Atheists Pressure MI School District to Stop Treating the Birth of Jesus as Fact

[ecco]

Matthew, Peter, James, and John were eyewitnesses, yes. Were their writings later embellished, yes.

How would you define "embellished"?

Is this mere embellishment...

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
​

How about this...

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
​

Where, oh where does it end?

​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

LOL! It is you who is stuck back when the "best" scholarship still believed that the 4 gospels were written by the apostles named in their titles.

This is now been shown to be absolutely false, as the writings (from language analysts among other methods) all date from a minimum of 60 years too late to be "eyewitness".

Most date even later-- 90, 120 years and worse.

So if people are teaching as you say? They are being highly disingenuous, considering what we know now.

But that's the way of the indoctrinated: never let actual facts get in the way of what you desperately need to be "true".

If you think that most scholars in the field don't teach that Jesus was a historical person, you are way out of touch with what in going on.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think people matter. But fundamental, zealot christians? Dig the giant massive hole for themselves, because they are too often bigoted, judgmental and horrible to non-chrisitans.

I put up a whole thread on toxic congregations, so I understand that you have been terribly hurt, and I am very sorry. In some cases, such as when fraud, physical abuse, or sexual abuse takes place, I think the law should step in. But as for their beliefs, I think freedom of religion applies. I've been Orthodox myself, and I think that "fundamentalist, zealot" groups CAN exist without being toxic. (That's not to say that SOME Orthodox groups aren't toxic.)

I find that the New Atheists are just as horrible to Christians. Apart from simply giving them the cold should socially, their sort of abuse, although wrong, should also be legal.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But we have absolutely none of their writings whatsoever.

There is no good reason to believe that Matthew, Mark (who wrote for Peter), John and his epistles, and the letters of Peter were not written by those apostles. Scholars simply disagree on this. And the scholars who think others wrote those books STILL agree that Jesus existed as a historical person, which is the origin of this subthread.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

ecco said: ↑​

Are you asserting that these "people" were eyewitnesses?




So what do you know that the vast majority of Biblical scholars don't know?

Please provide evidence to support your claim that "Matthew, Peter, James, and John were eyewitnesses".

Yes, I think we have the edited writings of eye witnesses. I'm basing this on what I read from scholars, who really don't agree, so no one can really appeal to them about this.

However, it is the consensus of scholars that Jesus was a historical figure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you think that most scholars in the field don't teach that Jesus was a historical person, you are way out of touch with what in going on.

Most think of him as a historical person, but regard the accounts of him as a mixture of history, legend, and myth. The birth story, which is the topic of this thread, is largely seen as mythical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no good reason to believe that Matthew, Mark (who wrote for Peter), John and his epistles, and the letters of Peter were not written by those apostles. Scholars simply disagree on this. And the scholars who think others wrote those books STILL agree that Jesus existed as a historical person, which is the origin of this subthread.

The general consensus appears to be that they were not written by who whom they were named after. The earliest was thought to have been written at least a generation after the time of Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How would you define "embellished"?

Is this mere embellishment...

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
​

How about this...

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
​

Where, oh where does it end?

​

Embellished. The virgin birth. The bodily resurrection. Feeding thousands from a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish. The woman caught in adultery. The entire ending of Mark. The trinitarian formula at the end of Matthew. I could go on and on. I think both of the examples you gave are embellishments (either by the original author or later authors), not eye witness accounts. After all, the disciples weren't even present at these events. Jesus was a man and a Jew. He taught Torah, although not that of bet Shammai, which was in power during his teaching years. It is Paul who established Christianity, not Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Most think of him as a historical person, but regard the accounts of him as a mixture of history, legend, and myth. The birth story, which is the topic of this thread, is largely seen as mythical.

Well I would agree with exactly that. Jesus was a Jew who taught Torah, argued with the Pharisees of bet Shammai, and for some reason came to believe that he had to die.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The general consensus appears to be that they were not written by who whom they were named after. The earliest was thought to have been written at least a generation after the time of Jesus.

I believe there is no consensus on this, thus there is no side that can appeal to authority.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe there is no consensus on this, thus there is no side that can appeal to authority.

The more serious scholars, those that concentrate on the language and history of the era tend to be in agreement. The ones that oppose this tend to be Christian apologists and I give them little to no credibility at all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The more serious scholars, those that concentrate on the language and history of the era tend to be in agreement. The ones that oppose this tend to be Christian apologists and I give them little to no credibility at all.

I disagree with your analysis. There are plenty of Christian scholars who are recognized by their peers. And I wouldn't limit it to them. For example, some scholars note that the gospel of John (the last gospel to be written) was written after the Temple was destroyed, but before Jerusalem was destroyed. That makes John an old man, but very much alive. Of course I'm talking about REAL scholars. You do get individuals from fundamentalist Bible colleges who think they are scholars but have never studies the breadth of interpretation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is no good reason to believe that Matthew, Mark (who wrote for Peter), John and his epistles, and the letters of Peter were not written by those apostles.

Yes there is. The gospels of Matthew, Mark and John and the Epistles of Peter were written towards the end of the first century, long after their deaths. Once again: no first-hand eye witness accounts of Jesus' life exist.

Scholars simply disagree on this.

They don't disagree on the ages of the texts.

And the scholars who think others wrote those books STILL agree that Jesus existed as a historical person, which is the origin of this subthread.

But not the point that I was objecting to. I have no objection to regarding Jesus as a historical figure - I objected to your assertion that there is more reason to believe he existed than Socrates and that we have eye-witness accounts of his life. We do not.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑​

Are you asserting that these "people" were eyewitnesses?
So what do you know that the vast majority of Biblical scholars don't know?
Please provide evidence to support your claim that "Matthew, Peter, James, and John were eyewitnesses".

Yes, I think we have the edited writings of eye witnesses. I'm basing this on what I read from scholars, who really don't agree, so no one can really appeal to them about this.

So, no evidence to support your claim that "Matthew, Peter, James, and John were eyewitnesses

However, it is the consensus of scholars that Jesus was a historical figure.

That's a different argument altogether.




ETA: However we have contemporaneous writings and we have the Bible. Contemporaneous writings are silent on the subject of Jesus. If the Bible is shown to be made up stories by made up authors, then there remains little to support the idea of a historical Jesus.

 

[ecco]

Embellished. The virgin birth. The bodily resurrection. Feeding thousands from a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish. The woman caught in adultery. The entire ending of Mark. The trinitarian formula at the end of Matthew. I could go on and on. I think both of the examples you gave are embellishments (either by the original author or later authors), not eye witness accounts. After all, the disciples weren't even present at these events. Jesus was a man and a Jew. He taught Torah, although not that of bet Shammai, which was in power during his teaching years. It is Paul who established Christianity, not Jesus.

Riiiight! If all the big important stuff is "embellished", that doesn't leave much.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They don't disagree on the ages of the texts..

Actually they do. And most would say that Mark was written around 67-70 CE at the most a mere 35-40 years after Jesus. That's pretty gosh darn good. Some say earlier than this, as early as 50 CE. These witnesses wrote down their memories in their old age, to make sure what they remembered would be passed down.

Furthermore, remember that the synoptic gospel used as a resource the document or memorized oral tradition Q, which would have dated even earlier.

I'm not saying that there aren't real scholars that share your views. I'm merely saying that the experts don't agree, so neither of us can appeal to their authority.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Riiiight! If all the big important stuff is "embellished", that doesn't leave much.

It certainly leaves enough to know that Jesus was a historical person, which is what the original question was.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually they do. And most would say that Mark was written around 67-70 CE at the most a mere 35-40 years after Jesus. That's pretty gosh darn good.

But it's still not during his or its namesake's supposed lifetime, and therefore cannot possibly be an eyewitness account.

Some say earlier than this, as early as 50 CE. These witnesses wrote down their memories in their old age, to make sure what they remembered would be passed down.

Except that there is no evidence that any of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses. The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.

Furthermore, remember that the synoptic gospel used as a resource the document or memorized oral tradition Q, which would have dated even earlier.

Irrelevant. It is still not an eyewitness account if it is recording what other people have said.

I'm not saying that there aren't real scholars that share your views. I'm merely saying that the experts don't agree, so neither of us can appeal to their authority.

I'm not appealing to their authority, I'm pointing out that your claims don't have any validity to them, so your comparison to the historicity of Socrates is moot.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But it's still not during his or its namesake's supposed lifetime, and therefore cannot possibly be an eyewitness account.

What are you talking about????? If I am molested, and the pedophile dies, and I come forward, I am still giving an eyewitness account.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If you think that most scholars in the field don't teach that Jesus was a historical person, you are way out of touch with what in going on.

You really need to re-examine the meaning of the word "scholar". Hint: it does NOT mean some person who read the bible a lot, and claims to "know it" in their "heart".

Modern University biblical scholars-- (hint: bible schools are NOT actual universities) do not agree with you.

It is people such as yourself who are out of touch with reality.