Tell Arch how much he doesn't know about history.
Offline I've recently been battling a pair of Christians, and it's the first time I've debated on my own in quite a long time. I can't believe how much I take my fellow atheists at RRS for granted when I try to go it alone. Still, I think it's good practice.
Nonetheless, I found myself trying to present some very flimsy historical points about the veracity of the bible... and "flimsy" is probably an understatement... so I'm humbling myself and copy/pasting what I said in the hope that others will correct me or flesh out what good arguments I do have (if any?) so that they don't suck balls. Out of all the arguments I can make against the veracity of the bible, I'm extremely weak when it comes to history.
Anyway, here are some very short bits where I feebly tried to thrust some historical bits at him.
I've only been brushing up on history lately, soo... be gentle? *nervous grin*
Take the story of The Harrowing for instance. The part of the bible where Jesus enters hell, steals the keys from Satan (or in some versions: from Hades), and then returns unscathed. That was definitely a major literary motif. Ulysses from The Odyssey did the exact same thing. So did Dante and a long line of Dante-imitators. People love that idea. It's still entertained in fiction today.
What about Jesus being born of a virgin? Great. So were plenty of other gods and goddesses, including Mithra, Horus, Krishna, and Zoroaster.
Zoroastrianism is also thought to be where most modern religions adopted the idea of a good force versus an evil force in the universe.
What about Adam and Eve? Stolen characters from the Epic of Gilgamesh.What about the story of Noah's Ark? Stolen completely from the Epic of Gilgamesh (and several other stories that tell the same tale with a different name).
Protestantism [tends to change its mind about important things], too, though. Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the free will versus determinism question, to name just one problem protestants have had to deal with.
Protestants also tend to disagree on whether "the trinity" is literal or metaphorical. Calvinist Protestants actually burned a fellow protestant named Michael Servetus at the stake once because he doubted the literal truth of the trinity, even though he agreed about everything else. Kinda steep, no?The point isn't to paint protestantism as violent, though. I just mean that protestants aren't exactly all in agreement either. They just tend to disagree about more abstract things whereas the catholics do outright silly things like inventing or deleting entire sections of Hell whenever they feel like it.
And this last bit is where I feel the most uncertain of myself...
The problem is that you're taking the word of the bible for granted. Things are not true simply because a book says they are true. You have to cross examine the book with other sources of historical information and also with what you know to be true about the world.
Not one book of the new testament was written during the time Jesus was alive. The writings of Paul weren't written until at least a century after Jesus' alleged death. And I emphasize the word "alleged".
Also, there is an entire list of other historians that were writing down important events at the time and not one of them mentions anything about Jesus, any miracles he performed, any run-in he may have had with the roman government, etc. Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, the reports given by other historians sometimes indicate that the bible goes as far as to completely misrepresent certain facts about governments and their leaders.
These were diligent recorders that weren't apt to let an event of any importance slip by them. If a man named Jesus had really been crucified, and if it had really been that big a deal, and if he had really RISEN FROM THE DEAD, it only makes sense that one of those historians would have taken the time to write it down. (Once he had finished cleaning the shit out of his pants, of course).
The modern bible doesn't even have all the original books in it. Other books were "voted out" at the council of Nicea. Did protestantism return to the parts of the bible that got voted out?*
*That question is referring to an argument the Christian made where he asserted that the protestant reformation was not an example of christianity reinventing itself but, instead, it was christianity "returning to its roots". By "roots" he said he meant simply the bible.
There you are. Roast me like the pig I am.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
- Login to post comments
Rook's 'Biblical Errancy' thread is the first place to stop off.
Some google words for help "apocrypha" "pseudipegrapha" and "deuterocanonical"
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Actually, if you have any reading recommendations that are in a book format, I would rather have something like that.
Not that I'm not interested in Rook's work, because I definitely am, but I'm not fond of reading book-length information on the internet. There is just something about reading from a computer screen that doesn't let information sink in the same way it does when you read it from a book.
Plus it hurts the shit out of my eyes.
So I'd prefer book recommendations, if anyone has them. =]
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I would really suggest reading my blogs (I know you don't like online reading - I don't either). I say that, because I give a lot of arguments for or against the positions you hold above, and I list a lot of bibliographical info. The idea of Jesus "stealing the keys" from satan isn't biblical. It may have roots in the Odyssey (see Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, MacDonald) but check out Thomas L. Thompson's The Messiah Myth, it is more accurate on showing correlation/causation with literary tropes.
I would not get caught up on the 'virgin birth and other pre-Christian gods' argument. I feel that is a little out of date, and I have backpeddled on that a lot since I started my research.
I wouldn't use my arguments as the foundation of yours, but it will be a springboard and starting point.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Try a printer and put the paper between two pieces of cardboard.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Hey Archeopteryx, you've got a good list of topics for them to refute. I don't normally debate theists with history, rather I poke holes in their doctrines. I hope this is some useable information.
First and foremost, you as the skeptic are not burdened with proof. I know you know this, but it never hurts to re-iterate the fact. There is a good chance that they don't even know what Zoroastorianism is. Most of the fundies I know are clueless about "history" outside of the bible. BTW I need to read the how-to-quote page, because I am new and kind of clueless how to do it. So try to bear with me.
Quote 1.) As for the "Harrowing", I don't know if this is even in the bible I have read. I know it says jesus descended into hell for three days, but hades, hell and sheol are interchanged in the bible so much it is hard to know which one they mean. I wouldn't think they mean hell because IMO hell doesn't exist in the NT version until the supposed end times in revelations. I mean, doesn't god supposedly create a lake of fire for satan and, well us...... ? Sheol is an ancient jewish concept similiar to hell except the fiery part. Some parts of the OT just say the dead are asleep and some say they lead some shadowy afterlife isolated from god. Some theists I know (seventh Day Adventists for one) insist that when you die you're asleep until judgement day, some like my old baptist belief believer you are judged upon death, take your pick. So how could jesus descend into hell if it isn't created yet? Is hell in this context the grave or literally hell, fire and all that shit? I am still researching this topic. It would be nice to see what jews believe on the subject of sheol, hades and hell (grave). IMO you are right, the descent into hell is kind of an archetype found throughout literary history. I can't get a straight answer on this topic, like most things, from my christian friends either. This might be a good thread to start about the "afterlife".
Quote 2.) If I remember correctly, the bible says that Mary was a virgin, but this may not necessarily be true. The words may have been translated differently from the original hebrew,on purpose or not, to reflect a negative view on sexuality. How could a non-virgin carry a perfect man-god? I always understood that Horus, which pre-dated christianity by a long time was supposed to have been of virgin birth, but maybe this is wrong. I'd like to read some of Rook's blogs to see why he backpeddled on this one. Anyways,I found this at www.2think.org maybe you can use it anyways if it comes up.
There are two hebrew words usually translated 'virgin' in English. 'Bethulah' means virgin in the sense that we understand it. It was used, for example, in Isaiah 62:5. 'Almah' (the word used in Isaiah 7:14) simply means a young woman. Although it is sometimes used in the sense of a sexually pure woman, this is not it's exclusive usage. The context will usually point out the correct usage.
The confusion arose when the Greek Septuagint used the greek word 'parthenos' to translate Isaiah 7:14. This word, in Greek, does denote a sexually pure woman, and was the inspiration for the gospellers myth of the Virgin birth.
A look at the context of Isaiah 7:14 will quickly reveal that the woman that Isaiah was referring to was probably *already* pregnant, thus pointing out which sense of 'almah' was intended. In any case, the point of Isaiah's prophecy was that before the child reached the age of accountability, both Israel and Syria would be desolated. (A prophecy which was only partly fulfilled, by the way). The use of the word 'virgin' is not germane in Isaiah's prophecy. The 'sign' was the child, not a miraculous conception.
In short, Isaiah's 'sign' was fulfilled in it's own context, hundreds of years before anyone thought to apply it in a different sense.
Quote 3.) It is no doubt that if the jews had been in captivity in Babylon that there would be some cross contaminating of cultures. This monotheistic religion did exist prior to the babylonian exile and there does seem to be a change in beliefs before the jews were allowed to leave babylon by Cyrus II. For example, the hebrew word Elohim may be plural indicating the jews may have believed in polytheism at one point prior to their captivity. After the exile I don't recall any other use of the word Elohim. So did their exile in babylon under a monotheistic religion inspire only one god? In genesis 1:26 It says, "Let us mankind in our image and our likeness." This word, Elohim as a plural, is still open to a lot of debate among jews. I know this is an incredulous arguement, but I doubt the captors would allow their captives beliefs to contaminate their culture, but the other way around.
Oh and btw, the bible mentions over 20 books that were supposed to be inspired but not included in the canon. The book of enoch is one that is mentioned and supposedly enoch is given a vision of sheol. He said that there are four different areas there where people that have died spend the afterlife until judgement day. Maybe this is where the catholics get the idea of purgatory, I don't know. I am just a lowly ole atheist. Sorry if this is a little jumbled and hard to read I wrote it in kind of a hurry.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS