiritual resurrections and full of errors that show they knew nothing of the time or society at the time of the crucifixion. They were never used by orthodox Christians and that is why they were never even considered to be part of Canon.

And your "common document" theory... again that suggests that maybe someone collected notes. Which to me makes it more likely to be accurate.

[carpedm9587]

well like you said, the Q document could have been a collection of such notes. I just tossed it out there as a plausible scenario for how they kept the gospels accurate. If I were following around someone I thought to be the Messiah I would want to record his words and deeds as much as I could and as accurately as I could. If not to write about him later, just for my own purposes. But like I also said this was a society that was based on oral tradition and passing down history accurately and memorizing every detail. It was nothing like we are today with video recorders, audio recorders and computers to do all of the remembering for us. We are lazy. They were not.

This theory has been bandied about many times, but I have never seen anyone provide evidence that human memory in 30AD worked any differently than human memory in 2017 AD. It appears to be simply an unsubstantiated claim. But if you know of some evidence to support the claim, I will certainly look at it.

As for the "notes" being the "Q" source, that does not seem very probable to me. The "Q" source, as best can be told, was a cohesive source. Not a bunch of notes. And I know of no other example in ancient history where followers of a charismatic religious figure "kept notes." Such journals seem to be a fairly modern contrivance. And, to be honest, I followed such a charismatic religious leader in my youth, and it never dawned on me to "take notes." We just followed, prayed, ran errands, preached on the street, prayed some more, ran some more errands, etc., etc.

That doesn't mean your scenario is impossible - but it strikes me as fairly implaussible.

well golly, if a bunch of people actually experienced what is in the NT, then of course they would all end up believing and writing about the same thing. Are you just wanting contrary accounts by unbelievers?

No. The point is not that there SHOULD be other reports - but that there aren't. The reason there aren't is perfectly understandable - but it doesn't alter the fact that there aren't independent sources.

If the events happened then you would have exactly what we have: multiple sources that agree on the facts.

Three agree on most of the facts, John's gospel is an entity onto itself. Indeed, most of the miracle stories arise from John, which is the latest gospel and shows the most theological development. Indeed, the pattern of differences between the synoptics and John is an element of evidence towards what I have suggested.

The apocryphal gospels were all written in the 2nd century or later and are mostly written by gnostics who made up some really obviously legendary stuff like talking crosses and spiritual resurrections and full of errors that show they knew nothing of the time or society at the time of the crucifixion. They were never used by orthodox Christians and that is why they were never even considered to be part of Canon.

This I know - but it does not alter the fact that the canon - and what was included/excluded - was also selected by the community, making the sources even less independent.

And your "common document" theory... again that suggests that maybe someone collected notes. Which to me makes it more likely to be accurate.

I know of no evidence that the "Q" source was based on a "bunch of notes" written by the early apostles. If you have such evidence, I will happily examine it. I prefer that my beliefs follow the evidence, rather than the other way around. If I am wrong about this, then I would like to know it.

[Sparko]

This theory has been bandied about many times, but I have never seen anyone provide evidence that human memory in 30AD worked any differently than human memory in 2017 AD. It appears to be simply an unsubstantiated claim. But if you know of some evidence to support the claim, I will certainly look at it.

As for the "notes" being the "Q" source, that does not seem very probable to me. The "Q" source, as best can be told, was a cohesive source. Not a bunch of notes. And I know of no other example in ancient history where followers of a charismatic religious figure "kept notes." Such journals seem to be a fairly modern contrivance. And, to be honest, I followed such a charismatic religious leader in my youth, and it never dawned on me to "take notes." We just followed, prayed, ran errands, preached on the street, prayed some more, ran some more errands, etc., etc.

That doesn't mean your scenario is impossible - but it strikes me as fairly implaussible.

could be your bias against wanting to believe they are accurate histories. Talk to Apologia Nick about the oral societies, he has studied it.
But most ancient societies worked that way, since most people were not literate. They had to have a way to pass down information accurately. And they did.

No. The point is not that there SHOULD be other reports - but that there aren't. The reason there aren't is perfectly understandable - but it doesn't alter the fact that there aren't independent sources.

There was no news agencies at the time. No widespread way of disseminating information. This was a very small isolated community in the middle east. The people who witnessed the events would be the ones not only to report on it but become the followers if the events reported are true. We do have a spattering of other accounts like Tacitus and Josephus.

Three agree on most of the facts, John's gospel is an entity onto itself. Indeed, most of the miracle stories arise from John, which is the latest gospel and shows the most theological development. Indeed, the pattern of differences between the synoptics and John is an element of evidence towards what I have suggested.

they all report miracles. Each gospel had a different theme and purpose. But then you seem to complain when the gospels align too well and claim that they all copied from the same source AND you complain when they are too different. Seems like you are pretty determined not to believe they are accurate histories no matter what.

This I know - but it does not alter the fact that the canon - and what was included/excluded - was also selected by the community, making the sources even less independent.

Of course they would choose the writings that the church always used as historically accurate and toss out imposters. duh. And why would someone outside of the Church even know about them or care?

I know of no evidence that the "Q" source was based on a "bunch of notes" written by the early apostles. If you have such evidence, I will happily examine it. I prefer that my beliefs follow the evidence, rather than the other way around. If I am wrong about this, then I would like to know it.

I was just giving a plausible explanation. Kinda like what you claim to be doing.

[carpedm9587]

could be your bias against wanting to believe they are accurate histories. Talk to Apologia Nick about the oral societies, he has studied it.
But most ancient societies worked that way, since most people were not literate. They had to have a way to pass down information accurately. And they did.

There are many different types of "information." Sparko. Information about how to cook a particular type of bread can be passed down accurately from generation to generation because of its utility and role. Stories about who did what when, less so. Even information about what is in our own memory about our own life has been shown to be highly malleable. I would need to see something that has shown that this did not apply to earlier societies. As I noted, I have heard the claim repeatedly. I have never seen a formal, peer-reviewed study that does the groundwork of showing it to be true.

There was no news agencies at the time. No widespread way of disseminating information. This was a very small isolated community in the middle east. The people who witnessed the events would be the ones not only to report on it but become the followers if the events reported are true. We do have a spattering of other accounts like Tacitus and Josephus.

Tacitus and Josephus are indeed a spattering, and also were not contemporaries. Josephus was born just after the believed date Jesus' execution, so his writings are likewise about the Nazarene community a few decades after the events reported. Tacitus was born two decades later. While they mention the Nazarene community, and relate things being said ABOUT Jesus, neither was a contemporary or eyewitness, so they are essentially relating heresay. From their writings there is more than enough evidence to substantiate that Jesus lived and that he was seen as a miracle worker by the Nazarene community. Being seen as a miracle worker 3 decades later and actually BEING a miracle worker are simply not the same thing.

they all report miracles. Each gospel had a different theme and purpose. But then you seem to complain when the gospels align too well and claim that they all copied from the same source AND you complain when they are too different. Seems like you are pretty determined not to believe they are accurate histories no matter what.

I haven't complained at all. I am merely pointing out what I can and cannot accept as evidence and why. The NT lacks the criteria "different sources," for the reasons cited. That weakens their historical claim. They are not contemporaneous. That weakens their historical claim. With few examples, they cannot be shown to be written by eyewitnesses. That weakens their historical claim. And they assert events that defy rational explanation. That weakens their historical claim.

There IS history in the NT. It is the history of how the faith community, 2-3 decades after the events of Jesus' life, saw their messiah and how their faith had developed. There is history of the emerging church in Paul's letters. But I do not find adequate support for the claim that the gospels are a historically accurate relating of the life of Jesus.

Of course they would choose the writings that the church always used as historically accurate and toss out imposters. duh. And why would someone outside of the Church even know about them or care?

They wouldn't. That does not change the fact that our sources are all from the same general community, so the possibility/probability that they are historically tainted by the developing theology of that community is real.

I was just giving a plausible explanation. Kinda like what you claim to be doing.

Possible - I agree. Plausible? No. Plausible includes the concept of probable, and I simply don't see your scenario as very probable. I cannot refute, however, that it is possible.

[shunyadragon]

I truly do not get this point of view. When a "prophecy" is so open-ended that it stretches off into essentially infinity, how can the lack of current day fulfillment say anything at all? For all you know, it will be falsified in 1000 years when you are long since dead and gone, and you will have pinned a belief on something that turns out to be false. How do you get around that dilemma?

The reason why I avoided the discussion on Babylon in 'prophecy' is that it is so open ended and a difficult discussion. The reason I brought up the prophecy of Tyre is that it is specific, and a failure of prophecy. Many apologists refer to the rocky low island of Hercules as the ancient city now submerged, but the actual walled fortress ancient city and Temple of ancient Tyre is well known and on the higher island documenting specifically that the prophecy failed. See referenced maps based on the archaeology.

[Sparko]

There are many different types of "information." Sparko. Information about how to cook a particular type of bread can be passed down accurately from generation to generation because of its utility and role. Stories about who did what when, less so. Even information about what is in our own memory about our own life has been shown to be highly malleable. I would need to see something that has shown that this did not apply to earlier societies. As I noted, I have heard the claim repeatedly. I have never seen a formal, peer-reviewed study that does the groundwork of showing it to be true.



Tacitus and Josephus are indeed a spattering, and also were not contemporaries. Josephus was born just after the believed date Jesus' execution, so his writings are likewise about the Nazarene community a few decades after the events reported. Tacitus was born two decades later. While they mention the Nazarene community, and relate things being said ABOUT Jesus, neither was a contemporary or eyewitness, so they are essentially relating heresay. From their writings there is more than enough evidence to substantiate that Jesus lived and that he was seen as a miracle worker by the Nazarene community. Being seen as a miracle worker 3 decades later and actually BEING a miracle worker are simply not the same thing.



I haven't complained at all. I am merely pointing out what I can and cannot accept as evidence and why. The NT lacks the criteria "different sources," for the reasons cited. That weakens their historical claim. They are not contemporaneous. That weakens their historical claim. With few examples, they cannot be shown to be written by eyewitnesses. That weakens their historical claim. And they assert events that defy rational explanation. That weakens their historical claim.

There IS history in the NT. It is the history of how the faith community, 2-3 decades after the events of Jesus' life, saw their messiah and how their faith had developed. There is history of the emerging church in Paul's letters. But I do not find adequate support for the claim that the gospels are a historically accurate relating of the life of Jesus.



They wouldn't. That does not change the fact that our sources are all from the same general community, so the possibility/probability that they are historically tainted by the developing theology of that community is real.



Possible - I agree. Plausible? No. Plausible includes the concept of probable, and I simply don't see your scenario as very probable. I cannot refute, however, that it is possible.

I am sorry but all this just sounds like excuses and handwaving to me. Different types of information? Really? That's your excuse? You know perfectly well what we are discussing and it isn't recipes. And I told you to talk to Apologiaphoenix about the oral tradition and he and Adrift both gave you several books on the subject.

And yes you are complaining. or dismissing. You have reason after reason to not deal with any evidence presented to you. You will say the gospels are too alike, then they are too different. Then there are not enough sources. Yet looking at historical documents that you probably do accept, and the world accepts uncritically are usually from one source written hundreds of years later and you are not denying all of recorded ancient history. It seems to be your way of pushing away things you don't want to deal with. The books end up on your reading list, or you don't want to read what JP Holding writes, or something.

oh well, I think I will just sit back and read for a while.

[carpedm9587]

I am sorry but all this just sounds like excuses and handwaving to me. Different types of information? Really? That's your excuse? You know perfectly well what we are discussing and it isn't recipes. And I told you to talk to Apologiaphoenix about the oral tradition and he and Adrift both gave you several books on the subject.

I KNOW it isn't recipes. That was my point. Some things can pass from generation to generation without error - largely because of their utility. Other things are subject to incredible variation, even when it is memories about the self. The body of evidence about the malleability of memory is simply too large to ignore. That's not hand-waving; it's documented study after study. The ease with which "memories" can be implanted is been documented over and over and over again. But the claim that the ancients were somehow free of this effect has been asserted without any substantiation. And I am the one hand-waving? Really?

And yes you are complaining. or dismissing.

Complaining - no. Dismissing - possibly. It is my practice to hold in abeance claims for which there is inadequate evidence, and to dismiss claims that counter my existing worldview when there is inadequate evidence. I am pretty sure that is what all reasonable, rational people do. It is, essentially, why you are dismissing my arguments.

You have reason after reason to not deal with any evidence presented to you. You will say the gospels are too alike, then they are too different.

I did not say they are not "too alike," I said they arise from the same community - so cannot be claimed to be from independent sources (especially since 3 of the gospels source (at least in part) from a common document. I'm not sure where the "they are too different" comes from. I went back over my posts and don't see that anywhere.

Then there are not enough sources.

...independent, sources - which weakens the historical claim. Sparko - ANY historian will tell you that. When the evidence comes from a single source, it is weaker than when it arises from independent sources. It's basic historical science.

Yet looking at historical documents that you probably do accept, and the world accepts uncritically are usually from one source written hundreds of years later and you are not denying all of recorded ancient history.

I'm not sure what documents you refer to, but part of acceptance of a document as historical has to do with consistency. Again, common historical practice. The claims made in the NT are inconsistent with my understabding of how the world works - ergo some of those claims have a weakened historical validity.

It seems to be your way of pushing away things you don't want to deal with. The books end up on your reading list, or you don't want to read what JP Holding writes, or something.

I can only read so may things at one time. (I could read more if I posted less )

The best I can do is take the books recommended to me, add them to my list, and get to them as I get to them. It leaves everyone dissatisfied, but you'll have to deal with it. Everyone wants me to read THEIR recommendations right away. I only have one pair of eyes.

oh well, I think I will just sit back and read for a while.

Good idea!

[carpedm9587]

The reason why I avoided the discussion on Babylon in 'prophecy' is that it is so open ended and a difficult discussion. The reason I brought up the prophecy of Tyre is that it is specific, and a failure of prophecy. Many apologists refer to the rocky low island of Hercules as the ancient city now submerged, but the actual walled fortress ancient city and Temple of ancient Tyre is well known and on the higher island documenting specifically that the prophecy failed. See referenced maps based on the archaeology.

Understood. Thanks!

[Jedidiah]

No one said anything about "making up." Memory is an unreliable thing. It is perfectly plausible that the events they described and believed in did not happen as they related them, and they were being perfectly honest about it.

Are you seriously suggesting that they all forgot that they had made up a story? Sure memory is unreliable but you are suggesting something quite extreme here.

[carpedm9587]

Are you seriously suggesting that they all forgot that they had made up a story? Sure memory is unreliable but you are suggesting something quite extreme here.

No - not extreme at all. And "made up" doesn't have to have anything to do with it. Studies have shown that people regularly incorporate stories from others into their own memory (this happened to me, so I have first hand experience); systematically embellish their own stories, which are then incorporated into their own memories; can have their memories significantly altered by pressure from loved ones, community, or any authority figure; or build a false memory right at the outset due to pre-existing biases. This is not extreme - it is everyday occurence. Time magnifies the effect. This is not speculation - it is a studied, demonstrable phenomenon.

[shunyadragon]

Understood. Thanks!

Actually, there are many more specific unfulfilled prophesies that have failed. I may bring up a few more.

[lee_merrill]

Actually, there are many more specific unfulfilled prophesies that have failed. I may bring up a few more.

Glad to discuss them!

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Glad to discuss them!

Blessings,
Lee

OK! . . . but as yet you have failed to acknowledge the fact that the archaeology of the city of Tyre that the fortress walls, major city and Temple are on the higher main island, and were never under water, and the city of Tyre has been continued to be occupied since the conquest by Alexander. The Hercules Island may have been part of the ancient city and is presently underwater due to rising sea Level never impacted the major city of Tyre.