RE: Alpha episode 2: Is there more to life than this? Join the Alpha Course for a share of the SBD from this series of posts
This video produces absolutely no evidence for the existence of a biblical Jesus. The so called proof that is given for the validity of the New Testament by the use of textual criticism is fatally flawed right from the very beginning. The whole argument is dependant on the fact that the original document is true and not some fabricated story. This cannot be proven. Indeed, the modern text of the New Testament in use today differs in many ways from the earliest bibles that we know about. The Bible has been altered throughout history to help serve political and religious agendas. There are so many inconsistencies in the Bible that it just cannot be used as a reliable basis for an argument for the existence of Jesus. Unfortunately, this is what this video goes on to do. From around 12 minutes onwards all the so called evidence is based solely on the New Testament which, as just mentioned, cannot be treated as reliable. So, to answer the first part of this weeks question, I believe that Jesus as a person did not exist because of the reasons that are given above. In answer to the second part. The video did prompt me to research the ideas behind textual criticism and the early origins of the bible. Besides that, it did nothing but further convince me that religions can be built only on faith and not facts.
Thanks for posting @nextgen622. It certainly promotes thought and stimulates conversations.
On whether Jesus existed:
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][32][33][34] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[35][36
Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Thank you for your comment @wilx.
A quote from the article you linked to:-
This use of Christian writings produces a circular argument, therefore this negates any so called evidence the article uses.
Bert Ehrman was a born again fundamentalist Christian as a teenager, changed to being a liberal Christian and now says he is a secular agnostic. He is still a professor of religious studies at The Department of Religious Studies, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I would be inclined to take what he says with a pinch of salt.
Many of the authors used as sources are biblical scholars and could be said to be biased. Maybe protecting their careers?
Nothing in this article shows any proof of Jesus.
Historians have their methods for determining the factuality of something; most all, Christian or not, agree he existed according to those methods. This is not arguable, secular ones will tell you this themselves, have heard a couple do so. Ehrman is a known agnostic no one who knows of him will ever accuse him of being a closet christian. Feel free to research this further to confirm this all, if you wish.
Hello again @wilx and thank you for continuing the discussion.
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Jesus except for what has been written by Christian believers (see these links here and here). His followers claim extraordinary things about this person yet all they can point to are writings by anonymous authors. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary and incontrovertible proof. Christianity has never been able to provide that.
Well profesional historians will disagree with you. Here's an interview on a radio show with Ehrman explaining why (with YouTube description):
Non-Christian agnostic historian, Bart Ehrman, is invited on to an atheist radio show apparently in the hope that he will argue against Jesus being an historical person. However, much to this atheist surprise and disapointment Ehrman argues why no serious historian (including himself) denies Jesus' historicity!
This is all very well but again he can offer no proof as to the existence of Jesus apart from writings done by believers. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus which is remarkable given the things that are supposed to have happened around him. If someone raised people from the dead, could feed five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes and have earthquakes etc when they died on the cross (to name only a few things he was supposedly involved in) then surely someone, somewhere, would have written about it separately from the believers. There is nothing.
Let me ask you this. I take it that you believe that Jesus existed based on what the Bible says. Do you believe everything else in the Bible?
Ok. I sat through the video. Will you, in turn, please take the time to read the following article here which gives a good summary for why a belief in Jesus isn't based on fact and also gives a good reason why certain historians may asert Jesus existed.
Thanks for the discussion.
Tnx for the discussion, thing again is that it's not just certain historians it's most all, their professional methodology leaves them with an undeniable conclusion.. your argument is with them, all who read this can draw their own conclusion on this.
Tnx but am knowlegable of all the reasons why the non-professionals give for their beliefs, and tho worthy of some thought after such and study found them as wanting as the pros..
Best to you in this classroom of life.
This is a really bad historian if he is telling you that the proof is in Pual's writings. If you read Galatians (Galatians 4 verses 22-24) Paul tell those with eyes to see that this guy has no idea what he is talking about.
Hi maninayton,
Have you ever looked into the validity of the New Testament?
If you don't mind, I'd like to share some information about how preserved it's been in comparison with other ancient documents. There are several that can be used for comparison, but I'll add just a few to keep this short, and give you a link where you can check out the accuracy of this, plus you can search for the info yourself.
The New Testament has a 99.5% level of accuracy in comparison with the original documents, and most biblical scholars agree that it was written within 70 years following the death and resurrection of Christ.
Homer's (Iliad) trails behind that at a 95% level of accuracy and was copied 500 years after the original texts.
Sophocles and Aristotle trail behind the above two with no proof of accuracy and both were copied 1400 years after the original copies.
There are fragments of the Gospel of John that date back to AD 125 that are virtual copies of the original and match up at nearly 100, with slight translation variations, that hold the same meaning.
Link to info on the "Rylands Library Papyrus"
With the documented information that we have today, one would have to disregard all of the other ancient writings as there are none among all those listed above, as accurately preserved as the Bible.
Link to Article with References
Hello, @livingwaters. Thank you for your comment and for taking the time and trouble to provide the links. Unfortunately, the argument you use for the historical accuracy of the Bible is misleading. It doesn't matter if the copies of the Bible were 99.5% accurate (a claim that I doubt anyway), if the original was a made up story to begin with then any 'evidence' taken from that source will be false. There is no evidence that the original gospels were true - they are more likely to have been written by believers to promote their particular religion. Also bear in mind the authors of the gospels were not eye witnesses to any of the events contained in the gospels which in itself can be a major source of error.
Both Matthew and John who wrote two of the Gospels comprising the New Testament were eye witnesses. In fact, they spent over three years with Jesus.
All of the gospels are considered to have been the work of anonymous writers between 70 and 110 CE. Links here and here.
There were no eye witnesses. Everything the Christian religion (and all other religions for that matter) is based on is hearsay.
Thanks @maninayton for taking the time to reply. The question I have for you is why do you believe the sources you provide are credible, reliable and valid? It doesn't seem to me that any of those sources are credible, peer-reviewed articles or scholars/authorities in their field, and how can they be trusted? Seems like what you say about Christians pushing a particular agenda is true in those instances. With any belief system, you need evidence to support your claims. I haven't seen any evidence to support the claims of Atheism that prove God doesn't exist. I would like to hear your views on that too.
You said There were no eye witnesses. Everything the Christian religion (and all other religions for that matter) is based on is hearsay.
What evidences do you have to support your claim that there were no eye witnesses and everything was based on hearsay?
Would appreciate hearing more specific arguments/evidence you have to support your claims above. Thanks again for your contributions to the discussions. I'm enjoying our discussion too.
Atheism doesn't need evidence to support non-belief. I don't believe in any god just as I don't believe in fairies because there is no supporting evidence. There is no need for me to prove God doesn't exist for it is religion as a whole that is making extraordinary claims and therefore needs to provide extraordinary evidence. It doesn't and until it does I won't believe (and that applies to any to any religion by the way). The sources I provide point out errors and inaccuracies in the bible which can be verified by just looking through one, they do not make claims of a supernatural being. As to eye witnesses, there is no contemporary eye witness accounts of anything a person called Jesus did or said. I would have thought that someone who is supposed to have performed miricles would have created something of a stir and would have been committed on. There is nothing. If you can provide a contemporary account I would be interested to see it. Till next time - take care.
Hi again @maninayton,
Atheism like any other belief system requires evidence or else you are simply jumping into its claims with blind faith. If you said you were agnostic, then you don’t need to prove anything, because you would be unsure about whether God exists. But since you believe in Atheism, Atheism claims that there is definitely no God, and the universe and life came into existence without any intelligent design and intervention. If you looked at the extraordinary number of factors that is required for life to exist on Earth and the improbability of this happening, you would know that the claim of Atheism is arguably an even more extraordinary claim. So yes, you would need to provide evidence supporting your claim that without any doubt, there is no God/intelligent design, and the universe was a coincidence.
You said The sources I provide point out errors and inaccuracies in the bible which can be verified by just looking through one, they do not make claims of a supernatural being.
Well, the sources you provided aren’t credible. They are websites that no serious scholar/authority in their field would take seriously. The inconsistencies are either taken out of context or misunderstood. For example, the original text of the OT and NT were in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, not English, so scrutinizing over English words without understanding of the original and without understanding of the whole context of the Bible is not credible.
As to eye witnesses, there is no contemporary eye witness accounts of anything a person called Jesus did or said.
Although I disagree with you about the authorship of the four Gospels. Taking the authorship issue out of the equation. Just because the author may not be an eye witness, doesn’t mean their sources weren’t eye witnesses. Just as our modern day news and history is usually not written by the eye witnesses themselves, but is rather written by journalists and historians who interview eye witnesses to collate their account of what happened, more so in Jesus’ time, accounts were usually passed around first orally. Not sure if you’ve read thrugh all four Gospels yourself, but the detail in the Gospels are pretty vivid, and it takes a lot of faith to believe that all of this was made up.
In addition, I previously talked about archeological evidence that proved people and places in the Gospels were all accurate.
I would have thought that someone who is supposed to have performed miricles would have created something of a stir
Not sure how much of a stir you need, but the fact that we are talking about him 2000 years later, billions of people throughout history worshipping him as Lord, lives transformed, and many willing to die for him isn’t enough of a stir, then I don’t know what is.
The fact that it didn’t create more of a stir among people at the time, was because the Jewish religious authorities and Roman ruling authorities at the time wanted to suppress what had happened to save face and keep control of the people.
Until next time, Jimmy
Just because the document is accurately preserved does not validate the information.
Thank you @maninayton for taking the time to watch the video and contribute to the discussion.
You mentioned that the Bible has been altered throughout history and that there are inconsistencies throughout the Bible. Can you please provide evidence to support your claims? What exactly has been altered and what inconsistencies are you referring to?
Also, what do you think about the references to the existance of Jesus by Jewish historian Josephus and secular Roman historian Tacitus? Here's a post that reference these historians.
One final question, do you believe any historical document is reliable and why?
Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion.
Hi @nextgen622. Thank you for your comment. It is now 03:10 in the morning here and sleep beckons so in order to answer your questions I will provide some links rather than type out a lengthy comment.
These two links here and here cover the bible alterations.
These two links here and here cover the inconsistencies.
This link deals with Josephus while this link deals with Tacitus
and finally
I believe a historical document is reliable when its authenticity can be verified and facts within the document can be proven to be correct.
If you wish I will enter into a more prolonged debate on these and any other points at a later date.
I'm enjoying this - thanks to you and all contributors.
I'm wondering about this statement:
"Indeed, the modern text of the New Testament in use today differs in many ways from the earliest bibles that we know about."
I've never really heard that claim before. What's it referring to?
I believe it's well supported that Jesus the human person existed (and of course I believe He's at the same time God), and that the New Testament as well as the whole Bible is reliable.
It didn't take long, for one thing, for there to be churches. And they were remarkably united, despite being distances from each other. There is so much historical and day-to-day information not only in the Gospels, but in the letters of the apostles. The book of Acts is never claimed to have a very late date. The apostles' letters show well-established churches. Then there's also the theory held by, I think, secular scholars, that there's a source for the synoptic Gospels that's not in existence anymore - Q. If secular scholars can believe this Q exists, then it's not hard to believe either that the material from the Gospels came from records made by Jesus' own apostles that weren't preserved.
Hello @doule and thank you for your comment. I'm sorry it has taken me a while to reply.
To save a lot of typing I have placed a link here to an article which explains the convolutions and in fighting that went on before the Bible came into existence in the form we know today.
You said:-
Here is something to think about. There is an interesting article here which shows the remarkable similarity between the story of the Greek god of wine Dionysus (or Bacchus) and that of Jesus.
Coincidence?
I am just seeing this comment line and let me just say there have been many books written about the crucified saviors one being "The world 16 crucified saviors"
That is because the story is astrological in nature. The story plays out every year in the skies constellations.
Hi, @geneticmemory and thanks for your comment. I haven't seen the book you refer to but I have recently discovered the work done by Dr Richard Carrier. He makes many references to pre Christian myths that tell of 'crucified saviours' and how aspects from those were incorporated into the Jesus story.
As a follow-up. I have done some further research on the book you mentioned and there are concerns about its reliability. Richard Carrier does a write up about it here.
Given what is said, I would treat anything contained within the book with caution.
I am just seeing this. I'm new to steem and not very good at seeing when a reply is posted. In that regard, the platform still needs help as a social media outlet. I will look at the web page you have posted. I will, however, say anyone attempting to rebut that the story is astrological in nature would be hard for me to believe. Because there is no way to change what happens in the heavens. And many Christian authors use the line the devil did this or that. And there for today it is often hard for many to know where caution should be used.
Sorry @geneticmemory but I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that the story of a saviour is preordained by astrology or that the movement of the stars (astronomy) was interrupted by people as playing out a saviour story?
What I am saying is, the story is an allegory of what happens in the sky (astronomy). What you may not realize is that astronomy is the astrology of old. The same astrology that the church condemned. The church could not say that we condemned it (astrology) then but now that people know that this thing (astrology/astronomy) is being studied we can not now agree with it. So it should be renamed to astronomy. That's the back story you never hear of but could have realized it yourself if you had given it some thought.
By the way thank you for your replies.
https://dtube.video/#!/v/geneticmemory/lfd3kxwv
"To save a lot of typing I have placed a link here to an article which explains the convolutions and in fighting that went on before the Bible came into existence in the form we know today."
Your link took me to the footnotes so I'm not sure exactly what you wanted me to see. If the whole article, then I've read and studied many works like that before, so I'm familiar with the arguments. I won't even try to go into them all, but it's simply not true that the New Testament was only established in the fourth century. The New Testament was established by the Holy Spirit from the beginning of the Church. That makes it an infinitely stronger text than the U.S. Constitution, which was written only by men.
"Here is something to think about. There is an interesting article here which shows the remarkable similarity between the story of the Greek god of wine Dionysus (or Bacchus) and that of Jesus."
I'm familiar with those supposed similarities as well. I remember taking note of some of them back in high school, when I was a Christian who knew little about Christianity and didn't live by faith or know almost anything about the Bible.
On that, then, I would say first that when Jesus was casting out demons, they knew Him. According to God's Word, the whole existence of the universe is in Him. "In Him we live and move and have our being." And in this world and in human beings there's a spiritual dimension, and not only does God respond to it, but Satan does as well. The Bible says he can appear as an angel of light.
In no way, then, does it surprise me when in some superficial aspects of Jesus' life seems to have similarities to some of the false gods of the world. I took a quick look at Dionysus on Wikipedia earlier and they have a whole section comparing him to Jesus, but note that the supposed similarities don't impress many scholars - and I assume they mean secular scholars since Wikipedia is in no way Christian or conservative.
What's truly incomparable to me is how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament and further reveals what's in it.
Hello again @doule and thank you for your reply. I'm sorry the link didn't work correctly but you seem to have found the article I was referring to.
Surely this is something of a circular argument. To believe in the Holy Spirit you have to believe in the Bible and to believe in the Bible you have to believe that the Holy Spirit had a part in creating it. The only way you can square the circle on this one is to take it all on faith (as you seem to have alluded to later in your comment). No disrespect intended @doule but to my mind to rely on faith alone you have to abandon all rational thought and critical thinking.
May I ask you this question. From the way I read this in relation to what you wrote just before hand, do you believe that these 'false gods' existed?
I look forward to your reply.
But there's a circular nature to any belief system. Once people form firm beliefs about something, they see things through those beliefs. If I'm not mistaken you identify as atheist? Then isn't your immediate tendency when something challenges your atheism is to seek to defend atheism?
We all take things on faith all the time. If you go to a place you've never been before, and go to sit down in a chair, I'm sure you usually have faith that it's not going to collapse underneath you. But sometimes people might say to someone about a chair that appears to be safe, "don't sit there, it's broken" or otherwise warn people when something looks to be safe but they know it isn't. But pretty much we take things on faith because what we already know, or believe that we know, about someone or something outweighs what we don't know, or don't know yet. So yes I believe in the Holy Spirit and take what the Bible says on faith.
"They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not."
In most if not all cases, they're demons, and the worship of them is satanically inspired.
Hello, @doule and thank you once again for continuing the discussion.
I would just like to go over a couple of points you made:-
I don't have a need to defend atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in a god or gods because of the lack of evidence. If you, or anyone, presented new evidence for the existence of a god then I would look at it, evaluate it and either retain or alter my position accordingly dependent on the results of that evaluation. I am quite willing to alter my views if the evidence is sound enough.
I don't take things on faith all the time. It isn't faith to sit on a chair without fearing it's collapse. It is an expectation built on experience of all the other times I have safely sat in chairs that this one won't fail. Faith is what you require in order to believe in something without any evidence for it.
Could I ask you, and please don't answer if it makes you feel uncomfortable in any way, but what experience did you have that convinced you that the Holy Spirit exists?
And I would imagine a lot of other religions say the same about your god. Why is yours any different from theirs?
I look forward to your reply. Take care till next time.
Hello again, @maninayton. I've been working on replying but other things came up. I can't agree with the definitions and assumptions in that paragraph, which I've seen other atheists use too. It's like they're devised to avoid some real difficulties.
Atheism isn't just the simple denial of something - God's existence. It's a world-view that makes many of its own claims about existence.
And there's plenty of evidence for God's existence, which is why even outside of Christianity and Judaism the possibility of God has always been taken seriously at the least.
The Bible speaks of the natural evidence of God's existence - all of the wonders of this world - and says it's obvious to everyone that there's a Creator. I wrote a post on this subject just recently.
In the atheistic view, the universe came to life and became self-aware and self-conscious by human beings coming into existence, and atheism also claims that not only might all that have happened accidentally, but it definitely did.
So, then, you're definitely sure that it was by accident that somehow out of the "Big Bang" came all of this order, and its richness, including most of all beings that make the universe capable of consciously experiencing itself? Do you really not see even the possibility that there may be a spirit world, and a spiritual purpose for this world's existence?
Actually, it is, because if you haven't tested it beforehand, then you don't know if it's safe or not. It is a matter of needing less faith rather than more faith, at least in the wealthy parts of the world with good furniture and things tend to be maintained, but it's still faith nevertheless.
Well, how about this? From the atheist viewpoint, the universe is at best ambiguous, in terms of whether or not everything has come about through accident, or was created by an all-powerful being. Yet the atheist feels assured that he has the answer, and that it definitely came about by accident. There's truly no definitive evidence for that claim, but the personal opinion of the atheist.
Before I go any further, let me ask you something. It would help me to answer your other questions. What is it that you like so much about atheism?
Well said @doule.