Post by shelly87 on May 12, 2009 23:10:57 GMT -5
So I come from a religious family and my parents forced all their kids to attend a christian private school. I've left the faith and my sister pretty much has too. My sister still goes to the school and apparently one of her christian friends wanted to debate me so I decided to humor him and this is the correspondence we've had so far:
Michelle
May 11 at 5:01pm
my sister wanted me to message you, b/c you want to debate me about christianity....so yeah hi
Sister's friend*
May 11 at 5:21pm
ahaha hey. I want to deal primarily in historical evidence. Do you have any historical reasons for rejecting the New Testament account of Jesus? If you do we can argue those as well as discussing the positive evidence for the eyewitness authorship of the gospels and the historical evidence favoring the resurrection of Jesus. So send me your reasons for rejecting the NT account, and I'll reply to that and I'll give you positive reasons for accepting them.
Michelle
May 11 at 7:18pm
I’m sure you’d love to talk about the historical evidence for the New Testament; I bet that biblical history is your forte and you already have much more knowledge on the subject than me. My sister says you are pretty intelligent and have enough sense to realize that the Genesis account of creation needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Why don’t I tell you the reason why I started have doubts and what eventually led me to reject Christianity altogether. The main driving force was my further study of the Bible. I had read the entire thing chapter by chapter but I had never really paid much attention to what the majority of it said. As I’m sure you’ve been taught at Summit, and in accordance with what the majority of Christians believe today, the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of god. I was always taught to believe this and the Bible states this itself. But the more that I read and studied the Bible I realized that it is filled with what I believe are atrocities and inaccuracies. The Bible isn’t written or inspired by god any more than the Book of Mormon, the Quran, or any other divinely inspired holy text is. The Bible (both old and new testaments) was created and written by men, just like any other false religion people endorse on this earth. Now, whether you or any other Christian believes this, even after I present over 200 contradictions, is doubtful…mainly because apologetics find very interesting ways to justify, rationalize, or explain them away. It all comes down to faith, Christians have it and I don’t. I rely on the rational and empirical to guide my knowledge, and there has not been anything I have heard or seen that can’t be explained through natural forces.
Now with my limited knowledge of Bronze Age history I can’t really comment on your questions at the time. However, I will do some research and get back to you. For now I can only point out some historical problems with the NT. Matthew 2:16 says,
“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.”
So Herod kills all the children in and around Bethlehem under the age of two, a huge massacre that should be documented by historians. But Josephus, who I understand documented Herod’s life, did not even mention this.
Also in Matthew 27:45, 51-53 when Jesus was crucified there were three hours of darkness and after his death corpses were said to walk the streets of Jerusalem. These incredible events are not noted in any historical accounts outside the gospels.
Lastly for now, in Romans 10:18 Paul says “ I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” So Paul is claiming that everyone on earth during his time has heard the gospel but methinks that maybe everyone known or of importance to him heard it. But this is wrong/historically inaccurate because we know that Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and many Asians were never preached to during this time.
Look forward to hearing back from you!
Sisters friend*
May 11 at 7:52pm
Hey,
On the issue of Genesis, I don't regard the account as false, I regard it as largely misinterpreted. Augustine, writing hundreds of years before the advent of Darwinian evolution, came to the conclusion that Genesis 1 was not meant to be taken literally.
On the issue of inerrancy and infallibility. I do hold to inerrancy, though not as strictly as some. If one error were shown, that's all that would be shown - one error. As for contradictions, I've found that nearly all contradictions involve decontextualizing the scripture (be it textually or culturally, usually culturally).
I found interesting the implication that faith was some sort of system where one believes blindly and without evidence. This is not what scripture teaches. The Greek for faith is pistis, which means to believe based on prior experience, or evidence. Paul tells us to test everything in 1 Thessalonians 5.21, and the Bereans are commended for fact-checking.
As for the specifics...
You cite the slaughter of Bethlehem, saying that historians of that day should have recorded it. First off, this is an argument from silence, which are typically pretty weak. Second off, we know Herod did stuff like this often. This was not an anomaly for him. Furthermore, Bethlehem was not a large town. It probably had about two to four infants in it. Tragic? Yes. Worthy of reference for the top historians of that day? No.
On the darkness. This is interesting, as we do have a historian outside scripture who records the darkness. Thallus, as quoted by Africanus does mention the darkness (which he tries to explain as a solar eclipse). On the saints walking around, we don't know exactly the nature of their bodies. Could only believers see them? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that this is only relevant to Matthew's Gospel. Matthew's audience was Jewish Christians, not the hellenized Jews of Mark or the Gentiles of Luke. And there was a rabbinical traditions saying that when Messiah comes, some saints will rise up. This is why only Matthew mentions this. As for secular historians not mentioning it, there is a reason for that. If they had heard such a story, they would have dismissed it offhand unless they were a Christian. They were not credulous, silly people. The ancients were in fact quite intelligent, and I think many people have simply assumed they were morons, when they really weren't. As a final note, Quadratus writes that some of those saints had lived to even his day, so he apparently had no problem with that account.
As for Romans 10.18, Paul here is alluding back to Psalm 19.4. The Greek word here is oikoumene, which refers to the Roman empire, not the whole globe. On this verse, I noticed you referred specifically, to Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. Out of curiosity, are you getting this from Skeptics Annotated Bible?
On another note, what do you think of the authorship of the gospels? Do you agree that they were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John or would you say no?
Thanks for the reply and I look forward to hearing back from you,
Tommy
Michelle
Today at 12:02am
Well I've been busy applying for summer jobs so I haven't been able to do much reading on biblical history but what you said made me think of something that I've found interesting. So you rightly believe that the Genesis account of "creation" shouldn't be taken literally. I believe my sister said that you are believe in theistic evolution - so I assume you take Genesis to be a metaphorical account.
So if you do hold to inerrancy or at least to the divinity of Jesus (and that what was recorded in the bible is actually what he said/did) then you would have to believe the account of creation is Genesis is literal or true. There are multiple places in the New Testament that refer to the creation described in Genesis as fact. Even Jesus himself refers to creation and the flood as if they were literal events. I'm Not making this up - I'll refer to a Christian website with the verses all laid out -
www.sound-doctrine.net/FAQ-NTSuportGenesis.html
This is the conundrum that many Christians face -
if I believe in science (and accept Genesis as metaphor) then I have to accept that Jesus and early Christians were wrong and the bible is scientifically unsound (with error).
if I believe that the Bible is scientifically, historically, and otherwise sound and inerrant than evolution can't be true and I have to accept Genesis as literal fact of the beginning of the world and all things.
if I believe that the Genesis is both metaphor and that the bible is inerrant then I have to justify why Jesus (god himself) would talk like it is the true account of the beginning of the universe by providing convoluted, often culture-based reasons.
I got sick of rationalizing everything and just decided to be rational.
Christianity is just another religion vying among others. It is based in history like many others, but that doesn't mean that the account of religious beliefs during that time is correct.The epic of Gilgamesh talks of a great flood that is similar to the Noah story, and both were possibly influenced by an actual flood "which occurred when the Mediterranean Sea partially emptied into the Black Sea circa 5600." (wikipedia) Does that mean that the gods talked about in those stories are real? Greek mythology also reflects historical events (evidence has been found to suggest that the Trojan War actually occurred) but does that mean the Olympian pantheon exist? I could go on but I think you get my point - just because holy texts and mythology correspond to historical events does not mean the religion they espouse is true. So we can go back and forth about how the New Testament account does or does not mesh with history but in the end that does not prove that Christ was divine. And ultimately to me it is about the fact that the bible is often wrong - and was obviously written by men (with no spiritual assistance), so why should I believe Christianity provides any more truth than any other religion?
So, I really don't want to pour through pages and pages of information on biblical history - wrote the gospels, how the bible was compiled etc...so if anyone has some knowledge on this stuff or has a good resource to look at lemme know.
Michelle
May 11 at 5:01pm
my sister wanted me to message you, b/c you want to debate me about christianity....so yeah hi
Sister's friend*
May 11 at 5:21pm
ahaha hey. I want to deal primarily in historical evidence. Do you have any historical reasons for rejecting the New Testament account of Jesus? If you do we can argue those as well as discussing the positive evidence for the eyewitness authorship of the gospels and the historical evidence favoring the resurrection of Jesus. So send me your reasons for rejecting the NT account, and I'll reply to that and I'll give you positive reasons for accepting them.
Michelle
May 11 at 7:18pm
I’m sure you’d love to talk about the historical evidence for the New Testament; I bet that biblical history is your forte and you already have much more knowledge on the subject than me. My sister says you are pretty intelligent and have enough sense to realize that the Genesis account of creation needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Why don’t I tell you the reason why I started have doubts and what eventually led me to reject Christianity altogether. The main driving force was my further study of the Bible. I had read the entire thing chapter by chapter but I had never really paid much attention to what the majority of it said. As I’m sure you’ve been taught at Summit, and in accordance with what the majority of Christians believe today, the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of god. I was always taught to believe this and the Bible states this itself. But the more that I read and studied the Bible I realized that it is filled with what I believe are atrocities and inaccuracies. The Bible isn’t written or inspired by god any more than the Book of Mormon, the Quran, or any other divinely inspired holy text is. The Bible (both old and new testaments) was created and written by men, just like any other false religion people endorse on this earth. Now, whether you or any other Christian believes this, even after I present over 200 contradictions, is doubtful…mainly because apologetics find very interesting ways to justify, rationalize, or explain them away. It all comes down to faith, Christians have it and I don’t. I rely on the rational and empirical to guide my knowledge, and there has not been anything I have heard or seen that can’t be explained through natural forces.
Now with my limited knowledge of Bronze Age history I can’t really comment on your questions at the time. However, I will do some research and get back to you. For now I can only point out some historical problems with the NT. Matthew 2:16 says,
“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.”
So Herod kills all the children in and around Bethlehem under the age of two, a huge massacre that should be documented by historians. But Josephus, who I understand documented Herod’s life, did not even mention this.
Also in Matthew 27:45, 51-53 when Jesus was crucified there were three hours of darkness and after his death corpses were said to walk the streets of Jerusalem. These incredible events are not noted in any historical accounts outside the gospels.
Lastly for now, in Romans 10:18 Paul says “ I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” So Paul is claiming that everyone on earth during his time has heard the gospel but methinks that maybe everyone known or of importance to him heard it. But this is wrong/historically inaccurate because we know that Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and many Asians were never preached to during this time.
Look forward to hearing back from you!
Sisters friend*
May 11 at 7:52pm
Hey,
On the issue of Genesis, I don't regard the account as false, I regard it as largely misinterpreted. Augustine, writing hundreds of years before the advent of Darwinian evolution, came to the conclusion that Genesis 1 was not meant to be taken literally.
On the issue of inerrancy and infallibility. I do hold to inerrancy, though not as strictly as some. If one error were shown, that's all that would be shown - one error. As for contradictions, I've found that nearly all contradictions involve decontextualizing the scripture (be it textually or culturally, usually culturally).
I found interesting the implication that faith was some sort of system where one believes blindly and without evidence. This is not what scripture teaches. The Greek for faith is pistis, which means to believe based on prior experience, or evidence. Paul tells us to test everything in 1 Thessalonians 5.21, and the Bereans are commended for fact-checking.
As for the specifics...
You cite the slaughter of Bethlehem, saying that historians of that day should have recorded it. First off, this is an argument from silence, which are typically pretty weak. Second off, we know Herod did stuff like this often. This was not an anomaly for him. Furthermore, Bethlehem was not a large town. It probably had about two to four infants in it. Tragic? Yes. Worthy of reference for the top historians of that day? No.
On the darkness. This is interesting, as we do have a historian outside scripture who records the darkness. Thallus, as quoted by Africanus does mention the darkness (which he tries to explain as a solar eclipse). On the saints walking around, we don't know exactly the nature of their bodies. Could only believers see them? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that this is only relevant to Matthew's Gospel. Matthew's audience was Jewish Christians, not the hellenized Jews of Mark or the Gentiles of Luke. And there was a rabbinical traditions saying that when Messiah comes, some saints will rise up. This is why only Matthew mentions this. As for secular historians not mentioning it, there is a reason for that. If they had heard such a story, they would have dismissed it offhand unless they were a Christian. They were not credulous, silly people. The ancients were in fact quite intelligent, and I think many people have simply assumed they were morons, when they really weren't. As a final note, Quadratus writes that some of those saints had lived to even his day, so he apparently had no problem with that account.
As for Romans 10.18, Paul here is alluding back to Psalm 19.4. The Greek word here is oikoumene, which refers to the Roman empire, not the whole globe. On this verse, I noticed you referred specifically, to Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. Out of curiosity, are you getting this from Skeptics Annotated Bible?
On another note, what do you think of the authorship of the gospels? Do you agree that they were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John or would you say no?
Thanks for the reply and I look forward to hearing back from you,
Tommy
Michelle
Today at 12:02am
Well I've been busy applying for summer jobs so I haven't been able to do much reading on biblical history but what you said made me think of something that I've found interesting. So you rightly believe that the Genesis account of "creation" shouldn't be taken literally. I believe my sister said that you are believe in theistic evolution - so I assume you take Genesis to be a metaphorical account.
So if you do hold to inerrancy or at least to the divinity of Jesus (and that what was recorded in the bible is actually what he said/did) then you would have to believe the account of creation is Genesis is literal or true. There are multiple places in the New Testament that refer to the creation described in Genesis as fact. Even Jesus himself refers to creation and the flood as if they were literal events. I'm Not making this up - I'll refer to a Christian website with the verses all laid out -
www.sound-doctrine.net/FAQ-NTSuportGenesis.html
This is the conundrum that many Christians face -
if I believe in science (and accept Genesis as metaphor) then I have to accept that Jesus and early Christians were wrong and the bible is scientifically unsound (with error).
if I believe that the Bible is scientifically, historically, and otherwise sound and inerrant than evolution can't be true and I have to accept Genesis as literal fact of the beginning of the world and all things.
if I believe that the Genesis is both metaphor and that the bible is inerrant then I have to justify why Jesus (god himself) would talk like it is the true account of the beginning of the universe by providing convoluted, often culture-based reasons.
I got sick of rationalizing everything and just decided to be rational.
Christianity is just another religion vying among others. It is based in history like many others, but that doesn't mean that the account of religious beliefs during that time is correct.The epic of Gilgamesh talks of a great flood that is similar to the Noah story, and both were possibly influenced by an actual flood "which occurred when the Mediterranean Sea partially emptied into the Black Sea circa 5600." (wikipedia) Does that mean that the gods talked about in those stories are real? Greek mythology also reflects historical events (evidence has been found to suggest that the Trojan War actually occurred) but does that mean the Olympian pantheon exist? I could go on but I think you get my point - just because holy texts and mythology correspond to historical events does not mean the religion they espouse is true. So we can go back and forth about how the New Testament account does or does not mesh with history but in the end that does not prove that Christ was divine. And ultimately to me it is about the fact that the bible is often wrong - and was obviously written by men (with no spiritual assistance), so why should I believe Christianity provides any more truth than any other religion?
So, I really don't want to pour through pages and pages of information on biblical history - wrote the gospels, how the bible was compiled etc...so if anyone has some knowledge on this stuff or has a good resource to look at lemme know.
