Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (2 Viewers)

[Cazic]

Matthew was one of the first twelve disciples of Jesus (Matthew 9:1; 10:1-4) and therefore an eye-witness.

Mark was Peter's son (I Peter 5:13, possibly spiritual son), who wrote down what Peter said about who Jesus was, what He did, where He went and what happened; Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, an eye-witness account, written down by Mark.

Luke was a doctor and a co-worker with Paul (Colossians 4:14; Philemon v24). Because some spurious stories about Jesus were circulating, Luke decided to interview local eye-witnesses and people who had followed Jesus closely. Luke collated all the interviews into a single account, recording details not mentioned elsewhere, for example regarding the conception and birth of Jesus and Mary's extended family, as you might expect of a doctor.

John was one of the first twelve disciples of Jesus and therefore an eye-witness (John 19:35)

These are the Gospels of the Lord!

I'm sorry I don't have time to discuss each of the gospels tonight, but if I can start with the Gospel of John: I thought most scholars these days doubt that this gospel was written by John the apostle, but was instead written anonymously some time after the death of Jesus, and furthermore, very unlikely to be an eye-witness account. For instance, "An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity" by Delbert Royce Burkett discusses this at some length.

 

[Iron]

Ill take 2000years over 'Delbert' imo.

 

[Cazic]

Ill take 2000years over 'Delbert' imo.

Homer's Iliad is about 2800 years old, so should I consider it true based on this number alone?

 

[Iron]

Complete certainty is unattainable, but human testimony, properly checked, is a most certain means of arriving at the truth. You name one obscure critic of the gospel of John and assert that John was probably not a disciple or eye-witness. You are being unreasonable.

 

[Cazic]

Complete certainty is unattainable, but human testimony, properly checked, is a most certain means of arriving at the truth. You name one obscure critic of the gospel of John and assert that John was probably not a disciple or eye-witness. You are being unreasonable.

Do you doubt that I can't name many more scholars who agree with what I wrote? Or is it some other issue?

Another question, why does the author of the Gospel of John refer to himself in the third person? For instance, in John 21:24,

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.​

Seems a little odd.

 

[Iron]

John wasnt writing in english?

 

[Cazic]

John wasnt writing in english?

You're right, the author wasn't writing in English. But you're going to have to do a little better than "this is a mistranslation, and actually, so are all translations. In fact, the original text said what makes your argument wrong and my argument right".

 

[Iron]

I'm not a biblical scholar. I cant speak for the writing styles of the ancients, or the Jews, but would not be surprised if occasionally speaking in the third person was a common dramatic method in story telling. Or maybe he's reflecting that the Holy Spirit is the true author of the Word, guiding the human author in its perfect revealed truth. When you read the Bible, it's really God speaking to man.

But it seems pretty laughable to suggest that AHA GOTCHYA! THIRD PERSON, .: JOHN'S NOT WRITING! lol, given everything else we know.

 

[Cazic]

I'm not a biblical scholar. I cant speak for the writing styles of the ancients, or the Jews, but would not be surprised if occasionally speaking in the third person was a common dramatic method in story telling. Or maybe he's reflecting that the Holy Spirit is the true author of the Word, guiding the human author in its perfect revealed truth. When you read the Bible, it's really God speaking to man.

But it seems pretty laughable to suggest that AHA GOTCHYA! THIRD PERSON, .: JOHN'S NOT WRITING! lol, given everything else we know.

You wouldn't be surprised if <x, y or z stab in the dark> was true? Seriously mate, what's the 'critical thought' to 'blind faith' ratio like with respect to your belief? For something you probably hold pretty dear, you're doing it a pretty shitty disservice here.

Oh, and if you were a biblical scholar then you'd be well in the minority, since most biblical scholars agree that John the apostle did not write the Gospel of John. They've come to this conclusion based on biblical evidence/textual analysis (for instance, the quote I gave above), historical evidence and a good dose of critical thought. Thankfully, the higher ups in your church are probably better at incorporating the facts into their belief structure than "wouldn't be surprised if <x, y or z stab in the dark> was true instead".

Have a good night mate.

 

[Iron]

Why you little

This exchange started with you expressing a seemingly genuine desire to know if the gospels were written by eye-witnesses or not. I gave a simple answer which said that they basically were. If you want to get hung-up about how much St John actually contributed to the Gospel of John, or who wrote the prologue to the Gospel of John etc, be my guest. But you can lay your hidden snares for other unsuspecting good samaritans now pls.

 

[Teclis]

Forgive my ignorance, but can you please point me to these eye witness accounts backed up by outside sources? I'm very interested.

Further to Iron. Thallos, Mara bar Serapion, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus...

These back up quite a large number of facts in the Gospels.

I'm sorry I keep asking you to back up your claims, but I find it hard to believe such people exist. Can you give me an example of a single prominent atheist who is like this? Please do not just name someone who offers critiques of the existence of God. As I explained, this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do if you're invited to do so (for instance, an invited talk or televised debate).

I'm not talking about Big wigs (although one of the earlier chapters of the God Delusion is pretty confrontational)... I'm talking about every day atheists.

Do you even remember the conversation we've had? You accused Hitchens' and Dawkins' choice of a book title as a "ram it down your throat" tactic. I disagreed and stated that it is in fact Christians that tended to use "ram it down your throat" tactics, citing a few examples in the process.

Yes I do...

You then proceeded to defend the examples I gave and/or divided the group of Christians into subgroups. The later was presumably to establish some sort of precedent in order not to try and defend actions you didn't actually agree with by attributing said action to exclusively one group or the other (No True Scotsman). Feel free to correct me - clearly remember!

Not subgroups. People who label themselves as Christians, but don't follow the true practices of a Christian. Compared to those who call themselves Christians and base their lives around the salvation that comes through Christ Jesus.

The former attends Church maybe 4 times a year... on the census says Christian, knows their Sunday School tales, but that's about it

The latter attends Church regularly, meets in fellowship with other Christians, gets other Christians to keep them accountable, read their Bibles and pray regularly...

SIGNIFICANT difference.

 

[Serius]

I just read the first 10 pages of this thread and theres some interesting stuff in it, stuff i didnt think of before. Stuff KT, riet, Iron etc have brought up thats probably outside of the original scope of this thread.

Personally i have no real actual "hatred" of any one individual or even of any ideologies, but i do hate how some adherents behave towards others. I have no problem with religious people who follow their beleifs and leave others relatively alone, i do have a problem with, for example muslims who beleive all non muslims should convert or die, if anyone decided to convert to another religion, they should be executed, women should be executed for the crime of being raped, stuff like that....it all seems very backwards.

Christianity is one of the more beneign religions i have personally encountered, maybe most christians in Australia are just more liberal, take things more as metaphors etc, i dont know. Despite this, it is still a religion, still based on faith and feeling and spirituality[which most logical, scientific minded people reject] and because they are the most numerous in Australia and the most prominent, they attract a lot of ire from atheists that should probably be more directed at religion in general.

TLDR: christianity is only attacked more often than other religions on here because they are the largest group

 

[Greenmarsh]

Because most of the people that attack it are nerds who think they are smart by hating on God.