Christian Atheist?

[Ben Kenobi]

Not at all a fair comparison; Churchill wrote at a time when many other historical accounts were in circulation, and thus was not free to credibly write anything he chose. Here are two better analogies:

We don't have the records, but at the time there would be a number of different accounts what happened at that date, of Christ's death and resurrection. There were many, many eyewitnesses who were still alive, and thus the Gospel writers were not free to just 'make stuff up', they had to ensure that what they wrote was accurate to how the eyewitnesses remembered Christ and his mission. If they were not accurate, then those who are eyewitnesses would reject the Gospels, it is significant that they do not.

1) Would you doubt an account published of the rise and fall of the third reich written in 1965 by say Winston Churchill before he passed away -- once you knew that other, contradictory accounts had been systematically suppressed by Churchill supporters, and proponents of those other accounts had been persecuted?

How could the Christians suppress contrary accounts? Remember, this is in 50 AD, well before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. They even wrote about them in the Gospel, saying that the Jewish authorities admit that the tomb was empty, but they accuse the Christians of stealing the body.

2) Would you doubt accounts of Jesus's ministry if the only accounts we had were written by Roman officials and scribes in Herod's court?

Which is why he is mentioned by both Tacitus and Josephus, two historians of this time period, not to mention a few others. The analogy is valid. The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to his mission, who were there and intimately associated with Christ, no different then from Churchill writing a history of the rise and fall of the third reich in 1965.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ehrm, no offense, but there are written works made before that describes meetings with the both norse, greek, roman etc. gods Why do you consider these documents as lies while you without doubt belives documents just as (un)reliable when it comes to the christian god ?

Good question, which is why we have to assess the Gospels as a whole. Are they written as one would write a history? Do they talk about names and dates and places? The Gospel might seem strange to us today, but how does it stand up to other historians of the time? I think if you read the Gospel, it is very different then these other accounts, they are the history of Christ's mission here on earth.

[Ben Kenobi]

The timespan (compared to the avg. lifespan) also makes it more probable that the author of the Gospel of Mark was no eyewitness of most (or even all) things written therein himself, but rather had his knowledge from secondary sources, just writing the things he heard down (same goes for the later gospels which may even have used the gospel of Mark as their own source)

If he conducts an interview of Peter (who was alive at the time), would her testimony be considered a primary or a secondary source? What about Matthew who was a disciple?

Yes, all the gospels are different because of who wrote them. Luke is a physician so he includes different things, Matthew is a tax collector. John is the only one that could have relied upon the other ones being written some 30 years after them when he was older. But Matthew, Mark and Luke are all independent of one another, which is why they talk about the same event in different ways. John is also special because he includes things that only he was there for like at the last supper he goes into much more detail then the others as to what Christ said.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If he conducts an interview of Peter (who was alive at the time), would her testimony be considered a primary or a secondary source? What about Matthew who was a disciple?

Yes, all the gospels are different because of who wrote them. Luke is a physician so he includes different things, Matthew is a tax collector. John is the only one that could have relied upon the other ones being written some 30 years after them when he was older. But Matthew, Mark and Luke are all independent of one another, which is why they talk about the same event in different ways. John is also special because he includes things that only he was there for like at the last supper he goes into much more detail then the others as to what Christ said.

It depends on the stories,
for example regarding the birth of Jesus even all of the Apostles have to be seen as secondary sources, as none of them could possibly have been there and directly witnessed this event
Even Jesus himself would have been far too young at this event to be able to directly remember it, and therefore would only be able to tell his disciples the story like his parents told it.

As for the other things, if I remember correctly none of the Gospels have been, without doubt, written by the Apostles themselves. Even for Mathew for which you think that the author was the Apostle with the same name, it is highly disputed wether he was really the author or if it was someone else and the gospel was only attributed to him, so I doubt that any of the authors of the gospels could claim to be primary soruce for all of the events written therein .

AFAIK there are several theories of the origins of the gospels, most of them assuming that Markus was first and the later written Gospels of Lukas as well as Matthews often only refer to stories written within the Gospel of Markus as well as written within a source that is only known as Q (and of which no scroll has survived till today).

So AFAIK as far as independence goes, only John is believed to be independent of the other 3 gospels.

A Problem IMHO is also, that (as you see for Q) often books were selectively copied (with even the first surviving copies of Mark being dated after 100 AD) or even destroyed and therefore resulting in Gospels (that were considered by church fathers that lived 100s of years after Jesus to be non canonical) getting lost.

The most recent example being the Gospel of Judas which was only rediscovered 25 years ago and describes Judas (in contrast to the other Goespels) not as a traitor but as (according to one of 2 translations) someone who handed out Jesus not for his own gain but because Jesus wanted him to do it.

And there are also gnostic scriptures which paint a wholly different picture on Jesus.

I don´t say that any of the above mentioned gospels/writings are true, just wanted to say that there were probably many writings regarding Jesus during the frist centuries were lost 8many moe than in the Apokryphs) and that we, if we had access to all those scriptures that got lost or willingly destroyed (and were able to examine them with modern historic science), we might well get another picture of Jesus and his disciples than we have now.

[Ben Kenobi]

It depends on the stories,
for example regarding the birth of Jesus even all of the Apostles have to be seen as secondary sources, as none of them could possibly have been there and directly witnessed this event

True that, they would have had to rely on what Jesus said about the event.

Even Jesus himself would have been far too young at this event to be able to directly remember it, and therefore would only be able to tell his disciples the story like his parents told it.

Well, Jesus wasn't exactly ordinary. I think Jesus could tell them what happened there with perfect clarity. In any case, they are secondary sources on this event.

As for the other things, if I remember correctly none of the Gospels have been, without doubt, written by the Apostles themselves.

It's never been seriously questioned that Matthew and John were the disciples of Christ and who wrote their gospels. The Gospels have always had their name associated with them, there is never any question (as there is for Hebrews), as to who wrote them and when.

Even for Mathew for which you think that the author was the Apostle with the same name, it is highly disputed wether he was really the author or if it was someone else and the gospel was only attributed to him, so I doubt that any of the authors of the gospels could claim to be primary soruce for all of the events written therein .

By whom? All the sources say that it was Matthew who wrote them. When does this doubt emerge? There wasn't any doubt when the books were written or by those far closer to the dates then we are, that the books were written by the disciples. We have quotes from the early fathers of the church, only a generation or so after the gospels were written that they were written, by disciples of Christ.

All that theory you just gave is very modern, and speculative. No evidence to support it is there besides textual criticism and that is a very dubious source of historical evidence. Far greater is the body of work of the previous 20 centuries that shows the tradition of the church.

I don´t say that any of the above mentioned gospels/writings are true, just wanted to say that there were probably many writings regarding Jesus during the frist centuries were lost 8many moe than in the Apokryphs) and that we, if we had access to all those scriptures that got lost or willingly destroyed (and were able to examine them with modern historic science), we might well get another picture of Jesus and his disciples than we have now.

We can only rely on the sources we have not the sources we wish we had. By any measure of modern historical science (including the extant manuscripts), we can be more confident that the text of scripture is accurate and true, then we can for any other ancient work.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Well as an Agnostic I question the divinity of Christ. So I guess you agree that I am a Christian Agnostic.

No, I said questioning the divinity of Christ doesn't preclude someone, that does not mean that everyone who questions the divinity of Christ is a Christian.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Proteus: The time period the experts use on the time of the eye witnesses, is from Jesus' death to ca. 100 AD. Remember, average life expencency does not tell how long most people lived, it also reflects all those who died as children, and those were many at the time.

Really, I think people are being stupid here.

Average life expectancy doesn't mean that that was their 70. It isn't like in africa or wherever, where most people die before they reach middle age. In fact, middle age was still considered to be in 30s/40s. It was just that lots of people died as children, and lots of adults died due to disease and famine in adulthood.

The vast majority of people we know about from that era was over age 30. People would regularly live until 60 if they didn't die from disease and famine.

It wasn't like our lives compressed from 70 to 30 years.

JM

[Proteus_MST]

I far I have to agree with you that I underestimated the high infant mortality in the roman empire.
It didn´t think however that after age 30 most peoplw wopuld just drop dead, but rather that the normal lifespan would be shortened to between 40-50 years, due to worse nutrition as well as worse medical treatment (even though this was better than during medieval times) and wars.

But looks like I am mistaken, according to the statistical estimates on this page which gives people who survived their childhood a total lifespan of between 50 and 60 years (although I have to add that the statistical estimate doesn´t distinguish betweeen city and land population, the rich and the poor or between central rome territory and the roman provinces (with the latter being of coruse the most interesting region as it was in the roman provinces where Jesus and most of the disciples spent most if not all of their life)).

Nevertheless it is to assume that in 65 AD (a time at which most historians seem to place the writing of the first gospel [i.e. that or Mark] and therefore 35 years after Jesus death, not just 20) many of the eye witnesses for most of the events described in Mark already were dead.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Perfection

No, I said questioning the divinity of Christ doesn't preclude someone, that does not mean that everyone who questions the divinity of Christ is a Christian.

OK let me repeat then what was said earlier; as a follower of the teachings and philosophies of Christ but one who questions his divinity I am an Agnostic Christian which is a subset of Christian. If that confuses you I am sorry but it seems very clear to me and consistant with definitions provided in the English language and your admission that people can question the divinity of Christ and still be a Christian.

On that note this discussion has becone rather silly so I am done.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I far I have to agree with you that I underestimated the high infant mortality in the roman empire.
It didn´t think however that after age 30 most peoplw wopuld just drop dead, but rather that the normal lifespan would be shortened to between 40-50 years, due to worse nutrition as well as worse medical treatment (even though this was better than during medieval times) and wars.

But looks like I am mistaken, according to the statistical estimates on this page which gives people who survived their childhood a total lifespan of between 50 and 60 years (although I have to add that the statistical estimate doesn´t distinguish betweeen city and land population, the rich and the poor or between central rome territory and the roman provinces (with the latter being of coruse the most interesting region as it was in the roman provinces where Jesus and most of the disciples spent most if not all of their life)).

Nevertheless it is to assume that in 65 AD (a time at which most historians seem to place the writing of the first gospel [i.e. that or Mark] and therefore 35 years after Jesus death, not just 20) many of the eye witnesses for most of the events described in Mark already were dead.

Thank you (and much more reasonable). But now you are ignoring that the resurrection and other basics about Christ were taught by Paul 20 years earlier? Who interacted with people who were Christ's best freinds? I don't include walking on water/etc as the basics.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


OK let me repeat then what was said earlier; as a follower of the teachings and philosophies of Christ but one who questions his divinity I am an Agnostic Christian which is a subset of Christian. If that confuses you I am sorry but it seems very clear to me and consistant with definitions provided in the English language and your admission that people can question the divinity of Christ and still be a Christian.

On that note this discussion has becone rather silly so I am done.

Being agnostic and Christian is entirely reasonable. It is being atheist and Christian (under most common definitions of Christianity) which is not.

JM

[Blake]

Being agnostic and Christian is entirely reasonable. It is being atheist and Christian (under most common definitions of Christianity) which is not.

I would imagine that depends on the definition of atheist and agnostic, both of which have way too many definitions and popular misconceptions on what they mean...

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True that, they would have had to rely on what Jesus said about the event.

Well, Jesus wasn't exactly ordinary. I think Jesus could tell them what happened there with perfect clarity. In any case, they are secondary sources on this event.

Yes, i think that will be something where believers in the divinity of jesus and historians (who of course have to take an atheist standpoint and think that Jesus wouldn´t be able to do what no ordinary man can do as well) will probably never be in agreement.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

It's never been seriously questioned that Matthew and John were the disciples of Christ and who wrote their gospels. The Gospels have always had their name associated with them, there is never any question (as there is for Hebrews), as to who wrote them and when.

By whom? All the sources say that it was Matthew who wrote them. When does this doubt emerge? There wasn't any doubt when the books were written or by those far closer to the dates then we are, that the books were written by the disciples. We have quotes from the early fathers of the church, only a generation or so after the gospels were written that they were written, by disciples of Christ.

All that theory you just gave is very modern, and speculative. No evidence to support it is there besides textual criticism and that is a very dubious source of historical evidence. Far greater is the body of work of the previous 20 centuries that shows the tradition of the church.

Yes, it is according to the 2 sources theory (i.e. Matthews as well as Luke being based on Mark and Q) that the authorship of the gospel of Matthew by the Apostle Matthew himself is cast in doubt, as a true apostel wouldn´t have to rely on other textual sources for his gospel.
As for John the dispute is rather complicated. In the text itself it is never mentioned that John was the author, it only mentions a "beloved disciple" which, for strange reasons in importenes where it appears in John doesn´t appear in the other gospels (for example no other gospel states that John was upon crucifixation asked by Jesus to take care of his mother, but instead the other gospels say that all disciples had deserted Jesus to this time or on the last supper, where the "beloved disciple" asks jesus who the tritor is, whereas in the other gospels the disciples ask this among themselves). But it is never mentioned that the author himself claims to be this beloved disciple.
It is also believed that the gospel of John has a dual authorship, with the first part ending at John 20 and the second part which is the only part where the author is identified with the beloved disciple being a later addition and beginning in 21.

Then earliest attribution to John seem to be made by Irenaeus around 180 AD.

See for example here:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/john.html#author

or here: http://www.mystae.com/restricted/ref...siah/john.html

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We can only rely on the sources we have not the sources we wish we had. By any measure of modern historical science (including the extant manuscripts), we can be more confident that the text of scripture is accurate and true, then we can for any other ancient work.

Can we?
Take for example Caesars "De bello gallico". Caesar mentions the siege of Alesia and the huge double wall he built around the city so that his troops are safe from atacks from within the city as well as attacks outside.
Nowadays we know this accoubnt to be true. Why? Because we found reference to it from outside sources, namely the finding of the location of Alesia as well as traces of the double wall around the city.

But do we have extrnal sources as well that confirm the things done by Jesus?
Like eyewitness accounts outside of of the gospels that confirm things written within he gospels?
AFAIk only Flavius Josephus mentions Christ during his lifetime, with an account that seems to be later have been altered by a christian writer (as Josephus couldn´t have stayed Jew if he himself really had thought that Jesus himself is Christ)

But well, are there any other external (eyewitness) accounts about the doings of Jesus, for example Letters like:
"Hi mom, just wanted to say I´m O.K. Have been to one of the hills around Galilee to hear a preacher named Jesus. Wow, that was just awessome, i think I will follow him and become one of his disciples"

[Jon Miller]

One thing, is that many think that critical scholarship of the Bible holds the same weight as that of gravity or electromagneticism, or even freud's view of the human mind.

It doesn't.

Rather, it is more similar to literature. Just as there is a historic reading, and a marxist reading, and a feminist reading of literature... there is similar scholarship of the Bible.

And just with other literature, 'traditional' viewpoints don't get many purponents as it is boring.

But just because it is scholarship, and they are experts, doesn't mean that it is science nor does it mean that it holds the validity of science.

And how many letters or other writing do we have from that time frame anyways? As has been stated, we have more about Christ than we do about many other people (especially considering He came from a small provience where the scholarship and learned men rejected Him).

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
OK let me repeat then what was said earlier; as a follower of the teachings and philosophies of Christ but one who questions his divinity I am an Agnostic Christian which is a subset of Christian. If that confuses you I am sorry but it seems very clear to me and consistant with definitions provided in the English language and your admission that people can question the divinity of Christ and still be a Christian.

I'm not confused! I just think you're wrong! Look, correct me if I'm wrong, but your view of Christianity would hold true weather or not God exists. I would say that deviates far too much from the doctrine of Christianity for you to be called a Chirstian.

Those who I think my be aptly called Christian and agnostic are those who recognize that God may not exist but hold via faith that He does (and similar notions).