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

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

See-- here's the thing.

IF there WERE an actual GOD, who had 1/10th as much EGO as the bible describes? (I mean-- in the infamous 10 commandments, the first 4 are wasted with ego-stroking. Come on...)

THEN it is automatic that all FALSE christians would be killed for daring to be false, and ruining the good name of 'christian'.

The bible is very clear: Remember that dude who simply wished to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling off the ox cart? Put out a steadying hand? *BAM* Dead Right There.

The fact that this never-EVER happens to ANYONE, regardless of which Brand of Christian™ they claim? (be it a Genuine Christian™ brand or one of those ... "fake" ones?)

Says to several degrees of Proof: There is no god behind any one of them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Usually a scholar is someone with a PhD, or at least an MA, from an accredited university.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

See-- here's the thing.

IF there WERE an actual GOD, who had 1/10th as much EGO as the bible describes? (I mean-- in the infamous 10 commandments, the first 4 are wasted with ego-stroking. Come on...)

THEN it is automatic that all FALSE christians would be killed for daring to be false, and ruining the good name of 'christian'.

The bible is very clear: Remember that dude who simply wished to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling off the ox cart? Put out a steadying hand? *BAM* Dead Right There.

The fact that this never-EVER happens to ANYONE, regardless of which Brand of Christian™ they claim? (be it a Genuine Christian™ brand or one of those ... "fake" ones?)

Says to several degrees of Proof: There is no god behind any one of them.

You are cherry picking verses instead of reading in total.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Usually a scholar is someone with a PhD, or at least an MA, from an accredited university.

Indeed. And? More and more, these people are recognizing that Christian Privilege (wherein certain assumptions are made in it's favor, with respect to History) is no longer a acceptable.

And they are re-examining the Myth of Jesus-- and finding it doesn't actually hold up under close examination.

And never really did....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are cherry picking verses instead of reading in total.

Nope. You got it 100% backwards, there bub.

Reading the WHOLE bible-- including it's many verses in support of "proper" slave keeping?

Is how I became an actual atheist in the first place (or a major part of why).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Indeed. And? More and more, these people are recognizing that Christian Privilege (wherein certain assumptions are made in it's favor, with respect to History) is no longer a acceptable.

And they are re-examining the Myth of Jesus-- and finding it doesn't actually hold up under close examination.

And never really did....

Oh blah blah blah. You are refusing to accept that there are many Christians who qualify as scholars. There is a lack of consensus.

We are not going to convince each other, and are just going round and round. Let's just agree to disagree agreeably.

 

[lukethethird]

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.

Jesus was an historical figure? Eye witnesses you say, that's quite a claim.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

On the other hand, if you told somebody else your account and we get our account of the events from them, we are not getting an eyewitness account. This is the case with the Gospels - none of which were written by their namesakes.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Oh blah blah blah. You are refusing to accept that there are many Christians who qualify as scholars. There is a lack of consensus..

Of course christians can qualify as a scholar-- just so long as they put aside their fervent beliefs, when examining evidence. This happens all the time, in fact. There are even former christians, who have studied this very issue, and that convinced them that Jesus is just a myth-- which is why they are 'former'.

To do anything else? To cling to traditional beliefs that go against where the evidence leads? Is to give up the title "scholar" and replace it with "apologizer" or more accurately, "liar".

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
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.

How do you come to that conclusion? From what do you know it?

Jesus birth? No contemporaneous writings outside the Bible.
Jesus life? No contemporaneous writings outside the Bible.
Jesus death? No contemporaneous writings outside the Bible.

Within the Bible? A whole lot of writing that looks like first-person accounts but isn't. Extensive quotations of unwitnessed conversations. Word for word quotes from lengthy sermons like the Mount that couldn't have been accurately recorded.

Remember the guy who died and his body disappeared? I guess he woke up and walked to a different town and then went to heaven.



Do you believe what Joseph Smith wrote about the angel Moroni and the Golden Tablets? Why not?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus was an historical figure?

This is the consensus of scholars.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

On the other hand, if you told somebody else your account and we get our account of the events from them, we are not getting an eyewitness account. This is the case with the Gospels - none of which were written by their namesakes.

Parts of it come from the original eyewitnesses.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course christians can qualify as a scholar-- just so long as they put aside their fervent beliefs, when examining evidence. This happens all the time, in fact. There are even former christians, who have studied this very issue, and that convinced them that Jesus is just a myth-- which is why they are 'former'.

To do anything else? To cling to traditional beliefs that go against where the evidence leads? Is to give up the title "scholar" and replace it with "apologizer" or more accurately, "liar".

They are perfectly able to maintain their traditional beliefs, yet remain objective when they examine the evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Parts of it come from the original eyewitnesses.

How is this possible when they were almost all written anonymously decades after their death?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How do you come to that conclusion? From what do you know it?

I'm content to lean on the consensus of scholars. I'm surprised you aren't.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How is this possible when they were almost all written anonymously decades after their death?

They are not written anonymously.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They are not written anonymously.

Yes, they were. Literally all of the Gospels were written anonymously.

SOURCE: Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia

I'm actually getting quite baffled - how do you not know this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Parts of it come from the original eyewitnesses.

How do you know that? All you have for support is the Bible and circular reasoning. The lack of support for Jesus outside of the Bible is why so many parts of it are unlikely to be correct.

 

[lukethethird]

They are not written anonymously.

It was thought that the gospels were accounts written by the names of those ascribed to them, but that no longer seems to be the case, although there are scholars that insist they got the names right and that they are historically accurate. Apparently the earliest references to Gospels with names ascribed to them first appear in the late 2nd century. The first known attestation to a written Gospel is to a copy of Justin Martyr, about 150CE, he sometimes quoted and referred to them as "Memoirs of the Apostles."

 

[ecco]

I'm content to lean on the consensus of scholars. I'm surprised you aren't.

I'm on board with the consensus of scholars.

On the other hand, you are the one who continues to use words like "eyewitnesses" and attributes the authorship of the gospels to actual people actually named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those are not the views of the consensus of scholars. Maybe they were 150 years ago - not today.