Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

I can show you that the entire ending for Mark (after 16:8) was added at a later time. Jesus' famous "cast the first stone" story was a later addition. These are changes that are not in dispute.

Yes, but those were added very early on. And more importantly, they aren't evidence of systematic tampering.

How is it possible? Be sure to address the theological fuck-ups of Mark that Matthew corrects and how and why Mark would have ignored these corrections in your answer.

Mark 1:2-3: As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,
the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’”

Malachi 3:1:
“Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me.
Isaiah 40:3:
A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Do you see Matthew try to correct this "error"?

Of no consequence since a different author wrote Acts.

Why do you think a different author wrote Acts?

[Godscreated]

I was enjoying our debates, but if you're going to stoop to such low levels I will lose interest quickly.

I lost interest when you suggested Jesus' dinner date with his disciples could have lasted 40 days in order to reconcile the contradiction with Acts, even though the narrative of Luke 24 spells out everything happening within a 24 hour period.

It was at that point I just wrote, "you just go on believing that". That's not a concession. It's an expression of "I'm wasting my time trying to reason with you."

I did not even begin to suggest that Christ tarried at dinner for forty days and you know it, you're trying to protect your a stupid statement. I never said you gave a concession either, you're imagining things to defend what you wrongly think. You also did nothing to prove a 24 hour period.

GC

---

I still can't understand your reply, you have not answered what your opinion is about the conflicting info. He tarried 40 days doesn't answer which is correct.... He hung or was he crucified

I said nothing about forty days. I gave you verses from scripture and you ignored them like most atheist do.

GC

---

They are one and the same, different ways of expressing what happened. Besides the Romans were very efficient in their method of killing. Prove the apostles did not write the NT.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that the apostles, or eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry, did write the New Testament.

No it's not, the claim was made by MsTricky, when one makes the claim one needs to explain why they believe their claim.

Even the most conservative commentators acknowledge that we do not know for sure who wrote the four gospels. Nobody signed them and the authors never explained their connection to the subject matter. The headings "According to Matthew, According to Mark, etc.) were added decades later on the basis of traditions handed down by the Church Fathers.

And that's proof of what exactly, it doesn't eliminate the apostles.

We are reasonably sure that Paul wrote half of the epistles attributed to him. As for the others, like it or not, Ehrman is quite right that forgeries were common enough in the ancient world. Galen, the pre-eminent physician in 2nd century Rome, was outraged to find a book for sale under his name, which he had never written. Tertullian, a very early Church Father, records that a forger tried to pass off a third letter to the Corinthians. You have no way of knowing that a forger did not slip by Ephesians or 2 Thessalonians, which appear to differ in style and content from the other epistles. Anyway, what authority does Paul have as a witness? He saw Jesus in a vision? Do you accept all the "visions" which modern Pentecostals throw out?

What makes you believe Ehrman knows any of them are forgeries. Forgeries where caught and eliminated, you yourself said so. Because there were forgeries you assume they found their way into the scripture, I believe they did not because all the NT lines up in it's teachings.

However, on the dispute about crucifixion vs. hanging on a tree, I will side with the Christians. Although the NT is riddled with self-contradictions, this is not one of them. It is one of those silly, out-of-context references to the Old Testament which pop up in the NT. Matthew and Paul are especially fond of doing that.

I assume you're speaking of OT verses that can through prophecy fit dual situations.

In Galatians 2:20 Paul says "I have been crucified with Christ" but then in the next chapter he says "But by becoming a curse for us Christ has redeemed us from the curse that the Law brings; for the scripture says, 'Anyone who is hanged on a tree is under God's curse.'" (Gal. 3:13) which is a reference to Deuteronomy 21:23. In Paul's mind crucifixion and hanging on a tree are equivalent so that he can see the crucifixion as foreshadowed in the OT.

Paul is trying to show us what Christ actually sacrificed for our redemption, he was absolutely correct in the way he used the OT verse to demonstrate part of Christ's real sacrifice. It's to bad that some here can't reason things well enough to understand what the scriptures say and in this case I'm not referring to you. Also when I refer to what the scriptures say does not necessarily always mean what they reveal.

GC

[Aractus]

I'm going to have to subtract points from the video for insulting atheists at the beginning. The radio host isn't a very good debater here. The bible is an unreliable and biased source and using it as proof of anything is absurd. It's like saying Solid Snake is a real person because Metal Gear Solid says so.

You're just trolling.

I'm only interested in intelligent/informed discussion in this thread.

The video has one atheist talking and arguing with another atheist.

• "I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus" - Ehrman
  
  "...I disagree with that, I mean what 'hardcore evidence' is there that Julius Caesar existed" - Ehrman
  
  "Regardless of the claim, one has to look at the historical evidence. And if you say that the historical evidence 'doesn't count', then I think you get into huge trouble because then why not just deny the Holocaust? Or why not deny that Abraham Lincoln lived? I think these things matter, I think it matters what happened in history" - Ehrman

Now I keep getting claims, throughout this entire thread, that these are just Christian apologetic's arguments - they aren't, they're the same arguments used by agnostic/atheist/secular historians/scholars.

• "But we don't have anything from when he was alive do we??"
  
  "But that's true of anyone" ... "We don't have anyone from that time talking to us now, all we have are ancient records. And all we have for Jesus are ancient records." - Ehrman
  
  "But we don't have any ancient records for Jesus written about him while he was alive, do we?"
  
  "No, absolutely not, just as we don't have for billions of people who lived in the past who we're pretty sure existed. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period. I'm not saying this as a believer, I'm not a believer, but as a historian I'm just saying that you can't just dismiss it and say 'well you know, we don't know', you have to look at the evidence, and there is hard evidence, I think." - Ehrman

What part of it, specifically, are you saying is "unreliable" and "biased", and do you agree or disagree with using gnostic texts also as evidence?

We all know Mark 16:16:9–20 is not an original part of Mark, nobody doubts that. Was it inserted deliberately? No I don't think so, I think a scribe would have added it at the bottom of the page in a codex (for whatever reason), and then later scribes copied into the main text.

But no efforts were made the conceal the original version, or any of that nonsense, and the mistakes of scribes can be undone with modern textual criticism.

[T.J.]

And I'm sure the person who debunks Bart Ehrman here is also just trolling?

Few “serious” historians also doubt the existence of Zoroaster, Buddha, the Old Testament prophets, etc. Questioning the existence of these characters is a new trend in historical research because the modern history writing fashion began in the 19th century with “serious” historians who did not question the existence of Moses, Abraham, or God. The reason so few “serious” historians question the existence of ancient religious figures is because the modern history writing of the late 19th century and early 20th century was dominated by some very obtuse people. The more critical thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment were replaced in the 19th century by those inspired by the beginnings of archaeological research. The early forays of Europeans in West Asia, Egypt, and the Mediterranean turned up artifacts that were interpreted as evidence that Bible stories were true or at least symbolically true. Later 20th century historians were faced with a mountainous task of disproving the earlier history. “Facts” in history are established by consensus; so, eradicating a false “fact” means persuading the consensus to change its mind. But, just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t make it true, even if those people are “serious” historians.

Maybe Ehrman just had a brain fart and couldn’t think of a better example off the top of his head; but, the evidence that Julius Caesar existed is better than the evidence for Paul, who no one doubts existed because he wrote letters. Julius Caesar wrote two books that are still read to this day and some other books that were cited in ancient sources. Also, Julius Caesar was a political figure and Jesus was a religious figure, claimed to be a god. Mythical gods were the central objects of worship in all ancient cults; so, the likelihood of Jesus being a mythical character is much greater than a political figure, like Julius Caesar. Also, all the stories about Jesus life are mythical tales. Jesus never wrote anything. His words are in the form of speeches, presented within the mythical tales about him. Ancient authors regularly made up speeches for the characters in their stories; both for real people and for fictional characters. So, the existence of those speeches is not evidence that Jesus existed.

There is a very good reason to believe Paul lied about knowing Jesus’ brother, James: Paul was crazy. Paul also believed he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul believed that he could talk with the supernatural, which qualifies him as "crazy" in my mind. There is no reason why James could not have been as mythical as Jesus and the rest of Jesus’ family, like his mother (a character obviously based on a goddess) and his father, a god. Early Christianity was polytheistic. As I demonstrate in my book, all of the characters in the gospel of Mark were based on mythical characters. Perhaps some of the characters were also real people; but, the story about them is pure myth.

The personal beliefs of the person making poorly constructed argument does not make them any less poor.

[xpastor]

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that the apostles, or eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry, did write the New Testament.

No it's not, the claim was made by MsTricky, when one makes the claim one needs to explain why they believe their claim.

OK, fine. The NT is filled with fantastic stories which violate the laws of nature. It is only one of many works from that era which do the same, e.g. Herodotus, Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana, virgin birth stories about Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Augustus. So why should we believe that the NT is true and other tall tales from that time are false?

Even the most conservative commentators acknowledge that we do not know for sure who wrote the four gospels. Nobody signed them and the authors never explained their connection to the subject matter. The headings "According to Matthew, According to Mark, etc.) were added decades later on the basis of traditions handed down by the Church Fathers.

And that's proof of what exactly, it doesn't eliminate the apostles.

It doesn't eliminate virtually every other literate person at that time and place. Actually when we specify literate persons we do eliminate the apostles. Peter and John are specifically said to be illiterate in Acts 4:13, and this is what we would expect of all of Jesus' immediate disciples who were manual workers from Galilee.

Too many Christians argue for the Bible from the basis of "it could have been thus." Could is the last refuge of the implausible. There could be a Loch Ness monster because the loch is very deep. There could be unicorns but we just haven't seen one yet. As Betrand Russell pointed out, there could be a teapot orbiting the sun in between the Earth and Mars which is just too small to be detected by our telescopes ... but the probability of its existence is negligible.

You have no way of knowing that a forger did not slip by Ephesians or 2 Thessalonians, which appear to differ in style and content from the other epistles. ...

What makes you believe Ehrman knows any of them are forgeries. Forgeries where caught and eliminated, you yourself said so. Because there were forgeries you assume they found their way into the scripture, I believe they did not because all the NT lines up in it's teachings.

You talk as if Ehrman is just making up this stuff out of thin air? Ehrman got a doctorate in NT studies under Bruce Metzger who was regarded by many as the greatest NT scholar of his time. More significantly still, Ehrman started off as a fundamentalist, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute. If it was so glaringly obvious as you imagine that the NT can just be taken at face value, I'm sure he would have been happy to accept it.

Here are his reasons for challenging two of the epistles attributed to Paul.

2 Thessalonians seems to present a totally different eschatology than 1 Thessalonians. In 1 Thess 5:2-3 (regarded as authentic) he warns "the Day of the Lord will come as a thief comes at night. When people say, 'Everything is quiet and safe,' then suddenly destruction will hit them! It will come as suddenly as the pains that come upon a woman in labor, and people will not escape." However, in 2 Thessalonians 2 he warns not to expect the end any time soon and he lists signs which must first happen:

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to be with him: I beg you, my friends, 2 not to be so easily confused in your thinking or upset by the claim that the Day of the Lord has come. Perhaps it is thought that we said this while prophesying or preaching, or that we wrote it in a letter. 3 Do not let anyone deceive you in any way. For the Day will not come until the final Rebellion takes place and the Wicked One appears, who is destined to hell. 4 He will oppose every so-called god or object of worship and will put himself above them all. He will even go in and sit down in God's Temple and claim to be God.

5 Don't you remember? I told you all this while I was with you. 6 Yet there is something that keeps this from happening now, and you know what it is. At the proper time, then, the Wicked One will appear. 7 The Mysterious Wickedness is already at work, but what is going to happen will not happen until the one who holds it back is taken out of the way. 8 Then the Wicked One will be revealed, but when the Lord Jesus comes, he will kill him with the breath from his mouth and destroy him with his dazzling presence. 9 The Wicked One will come with the power of Satan and perform all kinds of false miracles and wonders, 10 and use every kind of wicked deceit on those who will perish. They will perish because they did not welcome and love the truth so as to be saved. 11 And so God sends the power of error to work in them so that they believe what is false. 12 The result is that all who have not believed the truth, but have taken pleasure in sin, will be condemned.

Not at all the same picture of a thief coming in the night at any moment. In fact, to me it sounds as if the author of 2 Thessalonians has been reading Revelation, which was written long after Paul.

Most scholars are confident that Ephesians is not authentic on grounds of style and content.

This short epistle uses 116 words not found anywhere in Paul's undoubted writings. It is written in long convoluted sentences quite unlike the short choppy sentences he normally employs.

Paul says of himself in Ephesians that he lived "in the passions of the flesh, following its desires and senses." However, in his other writings he presents himself as a strict follower of the law, e.g, "According to the righteousness found in the Law I was blameless." (Phil. 3:6) There is also a striking contrast in the way he describes the Christian experience. In Corinthians Paul squelches the idea that the resurrection has already happened, that the Corinthians have already been raised up with Christ. However, in Ephesians that is exactly what he says: [God] "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (2:6)

[Godscreated]

No it's not, the claim was made by MsTricky, when one makes the claim one needs to explain why they believe their claim.

OK, fine. The NT is filled with fantastic stories which violate the laws of nature. It is only one of many works from that era which do the same, e.g. Herodotus, Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana, virgin birth stories about Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Augustus. So why should we believe that the NT is true and other tall tales from that time are false?

Why would you expect anything else, it is about God in human form, right. It is about salvation and an eternal existence with or without God. It is about the One who created all things and understands and created the laws of nature, even the creation would violate what we see as laws that can't be broken. But even though we stubbornly persist in this we can always find these laws being broken in the quantum world, right. As for those you mentioned mere mortals.

And that's proof of what exactly, it doesn't eliminate the apostles.

It doesn't eliminate virtually every other literate person at that time and place. Actually when we specify literate persons we do eliminate the apostles. Peter and John are specifically said to be illiterate in Acts 4:13, and this is what we would expect of all of Jesus' immediate disciples who were manual workers from Galilee.

Matthew was a tax collector, Luke a physician, Paul was very well educated. Peter, John and James were fishermen and business men. I'm not sure about the others and I know some we are not told what they did before becoming the Twelve Apostles. The scripture said they were not formally educated, they say nothing about them not being able to read. Go back to Acts 2:14-35, Peter was using scripture from Joel and David, does that seem like a man who was illiterate.

Too many Christians argue for the Bible from the basis of "it could have been thus." Could is the last refuge of the implausible. There could be a Loch Ness monster because the loch is very deep. There could be unicorns but we just haven't seen one yet. As Betrand Russell pointed out, there could be a teapot orbiting the sun in between the Earth and Mars which is just too small to be detected by our telescopes ... but the probability of its existence is negligible.

You say to many Christians argue "it could", well maybe you have been talking to those who do not try to learn, I say it did and will happen, why because I know God, I know He is real, He exists.
You know there "could" be atheist.

What makes you believe Ehrman knows any of them are forgeries. Forgeries where caught and eliminated, you yourself said so. Because there were forgeries you assume they found their way into the scripture, I believe they did not because all the NT lines up in it's teachings.

You talk as if Ehrman is just making up this stuff out of thin air? Ehrman got a doctorate in NT studies under Bruce Metzger who was regarded by many as the greatest NT scholar of his time. More significantly still, Ehrman started off as a fundamentalist, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute. If it was so glaringly obvious as you imagine that the NT can just be taken at face value, I'm sure he would have been happy to accept it.

No I'm saying He has a biased attitude toward scripture, just as Judas had a biased understanding of the scriptures and His teacher was Christ.

Here are his reasons for challenging two of the epistles attributed to Paul.

2 Thessalonians seems to present a totally different eschatology than 1 Thessalonians. In 1 Thess 5:2-3 (regarded as authentic) he warns "the Day of the Lord will come as a thief comes at night. When people say, 'Everything is quiet and safe,' then suddenly destruction will hit them! It will come as suddenly as the pains that come upon a woman in labor, and people will not escape." However, in 2 Thessalonians 2 he warns not to expect the end any time soon and he lists signs which must first happen:

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to be with him: I beg you, my friends, 2 not to be so easily confused in your thinking or upset by the claim that the Day of the Lord has come. Perhaps it is thought that we said this while prophesying or preaching, or that we wrote it in a letter. 3 Do not let anyone deceive you in any way. For the Day will not come until the final Rebellion takes place and the Wicked One appears, who is destined to hell. 4 He will oppose every so-called god or object of worship and will put himself above them all. He will even go in and sit down in God's Temple and claim to be God.

5 Don't you remember? I told you all this while I was with you. 6 Yet there is something that keeps this from happening now, and you know what it is. At the proper time, then, the Wicked One will appear. 7 The Mysterious Wickedness is already at work, but what is going to happen will not happen until the one who holds it back is taken out of the way. 8 Then the Wicked One will be revealed, but when the Lord Jesus comes, he will kill him with the breath from his mouth and destroy him with his dazzling presence. 9 The Wicked One will come with the power of Satan and perform all kinds of false miracles and wonders, 10 and use every kind of wicked deceit on those who will perish. They will perish because they did not welcome and love the truth so as to be saved. 11 And so God sends the power of error to work in them so that they believe what is false. 12 The result is that all who have not believed the truth, but have taken pleasure in sin, will be condemned.

Not at all the same picture of a thief coming in the night at any moment. In fact, to me it sounds as if the author of 2 Thessalonians has been reading Revelation, which was written long after Paul.

You are making the same mistake many Christians do when they talk about the supposed rapture. The meaning in 1st Thess. is about no one suspecting the return of Christ, just like the days of Noah no one but Noah expected the flood. Only the Christians will be ready for the second coming. 2nd Thess. gives a description of that terrible time for the unbelievers, yet it will be a glorious time for those who are raised from the grave and those who are alive and in Christ at the time. An honest question, how were you able to teach those in your church?

Most scholars are confident that Ephesians is not authentic on grounds of style and content.

This short epistle uses 116 words not found anywhere in Paul's undoubted writings. It is written in long convoluted sentences quite unlike the short choppy sentences he normally employs.

Paul dictated his letters, could it have been that the one writing down what Paul said in Ephesians was a different person, I just asking because many of Paul's letters came while he was in prison.

Paul says of himself in Ephesians that he lived "in the passions of the flesh, following its desires and senses." However, in his other writings he presents himself as a strict follower of the law, e.g, "According to the righteousness found in the Law I was blameless." (Phil. 3:6) There is also a striking contrast in the way he describes the Christian experience. In Corinthians Paul squelches the idea that the resurrection has already happened, that the Corinthians have already been raised up with Christ. However, in Ephesians that is exactly what he says: [God] "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (2:6)

Now I'm really confused as how you could have ever taught the scriptures. A pastor cherry picking you should know better, Phil. 3:1-11 Paul speaks of how he has no righteousness except through Christ, in verses 4-6 Paul is telling what a good no believing Jew he was, he was telling the people what a terrible life it was.
In chapter 2 Paul is not saying they are already risen, he says this is what is going to happen for the ones saved though Christ.

GC

[*Deidre*]

The two most important commandments Jesus taught his followers, if you believe the story, were "to love God with all of your heart and love your neighbor as yourself."

I've read your posts as I've come across them on here Aractus, and while you are very smart and articulate, you come across condescending and berating. You started a thread in the off topic section essentially mocking fat people. Calling them dumb. You've called people trolls and dismiss people who don't know Bible history quite like you.

Anyone can quote Scripture. Anyone can do extensive research relating to the history of Christianity. According to Christians, Satan himself can! lol So, what does your faith actually mean to you? That would be a more powerful testimony than scolding us and ridiculing our lack of Bible history knowledge.

If you believe in heaven, God most likely won't quiz you on your vast Bible knowledge. Instead, he may ask who did you love?

St. Francis of Assisi was noted as saying, "Preach the gospel, use words if necessary." Otherwise, why bother? People should be able to tell that your faith means something without you uttering a word. That is one of the reasons non believers get turned off.

Not judging you, not my place. But you are certainly not in a place to judge anyone who doesn't believe as you do. Just my two cents FWIW.

[Aractus]

Why necropost instead of posting in a more recent thread?

I've read your posts as I've come across them on here Aractus, and while you are very smart and articulate, you come across condescending and berating. You started a thread in the off topic section essentially mocking fat people. Calling them dumb. You've called people trolls and dismiss people who don't know Bible history quite like you.

Wow, nice way to generalize.

Yes I think most people are unbelievably stupid - I've said this dozens of times already, so what? My brother, who's 28, is a smoker - our father died of cancer at 48 and he is waiting for his own cancer? His best friend got Leukaemia a couple of years ago and nearly died, and he also smokes - I told him he should stop smoking, he says to me "why, I already had cancer" - and I said - "yes, but it doesn't mean you can't also get lung cancer". Hell I would have thought that going through that much pain and suffering would have scared him to death of getting cancer again, but I guess I was wrong.

Waiting for bad things to happen to you is not a good plan in life.

Anyone can quote Scripture. Anyone can do extensive research relating to the history of Christianity. According to Christians, Satan himself can! lol So, what does your faith actually mean to you? That would be a more powerful testimony than scolding us and ridiculing our lack of Bible history knowledge.

A lot of the atheist response on this forum towards certain matters of history are completely ignorant of the facts - of course I'm going to call people out on that. It's not because they "don't know" their history, but rather that they actually deny accepted history like say Holocaust Denial. As I've said many times, if you are going to present an alternate history to an event which is generally accepted by historians you need to present evidence.

St. Francis of Assisi was noted as saying, "Preach the gospel, use words if necessary." Otherwise, why bother? People should be able to tell that your faith means something without you uttering a word. That is one of the reasons non believers get turned off.

Not judging you, not my place. But you are certainly not in a place to judge anyone who doesn't believe as you do. Just my two cents FWIW.

So? Not everything has to be politically correct. Just because I say some things that people may not want to hear doesn't mean that it's because I hold them in contempt or anything of the sort.

[Zen Badger]

A lot of the atheist response on this forum towards certain matters of history are completely ignorant of the facts - of course I'm going to call people out on that. It's not because they "don't know" their history, but rather that they actually deny accepted history like say Holocaust Denial. As I've said many times, if you are going to present an alternate history to an event which is generally accepted by historians you need to present evidence.

And yet....you still haven't presented any evidence confirming either the actual existence or the divinity of your godboy.

How about dem facts matey?

[Aractus]

And look at that, Zen's trolling... some things never change.