Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

quote:

---

You are asking great questions.

---

Thank you.

quote:

---

I am trying to imagine if I were looking at it from the perspective of someone who has not grown up being taught that scripture is true. What would I have heard about Christianity? Jesus is kind of what my mind goes to, as I am interested in things that don't really make sense

---

I'm afraid that I can't give you that perspective. Rather I have the perspective of someone brought up to believe, but came to reject it.

quote:

---

Since only a few of the books in the NT are written by eye witnesses, do these eye-witnesses agree? To what degree do they deviate?

---

I'm afraid that the authorship is so uncertain that we can't say for sure if any of the NT books were written by eyewitnesses.

quote:

---

To what degree do the gospels disagree? Do they REALLY disagree? If they do, is there a reason or purpose? What is changed?

---

It's well known that they do disagree. Which is even more surprising when we consider the amount of copied text found in the Synoptics (Mark, Matthew, Luke) - it's not certain who copied who, but the most common view among scholars is that Mark was the first, and the authors of Luke and Matthew copied from Mark. There's text in common in Luke and Matthew that doesn't come from Mark but how that happened is even more contentious.

quote:

---

. To what extent CAN we reliably tell Jesus' beliefs? What texts demonstrate these things. Jesus was largely very cryptic and rather odd in his conversations with people. It is difficult to get a grasp on what he believed, as there is no "Here is a list of theological concepts Jesus believed and taught while he was here" chapter anywhere. But what did he teach? Really? And there is the component of translation. How much of a difference would it have made to the meaning of what he said? All valuable questions.

---

It gets even more interesting when we consider that historical enquiry into Jesus has pretty much hit a dead end. Every attempt to reconstruct Jesus as a historical figure has tended to end up reaffirming the reconstructor's ideas about Jesus.

quote:

---

This demonstrates that there were some limitations to the incarnation. Omniscience appears to be one of them, according to this text. This speaks to the sovereignty of the Father and the sacrifice Christ made to even become human, but doesn't really say much about Jesus' theological positions. Born and raised a Jew, Jesus would definitely have believed in creation--one text that exemplifies this is his comments on the Sabbath:

---

But, of course, if Jesus believed these things because he was brought up as a Jew then his belief is of no value in determining the truth. If you want to appeal to divine knowledge than Jesus' belief has to be the product of divine knowledge.And the statement on the Sabbath could as easily be a reference to the Law as to creation. All it requires is a recognition that Jewish religious law mandated Sabbath observance. There's no need to even take the story of Moses literally, let alone the Creation account of Genesis 1.

First, you say . . .

quote:

---

Science, by definition, is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

---

Then you say . . .

quote:

---

Science, by definition, only tests the natural world.

---

Notice how the two definitions do not match up. The first definition makes zero mention of the natural world. It is YOU that is arbitrarily splitting the world into areas that you will allow science to test claims, and areas that you won't let science test claims. You and only you are drawing this line. Talk about your lazy assumptions. . .Why can't science analyze claims about deities? Just because you say it can't? You are right. It is probably not in your favor to judge religious belief on the basis of reason and evidence. I will grant you that much.

Ah I see. Yours is a valuable viewpoint to the discussion then! I am interested in how you see things. There is validity here. But to say that none of the NT books were written by eyewitnesses of Christ is a little much. While it is not believed the books of Mark and Luke were written by eyewitnesses of Christ, the books of Matthew and John are pretty confidently thought to have been written by the respective apostles, who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. But there is only so accurate one can get with these things. We can infer, based on what we know. Sure. There are variances. There are differences. But we cannot assume that since there are differences the text is invalidated. It would be like saying since you and your friend saw a fire, and then wrote about it years later, because you disagree on some detail in the story the fire did not occur. The writers were human.What you're talking about is called the "Synoptic Problem." Despite their position in the canon, Mark is thought to have been written first, and it is known that both Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark. You could say they used Mark as sort of a skeleton document or an outline to base their gospels. This does not invalidate the text, it is only an example that outlines are helpful. Luke and Matthew also seem to both quote from an unknown source, commonly called the "Q" source. (From the German word, "Quelle" meaning Source"). It is thought to be a collection of sayings of Jesus, being distributed even before Mark was written, but this is not confirmed.I write all this to assert that differences in the text do not necessarily discredit the story. Everything has a purpose I would be interested to see some research in this area. Would that mean then that both christian and non christian historians have done this research and come to conclusions based on their presuppositions? Or that they both come to the same conclusion? Great point. Jesus' comments on the Sabbath are not conclusive. But Jesus claimed to "come from the Father." He makes statements in John like:

quote:

---

Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. - John 8:42

---

Further, John makes the assertion:

quote:

---

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. - John 1:1

---

So apparently, Jesus knows He is from God. He knows he is God. He claims to be all the time. Not only does He know he is God, John claims that He was with God in the beginning. If Jesus is God, he was there at creation. He did the creating. Making sense? What all this leads to is a model of authenticating Jesus before coming to a conclusion about Creationism. If Jesus existed, and was who he said he was, creation is validated in my mind. This is a very bare bones model of my thought process, and as I stated earlier I would like to flesh it out and present it in its entirety at some point.Regards!- Raph

Bleh. My bad, thanks for calling me out Taq. I didn't realize I tried to define science twice and ended up contradicting myself. Let's try this again Let's say science can test the supernatural. In fact, sure, it can. What sorts of methods would you use to test the claims of God? Or the supernatural? What kind of experiment would you propose? Would you invoke the power of Zeus? Call upon Aphrodite by intercourse with designated prostitutes? Summon Ba'al or Molech by sacrificing an infant? These are some examples I can think of for ancient/near ancient times. I am honestly curious to see what kind of experiment you propose I was a little forceful. All I'm saying is if we are going to examine my perspective on creation, let's examine the norm I use as my basis for concluding creationism. My argument is that creation is a faith based position based on the claims of scripture. Therefore, if you are wishing to examine my reasoning, we must examine scripture in order to determine the validity of my position.In this quest, we can, and must use science. I look forward to it. - RaphEdited by Raphael, : added a line while eating pb&j sandwich

quote:

---

There is validity here. But to say that none of the NT books were written by eyewitnesses of Christ is a little much. While it is not believed the books of Mark and Luke were written by eyewitnesses of Christ, the books of Matthew and John are pretty confidently thought to have been written by the respective apostles, who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. But there is only so accurate one can get with these things. We can infer, based on what we know.

---

The evidence for John having been written by an eyewitness is not great (and the primary author certainy did not witness everything in the book nor write the entire Gospel). Matthew is in fact very unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness. Your source, I am afraid us more than a little biased, for example refusing to admit that many Bible scholars - likely a majority - believe that Matthew is derived from Mark, or pointing out that the Matthew we know is not the document referred to Papias, differing both in the language and content.In fact I am afraid to say that most apologetic sources - perhaps especially those with a conservative bent - are not trustworthy.

quote:

---

Sure. There are variances. There are differences. But we cannot assume that since there are differences the text is invalidated. It would be like saying since you and your friend saw a fire, and then wrote about it years later, because you disagree on some detail in the story the fire did not occur. The writers were human.

---

It's more than the differences we would expect between eyewitnesses. For instance the version of the Olivet Discourse in Luke is quite different from the one found in Mark and Matthew (which are almost identical). And if we include Acts, the author of Luke places the post-resurrection appearances all in and around Jerusalem, while Matthew places them in Galilee. If you believe that the author of Matthew was an eyewitness, how could he forget Jesus having appeared in the road to Emmaus,telling the disciples to stay put? And all the events mentioned in Acts leading up to Pentecost?

quote:

---

I would be interested to see some research in this area. Would that mean then that both christian and non christian historians have done this research and come to conclusions based on their presuppositions? Or that they both come to the same conclusion?

---

Actually I mean that Christian historians have come up with drastically differing opinions.

quote:

---

So apparently, Jesus knows He is from God. He knows he is God. He claims to be all the time. Not only does He know he is God, John claims that He was with God in the beginning. If Jesus is God, he was there at creation. He did the creating. Making sense?

---

If John is right, and you must admit that even if the author of John was a disciple, he was not an eyewitness to the creation :-)

quote:

---

What all this leads to is a model of authenticating Jesus before coming to a conclusion about Creationism. If Jesus existed, and was who he said he was, creation is validated in my mind. This is a very bare bones model of my thought process, and as I stated earlier I would like to flesh it out and present it in its entirety at some point.

---

I think you would have to limit yourself to what Jesus said about creation, bearing in mind the context, the audience and the limits of memory, transmission and translation. That isn't going to be much.

I would agree with you, the source perhaps is a little biased At the same time, I believe we are coming to the same conclusion. There is not certainty, but we can infer, and there is general consensus. And that begs the question, "why is Luke's version a little different?" We can't just throw it out because it's different, everything has a purpose. Did Matthew forget? Or did he leave it out on purpose because there is a specific point he is trying to convey? Each writer was trying to convey a specific message to a specific audience. For Matthew, it was originally thought he was writing to Jews, but as he relies heavily on the septuagint, those who could read Greek are his audience. Luke is writing to Gentiles. There was a reason they each include different things, to emphasize different things and make specific points. So to say that the message of both is invalidated because there are discrepancies doesn't make sense in my mind. There is purpose Ah, this makes sense. Valid point . But if we're reading scripture, we have a accept it as it is, and the claims it makes. The books claim their authors were inspired and led by God in writing. I don't see this as a cop out; this is where faith comes in. I don't think so at all. I see where you're coming from, seeing where Jesus mentions creation can definitely be part of concluding in creationism, but if we're accepting that Jesus existed, and He was who He said He was, namely, God, we have to accept that He was there at the beginning. Even if John hadn't stated this, it would be inferred.

quote:

---

58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58

---

Regards!- Raph

quote:

---

I would agree with you, the source perhaps is a little biased At the same time, I believe we are coming to the same conclusion. There is not certainty, but we can infer, and there is general consensus.

---

Sure but the fact that our Matthew does not match Papias' description, and the indications that our Matthew is based on Mark allow us to infer that our Matthew is NOT an eye-witness account. It would be a very odd eye-witness who copied parts of somebody else's account!

quote:

---

And that begs the question, "why is Luke's version a little different?" We can't just throw it out because it's different, everything has a purpose.

---

It's more than a little different. To me it looks as if the purpose was to talk up Jesus' prophetic abilities by making the "prophecy" more closely follow the events, after the fact.

quote:

---

Did Matthew forget? Or did he leave it out on purpose because there is a specific point he is trying to convey? Each writer was trying to convey a specific message to a specific audience. For Matthew, it was originally thought he was writing to Jews, but as he relies heavily on the septuagint, those who could read Greek are his audience. Luke is writing to Gentiles. There was a reason they each include different things, to emphasize different things and make specific points. So to say that the message of both is invalidated because there are discrepancies doesn't make sense in my mind. There is purpose

---

So, in your view, Matthew's account is intentionally distorted and inaccurate for the benefit of his audience. I would call that dishonest. Why would you think that ?

quote:

---

Valid point . But if we're reading scripture, we have a accept it as it is, and the claims it makes. The books claim their authors were inspired and led by God in writing. I don't see this as a cop out; this is where faith comes in.

---

I'm sure you place great faith in the people who told you that, but it isn't true.

quote:

---

I don't think so at all. I see where you're coming from, seeing where Jesus mentions creation can definitely be part of concluding in creationism, but if we're accepting that Jesus existed, and He was who He said He was, namely, God, we have to accept that He was there at the beginning. Even if John hadn't stated this, it would be inferred.

---

Which doesn't change the fact that we have very restricted knowledge of what Jesus said, and even assuming those reports to be accurate (a big assumption in itself) we have to be very careful in going beyond what they actually say.For instance:

quote:

---

quote:

---

58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58

---

---

Did Jesus say it? Did he use those exact words? Could the "I am" - a very odd phrasing in English! - actually be a reference to God rather than Jesus ? Could it refer to a general preexistence ? There are certainly a lot of uncertainties here.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Thus you quite likely accept logic, reason, and reality and shun faith...for the most part?When you critically examine historicity arguments both pro and con for the Bible, are you cooly unbiased in your acceptance and/or rejection and conclusions?

quote:

---

Thus you quite likely accept logic, reason, and reality and shun faith...for the most part?

---

Depends on what you mean by "faith". I've seen enough equivocation on that. I'm prepared to accept the views of genuine experts as trustworthy, unless there's reason to believe otherwise.

quote:

---

When you critically examine historicity arguments both pro and con for the Bible, are you cooly unbiased in your acceptance and/or rejection and conclusions?

---

I believe that would be generally true.

Exhibit human ignorance and based on human ignorance are two different things.You can get some of the story wrong, but basing the story entirely on made up events simply because you lack any knowledge of how something came to be is what I meant by "based on human ignorance." Well isn't that convinient?Frankly, then, how did anyone ever experience or know about god to begin with if god is outside our ability to experience him?If, as you claim, we can't do science, god and the supernatural are unable to be sensed by any of our senses.So, how did anyone ever know about god or the supernatural if they are completely undetectable? It has ALL the makings of a totally made-up story. How do you reconcile that? Then you prove the point that you are basing it on ignorance. You must believe because you lack a certain amount of evidence. You must have faith because there is a lack of evidence.This is the entire point. It is based on ignorance. What type of god and why you believe in that one over any other you could have, by sheer randomness, been born into doesn't really matter.- Oni

We should accept what is applicable to a certain situation and shun what is not applicable. When logic, reason and reality are applicable, why would we not use them? Faith is only acceptable when we can not use logic, reason and reality.

The Bible says that there is was a recent global flood. We can test for that.The Bible says that life was created 6,000 years ago in separate events. We can test for that.Christians claim that God heals them through prayer. We can definitely test for that to see if prayer protects people from getting sick.Look at all of the scientific theories that people claim must be false in order for their god to exist and for their religious texts to be true.Perhaps the most revealing test of all is to watch theists deny that any test could detect the supernatural. In order for no test to be applicable, it would mean that the supernatural would have no effect on the world around us. They are, in essence, fighting over a realm that has no bearing on ours at all. It might as well not exist since non-existence and existence are indistinguishable.At the end of the day, the supernatural is an invented term that theists use to protect their claims from the normal process of testing and falsification. Imagine if I said that my beliefs were not testable because they are French. Would that make sense? Guess what? It doesn't make sense when you claim that they are supernatural. Those would work fine for me.At the end of the day, if the actions of the supernatural are indistinguishable from natural processes, then we have demonstrated that the supernatural does not exist on one extreme, or completely superfluous and irrelevant on the other side of the spectrum. Take you pick. You can stop there. Something doesn't become true because you want it to be true. That's not how reality works.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

We tend to look for a scientific explanation because doing so in the past has been extremely productive and helpful.We tend not to take supernatural claims that seriously because not one of them has ever turned out to be verifiably true.Given the track record of supernatural explanations, can you really blame us? Why should we keep using a method that has never worked? Even the proponents of supernatural explanations don't think it is worth their time or consideration. If they did think supernatural claims were worthwhile, they would be doing the research. They aren't. I think that says it all. When did having an open mind mean that we should consider faith based beliefs as being equal to evidenced science?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I am not familiar with the writings of Papias, to be honest. But for the sake of argument let's say Matthew was not an eyewitness account. In fact he probably was not, as the letter is anonymous. This still does not invalidate the text for me. This simply means there is not certainty. Which is frustrating, I feel it too We have to make sure to state, and know, that this is not a "proof" study. We can look at the evidence, and we can infer. Similar to the scientific process. But at a certain point, at least for me, clamouring for certainty becomes just as cloudy as relying on uncertainty . For what purpose? To communicate to the Jews a Messiah they did not believe or expect? To benefit the almost non-existent political power of the church? To convince people a person named Jesus existed, so they would internalize counter-cultural standards for loving people, justice, and ethics? This seems like a bit of a stretch, friend. I do not think so at all. I believe the writer was human. I believe the writer wrote in Greek so those who spoke Greek could read it. And I do not believe leaving out one detail is in any way dishonest. Or that consensus on every detail automatically means honestly. This is what I have stated.Let's take the American legal system for example. If you have a group of witnesses to a murder who all tell the exact same story, with 0 variation, one would begin to get suspicious. But if some have different perspectives and emphasis, it is less so. When in a similar situation, it is natural for us to emphasize different things, and even legitimately remember different things. But when the general flow of the story matches up across different witnesses, this lends more credibility to the story, it does not detract from it. Alright, this is fair, let's forget the whole inspiration issue for now. It is kind of a cop out. But at the end of the day, this is a faith issue. This cannot be proven. We can look at what we know, and for me personally, I can look at my personal experience, and we can infer based on the available data. I cannot give you some magic text that will make everything make sense, but we can look at what we have, and what it points to. Sure. But we don't need to be timid or lazy about this. If we want, we can take a look at every place Jesus claims divinity (within context.) There are many. I believe the point still stands.

quote:

---

58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58

---

Great questions! He did, in fact.

quote:

---

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

​

---

I would ask the exact same questions. For Jesus to claim "I am existing," or "I AM" would be a pretty bold statement to an audience of Jews who all know (probably memorized) the story of the burning bush in the OT, where the G-D of Moses names Himself, "I AM." Jesus does this many times. It's not as straightforward and simple as we want, I understand, but it is pretty apparent.

quote:

---

I am not familiar with the writings of Papias, to be honest. But for the sake of argument let's say Matthew was not an eyewitness account. In fact he probably was not, as the letter is anonymous. This still does not invalidate the text for me.

​

For what purpose? To communicate to the Jews a Messiah they did not believe or expect? To benefit the almost non-existent political power of the church? To convince people a person named Jesus existed, so they would internalize counter-cultural standards for loving people, justice, and ethics? This seems like a bit of a stretch, friend.

---

That's a pretty nonsensical objection. We'd expect ALL the Gospel writers to talk up Jesus' abilities. It's a bit of a surprise that Luke would deviate so far from Mark's text, but the direction of the deviations is completely unsurprising. Convincing potential converts - and believers - that Jesus was a genuine prophet is not an unlikely motivation at all.Perhaps more importantly making excuses without actually considering the facts is irrational and a sign of a closed mind.

quote:

---

I do not think so at all. believe the writer wrote in Greek so those who spoke Greek could read it. And I do not believe leaving out one detail is in any way dishonest. Or that consensus on every detail automatically means honestly. This is what I have stated.

---

But you claim that he deliberately tried to cover up the events in and around Jerusalem following Jesus death. That's not "leaving out a detail". You suggested that the author of Matthew deliberately omitted major events, even going to the lengths of implying that they never happened. Everything from the encounter on the Road to Emmaus to the Ascension and Pentecost, an inconsequential detail ? Do you REALLY believe that or are you just throwing out excuses without bothering to find out what you're talking aboutI must confess I don't understand this attitude. How can the IDEA that the Bible is reliable be so much more important than what the Bible actually says ?

quote:

---

Alright, this is fair, let's forget the whole inspiration issue for now

---

I would say that the inspiration issue itself is not important. That your sources are misrepresenting the Bible, on the other hand, IS important. Ask yourself, why would they do that ? How can you trust them if they make claims that they ought to know to be false ?

quote:

---

Sure. But we don't need to be timid or lazy about this. If we want, we can take a look at every place Jesus claims divinity (within context.) There are many. I believe the point still stands.

---

In fact the issue was what Jesus believed about the Creation. But I suggest you DO look at the places where Jesus claims to be God - or supposedly does so. See how many come from John - see if you can find one clear example that is NOT from John.

quote:

---

Great questions! He did, in fact.

---

How can you know that. Ancient historians going back to Heordotus felt free to invent speeches. Why should the Gospel writers feel any differently ? Even if they were eyewitnesses how could they remember speeches word for word decades later ?

quote:

---

I would ask the exact same questions. For Jesus to claim "I am existing," or "I AM" would be a pretty bold statement to an audience of Jews who all know (probably memorized) the story of the burning bush in the OT, where the G-D of Moses names Himself, "I AM." Jesus does this many times. It's not as straightforward and simple as we want, I understand, but it is pretty apparent.

---

Which is in itself good reason to suspect that he didn't say it. In Mark, Jesus commands the disciples not to let people know that he is the Messiah. Openly claiming to be God - a far more dramatic claim - is hardly consistent with that.