done! Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no excuse for not being able to see past silly arguments.
YouTube - Atheist Experience show messes up bad on TV
Thursday, August 19, 2010
YouTube - Atheist Experience show messes up bad on TV
This was hilarious to me! A 13 year-old poking holes in atheist arguments like an expert. This kid reads. Love it! Who says God can't use young people? Well
done! Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no excuse for not being able to see past silly arguments.
YouTube - Atheist Experience show messes up bad on TV
done! Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no excuse for not being able to see past silly arguments.
YouTube - Atheist Experience show messes up bad on TV
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Matt Dillahunt, talk about low hanging fruit.
ReplyDeleteMarcus; what do you think about Pliny's letter to Trajan? It's often over used by Christians as an "extra-biblical" attestation, but really it only shows us that 1) Christians existed in the early 2nd century and most importantly 2) that Rome had no definitive policy on how to handle christians when they recanted, for example; "And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether...[]...pardon is to be granted for repentance".
It's my feeling that this severly undermines the martyr argument in that there's no indication that the apostles even had the opportunity to recant.
I find this argument to be very powerful (second only to how suspicious it is that they waited 50 days to publically proclaim the resurrection...), but I never see it used, so I'd be interested in your thoughts, objections, etc...
Why would you think Pliny's letter to Trajan in the 2nd century tell you the Apostles did not have the opportunity to recant? The Apostles were all dead by the time that letter was written?
ReplyDeleteA better question would be if you are skeptical of all historical documents for which we don't have originals of, then why are basing any conclusion on this letter at all?
I think the fact that its shows that Christianity is alive more than 70 years after it's founder was executed as a criminal in the most painful and humiliating way ever devised is a major argument for Jesus' life and Resurrection. During antiquity, Jesus' crucifixion would have been an embarrassment. Something that some would have shunned just because Jesus died the lowliest of deaths. The fact that there were still so many Christians (and growing and spreading) shows the fact the people literally believed the message. I think it also show the message valid because radical movement rarely survive and perpetuate beyond the 2 generation. Someone - that being God - sustained it and continues to sustain it.
Why would you think Pliny's letter to Trajan in the 2nd century tell you the Apostles did not have the opportunity to recant?
ReplyDeleteBecause by the 2nd Century, Rome didn't have a clear cut policy on how to handle Christians who recanted, as evidenced by Pliny's enquiry. It's unlikely they had a clear cut policy before that when the apostles would have met their ends.
I guess my point is not to say the apostles definitely weren't given the opportunity to recant, maybe they were, but based on Pliny's letter, it's clear we don't know. So the apologist really can't make the positive claim that they did have the opportunity and willingly chose not to.
Also...
ReplyDeleteDuring antiquity, Jesus' crucifixion would have been an embarrassment.
Sure, to some. And maybe his family was embarrassed, we don't know. But his followers were subjects in an occupied province and his humiliating execution by the Roman invaders may have had much to do with him having a following in the first place.
I disagree. All his followers left him when he was crucified thinking it was over. And it was more than just an embarrassment to his family. It was scandalous to everyone especially Gentiles. Something big and very convincing happened to convince Jews and Gentiles to come together and agree that a crucified criminal was not only God but was resurrected from the dead in a new body. A thought that people from neither side would have easily have accepted
ReplyDeleteI disagree.
ReplyDeleteI think you need to substantiate that marginalized religious fanatics in an occupied country would be scandalized by their leaders crucificion.
But, either way, I think you are making a bit of a leap here. All your information is from, at a minimum, 30 years after the events in question. Given what you think you know, sure, “something big and very convincing” seems necessary, but given what you actually know, there are a lot of more likely scenarios that would lead to a cult flourishing in an occupied state amongst marginalized people after the death of their leader. Like we’ve never seen a cult form up around a martyr… You also don’t know if the Christian Cult would have survived long term had Paul (or Constantine for that matter) not stepped in. It’s impossible to say really.
...A thought that people from neither side would have easily have accepted.
(re: Jesus' resurrection)
Yeah, because the resurrection of the dead is such an uncommon element to Ancient Near East mythology, sure…
From what the history of the time suggests crucifixion was the most humiliating form of execution imaginable. If you want proof from the Bible that anyone hung on a tree was considered cursed, you need only look at
ReplyDeleteI agree that Paul was instrumental in Christianity spreading. However, Constantine came nearly 3 centuries after the Crucifixion. Christianity was established as a major force - large enough and powerful enough that Constantine could use it. He didn't build it. IF you think there is a more likely scenario for explaining how and why Christianity grew, name it.
There is no real parallel even approaching Jesus' resurrection in pagan mythologies. If you think they are name them and we can see just how much they stack out against Jesus.
Right Marcus, the Jesus myth is most like the Jesus myth, so it must be true.
ReplyDeleteNo, if you seriously think that myths like Mithras are any where close to Jesus and borrowed from them, lets test that hypothesis and see if you can really make it stick.
ReplyDeleteOK, I see your position as similar to someone who abusrdly claims the Aeneid owes nothing to the Iliad because it was written 800 years later by a Roman instead of by a Greek.
ReplyDeleteUm, no. I didn't say that. The Roman pantheon is the Greek Pantheon. They used the same stories just switched the names to Latin...The Romans adopted most of Greek culture and philosophy. The Jews who wrote the Bibles didn't. Your analogy makes no sense. Why don't you take me up on my offer. Let's take any pagan deity, myth, or god and just see if it truly is like Jesus or not. We can start with Mithras if you like. Or any one.
ReplyDeleteMarcus, it would appear you have an elementry school level understand of Greek and Roman myths and religion. And you clearly don't understand what the Aeneid is.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you take me up on my offer.
Because your "offer" is flawed, But no matter, Mithras is the obvious choice, and the question is not are the Mithras and Jesus myths identical now, but did the Jesus stories take anything from Mithras (or other solar myths, including the Imperial Cult) and I think the answer is clearly yes.
I disagree. That Mithras and Jesus are paralleled close enough to make an effective comparison. U obviously agree that Aeneid borrowed from Greek sources so what is that you think I don't understand?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I've already written about Mithras. Go ahead and start there.
Bible Defended: Dying/Rising Mythologies
Again, you seem to be stuck on the idea that the Jesus myths are the only ones that are 100% like the Jesus myths, so they’re the true ones! No one is saying (no reasonable person is saying…) that anyone sat down and intentionally plagiarized other myths to create a work of fiction, all the while laughing manically. There were most likely actual historical events that served as a foundation for what would become the Jesus myths, so that limited the narrative possibilities. But to say that because Horus wasn’t nailed to a Roman cross, then the Christian idea of death and resurrection couldn’t have possibly found any inspiration from the Horus myth is not correct. There is no getting around the fact that the fantastic elements of the Jesus myth have parallels in other myths. You also have to remember that the other myths were organic and changed over time. Thanks to a lesser extent to Paul and mainly to Nicaea, the Christian myths ceased being organic. So, today, 1700 years later, you are able to take the version of the other myths that is LEAST like the Jesus myths and say there’s no comparison, all the while, ignoring the versions that have more striking thematic similarities or where Christianity found inspiration (through however long a chain).
ReplyDeleteAlso, in your essay, you seem to ignore the Greek myths as a source of inspiration. To me, they always seemed to be the heaviest influence… That’s where the virgin birth directly comes from. So, whether these fantastic elements have roots in Egyptian or Persian mythology or if Mithras also came out of that tradition is really moot. Greek was the culture and the language that the myths were actually written down in (in the form we have them in today).
PS: And Marcus, when you make absolute statements, there’s a good chance you’ll be wrong. The ancient Egyptian form of baptism seems to have been closer to the Jewish version, or Mikvah, which of course is where the Christian version comes from. See “Baptism of Pharaoh” or the temple at Denderah. Like a culture centered on a river would have “No such tradition”, my foot!
Ryan, I didn't ignore Greek myths as a source of inspiration. i have several articles on my blog discussing these parallels. You seem to think that the New Testament writers were influenced by earlier myths (I'm not saying that the Church wasn't, I'm saying the bible wasn't.)
ReplyDeleteI'm still challenging you to pick a myth and prove that Jesus' story in the Gospels were influenced by them.
You also didn't answer my question about the Nicean councils and how you back up the claim that the Bible cannon was fixed then.
Of course the bible was. "Luke" and "Matthew" misread their hebrew and defaulted to the myths of their culture and voile, virgin birth.
ReplyDeleteI must have missed your question about Nicea, but I'm fairly certain I never claimed the biblical cannon was fixed at Nicea.
A lot of theology was fixed at Nicea, but not the cannon. One could argue the cannon is still not fixed...
ReplyDeleteOf course the bible was. "Luke" and "Matthew" misread their hebrew and defaulted to the myths of their culture and voile, virgin birth.
ReplyDeleteBold assertion. Prove it.
I must have missed your question about Nicea, but I'm fairly certain I never claimed the biblical cannon was fixed at Nicea.
You are right...I got you confused sorry. I'm glad we agree on something.
Bold assertion. Prove it.
ReplyDeleteNo, I practice presuppositional agnosticism/atheism...
Kidding... Just look at Mark and Isaiah.
You are right...I got you confused sorry. I'm glad we agree on something.
Finally!!!
But, we kinda got away from my main point, which you never addressed, which was...
ReplyDeleteI guess my point is not to say the apostles definitely weren't given the opportunity to recant, maybe they were, but based on Pliny's letter, it's clear we don't know. So the apologist really can't make the positive claim that they did have the opportunity and willingly chose not to.
I see this argument all the time, and even though it's easy to academically say "people willing die all the time for stupid stuff", it never really sat right with me and remained a stumbling block.
But Pliny's letter satisfies that objection in that we honestly don't know what happened when the Apostles met their ends.
There's no evidence that Rome would have given them the option to recant or let them live had they chose to.
Ryan you said
ReplyDeleteNo, I practice presuppositional agnosticism/atheism...
Kidding... Just look at Mark and Isaiah.
I don't see what you are talking about give me. the verses in Isaiah you think Mark got wrong and why. I also want to look at the Septuagint to really see if Mark is wrong.
But Pliny's letter satisfies that objection in that we honestly don't know what happened when the Apostles met their ends.
There's no evidence that Rome would have given them the option to recant or let them live had they chose to.
That is quite a leap. If you want to ignore oral church tradition about what happened to the original apostles, then I will agree that we have no evidence of what happened to them when they died. The Bible does not tells us how they died only that they would die and most of the texts from the second and third centuries are suspect. They ain't scripture.
I don't see what you are talking about give me. the verses in Isaiah you think Mark got wrong and why. I also want to look at the Septuagint to really see if Mark is wrong.
ReplyDeleteWell, Mark isn’t wrong in that he doesn’t mention the Virgin Birth at all. I mentioned Mark for that reason. Luke and Matthew borrow from Mark and the virgin birth isn’t introduced until the later gospels, which if you aren’t forced to presuppose that the Bible is perfect, that is a strong indication of something being an embellishment. As to the Septuagint, obviously there’s debate about almah/bethulah, but the consensus amongst most Biblical Scholars that I am aware of is that it’s an error on Matthew’s part.
That is quite a leap.
You say it’s “quite a leap” then seem to agree with me…? Unless you value 2000 year old oral traditions over documentary evidence…
On a side note, presuppositional apologetics seems lazy at best and dishonest at worst.
Ryan, Not all scholars believe that Matthew and Luke copied Mark. Presupposing embellishment is not warranted or necessary. Neither is it needed to presuppose that the Bible is perfect not to assume embellish....just honesty. An no there is not a consensus that Matthew erred. Look, the Septuagint uses the term "virgin" when translating Isaiah 7:14.
ReplyDeleteI'd say that agree that there is no good documentary evidence regarding what happened to the original apostles but I don't think we need to throw out the oral history...some of which was written down.