SouthStar,
Re:
A Problem No Skeptic Can Explain
You’ve tried this argument before and I believe I have already refuted all these fallacies. However, since I know you don’t want to be convinced it is worth re-visiting the issues again for at least the benefit of others.
The writers of the Gospel accounts – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – quite definitely affirm that Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God, and that he performed miracles to authenticate that affirmation.
This would be fine if the authors could be identified and proven to be objective eye-witnesses.
The Gospel writers were many and are unknown. And the gospels were written decades after the alleged Jesus was meant to have existed. But there was only one original gospel which was Mark written at around 80CE, Mathew, John and Luke (90CE, 95CE, and 110CE) used Mark extensively and added their own elaborations.
So why would we choose to believe a bunch of unknown authors who have written some incredible claims about alleged events at least 50 – 90 years in their past? It also seems highly unlikely that these were eye-witness accounts since average life expectancy in those times was around 35. For them to have understood what they witnessed the authors of Mark would have to be around 70 and the authors for the other gospels in their 100s. People just didn’t live that long. So at best you have a stretch of the imagination. And we are also trying to validate texts by early Christians when we know that the early Church founders manipulated texts to suit their new religious ideas. This casts serious doubts on any claims of truthful objectivity.
But wouldn’t it have been more credible if there had been some verifiable eye-witness accounts written at the time of the alleged Jesus, especially when this character is meant to be the most important being to ever visit the earth. And oops, God forgot to appoint an appropriate reliable journalist? The church knew this need as well and tried to forge some Josephus texts – shame on them. You have one massive credibility issue.
Further, they allege that even though Jesus was put to death on the cross, after three days he came out of the grave, thus, forcefully demonstrating that he is Jehovah’s beloved Son, and that his authority must be respected. There is really no dispute about what the record claims.
I agree that there is no dispute of the claims. What is disputed is their truth and historicity.
How do skeptics address these historical records?
Very easily since they can’t be shown to be records of history.
Generally speaking, they assert that the New Testament writers fabricated the accounts.
Pretty much since that was the popular form of entertainment in those days, listening to the stories of myth-makers, an ancient version of modern Hollywood. We love fantasy stories now just as people did 2000 years ago.
The writers knew that Jesus did not do these things; they simply invented the stories.
Nope totally wrong. The skeptics claim no such thing. The writers weren’t eye-witnesses so they couldn’t know. All the gospels are based on unsupported hearsay at best and most certainly myth-making
Will this charge stand up in the light of logical inquiry?
All ya gotta do is show the proof that the accounts were historical and no one to date has been able to do that, and without the evidence you cannot form any logical arguments against the skeptics.
Logically speaking, either there is existence after death or there is not.
No, this is imaginative speculation. The term “logically speaking” is inappropriate. There is no evidence to support the concept of an after-life so it is not logical to consider it as a possibility.
If there is post-death existence, there either is accountability for one's earthly conduct, or there is not. …..If there is no post-earthly existence, it matters not what one does in this life.
That is a logical fallacy. What one does tends to determine survival whether that is for a few decades or for eternity. Morality is ultimately about personal survival and happiness.
If, however, one believes that he will be held accountable for his earthly conduct in eternity, he will be more inclined to act in a morally responsible way in this life.
This is probably one of the best reasons why religions such as Christianity should be abolished as quickly as possible. The approach here is based on ancient barbaric authoritarian expectations of reward and punishment. The lesson being taught here is that you must do the right thing because you will be punished otherwise, it is the rule of fear. Secular humanism on the other hand encourages people to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The Christian approach is morally reprehensible.
Now, reflect upon the implications of this principle in light of the charge that the New Testament writers lied about the events in the life of Christ.
This is a false premise. There is no claim that they deliberately lied knowing the truth, but that the entire stories are fantasies. There is a significant and qualitative difference.
If they believed in eternity and accountability before God, why would they falsify the records regarding Jesus, knowing that such lies would exclude their entrance into heaven?
They didn’t falsify anything; they simply imagined the whole thing.
Lying is conceded to be unethical universally, and, according to the Scriptures, liars will be excluded from heaven (Rev. 21:8).
According to the myth, but there was no truth to lie about in the first place.
On the other hand, if the Gospel writers did not believe in eternal accountability, and so, they callously fabricated the documents that affirmed Jesus’ divine nature, why would they have subjected themselves to the persecution that accompanied Christianity, since “this life” would be all they believed they would ever enjoy?
The Gospel authors are unknown and their fate is also unknown. This point is without foundation.
The infidelic theory makes no sense at all. This is a problem that no skeptic can explain. The New Testament documents are reliable!
The essence of this article seems twofold –
1. The NT documents are reliable because morality based on fear of punishment is preferable to morality based on doing the right thing.
2. A false premise that skeptics claim that gospel authors deliberately lied, whereas there were no eye-witnesses and that the stories aren’t deliberate lies but simply imaginative fantasies.
Kat
