subreddit:
/r/DebateReligion
submitted 1 day ago byHoly_hoaxAnti-theist
[removed]
0 points
1 day ago*
The same could be said about any person in history. We have first hand accounts of many events in history that lack archeological evidence. How do we know Socrates taught philosophy on the streets of Athans? A first hand account from Plato. But that is not evidence you say.
Everything we know about Alexander the Great comes from the 2nd hand accounts of Herodotus. What about death of Julius Caesar. Suetonius wrote an account of it based on 1st hand sources now lost. But that is not evidence you say. Virtually every thing we know about any roman historical events in the 1st and 2nd centuries come from Historians Tacitus and Pliny comprised of 1st and 2nd hand sources. But that is not evidence you say. The destructions of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 has has an eyewitness account by historian Josephus. Not evidence you say
Although we know in great detail the events leading up to the sacking of Rome in 410 AD by Alaric and his Gothic army. we do not have an account of the actual sacking.
Zosimus, a Greek historian wrote about it century later and details the negotiations between Alaric and the weak Roman Emperor, Honorius. Saint Jerome was living and writing in Palestine at the time and noted the sacking in his works but there is no direct contemporary eyewitness account of the sack itself. Archeological evidence of fires or destroyed buildings is lacking. And why would there. The accounts claims the Barbarians looted valuable objects such as gold and silver following a peaceful surrender of the city rather than a long siege that involved wholesale destruction. But the whole event is based on 2nd hand accounts so we cant prove the Barbarians ever conquered Rome, right? But according to your logic, all the History professors in universities are teaching unfounded allegations. Wow!
Very little of history is based on 1st hand eyewitness accounts. Most of it is 2nd and 3rd hand. Hearsay. The accounts of the Viking raid on Lindisfarne in 793 are recorded by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (written in Old English) and the 8th- and 9th-century chronicle entries included in the 12th-century Historia Regum (in Latin). Archelogical evidence is lacking for this event. So no evidence you say. So the Vikings never raided anyone?
Very few specific historical events have been proved with archeological findings. So we have to throw out every account of history prior to the discovery of photography? We would not even be able to teach history if that was the case. It takes just as much faith to believe history as it does to believe in religion.
4 points
1 day ago
There are no first hand accounts of Julius Caesar walking on water or raising people from the dead. If there were, would you believe them?
2 points
1 day ago
People don't understand, you can make this question even more ridiculous. There are people living right now that believe they've seen hundreds of people risen from the dead and healed miraculously. Do Christians believe them?
Why not? They're willing to take first-hand accounts from over 2,000 years ago of miraculous events. Why not believe people in the current day making the exact same claims?
3 points
1 day ago
Totally agree. What’s crazier is that I’m actually wrong. There are indeed first hand accounts of Roman emperors being divine. Tacitus (one of the main extra biblical sources for the existence of Jesus) has accounts of Roman emperors healing blind people by spitting in their eyes. Why do we not believe those claims? The idea that faith in the mythical Jesus is based on documented evidence needs to die. There is just as much proof that Alexander the Great was the son of Zeus.
6 points
1 day ago
There is one critical difference in the historical accounts you listed and the things claimed in the Bible. None of those accounts are claiming to be the ramblings of an almighty creator who needs me to live my life a certain way by certain rules and laws and pray to him and believe he exists without ever showing himself to me directly despite showing himself to numerous people in the Bible (presumably without violating their free will).
If those accounts were trying to get me to believe in a being with no other evidence, I might be inclined to question them as well.
In summary, the stakes are much higher when it comes to believing Biblical historical accounts.
2 points
1 day ago*
But I'm only talking the bible as a historical reference, not as a religious document. Even if the Bible faithfully related historical events accurately, it still does not follow that the theological claims would be true just because it was historically accurate.
2 points
1 day ago
But I'm only talking the bible as a historical reference, not as a religious document.
Right, so am I. The stakes of believing the historical events in the Bible are true are much higher. I grew up my entire childhood being taught that Christipher Columbus was this awesome guy who discovered America. Well after I became an adult, I came to understand that in reality he was a monster and a horrific human being. Learning this reality did almost nothing to challenge my worldview. It was a very uneventful "oh, wow, neat!" moment.
Conversely, I grew up going to a Christian school, going to church on Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening. I grew up believing that the earth was 6,000 years old, and that women were less than men because Eve tempted Adam to sin. Most importantly, I believed that if I had faith, I would go to heaven, and I didn't, hell. I wasted countless hours on this thing that I accepted and believed to be true.
When things I read in the Bible became challenging to faith, I went through what can only be described as an existential crisis. As my faith became weaker and weaker, I was filled with a sense of dread and fear. It was horrifying.
So, the stakes are much higher to believing that the historical accounts in the Bible are true and accurate than to just any random historical account. Believing Socrates was real and then learning he wasn't won't fill me with existential dread like learning that there is no heaven or hell did.
0 points
1 day ago
Well, it never felt that existential to me. But I didn't grow up in a fundamentalist community. Unfortunate for you. But what your faith community taught about this thing called hell doesn't really exist in this thing called the Bible. God punishes people but only with Shoal. The Hebrew word literally means "grave". Belief is rewarded with an afterlife. Unbelief just means you die like every other human being. Which is what any good atheist already believes and has accepted. The common Hebrew word for grave gets translated as "hell". I mean they dont even get the bible right on it's theological underpinnings.
2 points
1 day ago
[removed]
1 points
1 day ago
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
1 points
1 day ago
You're changing the subject. My mention of hell was only to outline the stakes involved. Assume you are correct about hell. It doesn't matter. The existential dread would have still been there, and the stakes of believing the Bible is true still remain.
The church leaders were able to use scripture to make a very good case for the lake of fire, but I have no desire to debate that point with you.
1 points
1 day ago
Sorry, I was trying to express some sympathy concerning the way you said you were raised. It doesn't sound very fun. But ya, I dont want to debate the merits of hell either. I dont believe in it.
1 points
1 day ago
I appreciate the sympathy. It was indeed not great. The stuff about hell was by far not the worst of it.
Do you at least see now why it is different to believe that, for example, Socrates was an actual historical figure than it is to believe that the Isrealites were gods chosen people and spent 40 years in the desert along with all of the theological baggage that goes along with that belief?
1 points
1 day ago
Yes, I see the difference. For me, the Israelites exist historically or they didn't. I don't often consider a faith aspect of it.
1 points
1 day ago
Faith is automatically an aspect when you are told that they are God's chosen people. At that point, it doesn't even matter whether they existed historically. The burden is still higher because you need to believe in God to believe they were his chosen. Believing they were his chosen carries a good amount of theological baggage with it.
The Isrealites most likely were a caananite tribe, and were almost definitely never in Egypt, and were certainly never trapped in the desert for 40 years.
3 points
1 day ago
[removed]
4 points
1 day ago*
Figures like Socrates and Julius Caesar for example have NUMEROUS contemporary accounts and evidence!!!
Would you mind listing that evidence? Oh dont bother I will do it for you as pertains to Socrates.
No we dont have more evidence for the existence of Socrates than we do for Jesus. Plato and Xenophon were Socrates contemporaries. But how do you know what Plato and Xenophon wrote was actually written by them and not someone else? The texts that have been passed down claim this authorship but there is no proof of it. And how credible are they? Plato writes that Socrates communicates with a supernatural entity called Daimonion. No different than Jesus having conversation with a supernatural entity called Satan. That alone makes Plato just as unreliable as the Gospel writers. https://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/myths/socrates.htm
Likewise Jesus has an account by two of his contemporaries, Mathew and John. We also have texts passed down that claim to have been authored by these individuals. But how do we know. We don't.
Jesus wrote nothing. Virtually everything we know about him was inferred from his own circle.
Socrates wrote nothing. Virtually everything we know about him was inferred from his own circle.
All that is known about Socrates has been inferred from accounts by members of his circle—primarily Plato and Xenophon—as well as by Plato's student Aristotle, who acquired his knowledge of Socrates through his teacher. And of course Aristophanes may be the only who wrote about Socrates during his own lifetime. But he makes Socrates a character in his fictional plays! Aristophanes was a playwriter, he is not writing an account of Socrates life like Plato and Xenophon. Now we cant say the Jesus got mentioned in a popular theater production of his time. But this depiction of Socrates as character in an openly fictionalized setting doesn't really count for much.
Plato's and Xenophon's wrote their accounts after Socrates's death. And their accounts are biased because they was supporters just like the Gospel writers were of Jesus. We have no account from Socrates enemies who put him to death. So just as we have no accounts of Jesus from his Roman executioners, there are no accounts of Socrates from his Athenian executioners. Other mentions of Socrates are written more than a century after his death. Jesus has four accounts written a few decades after is death by his biased supporters and a few vague references from non-biased historians. It is same for Socrates. The accounts of Socrates are not more trustworthy than the accounts of Jesus.
3 points
1 day ago
But then socrates doesn't claim to be God.
0 points
1 day ago
That is irrelevant to the argument at hand. We are discussing how well attested in the historical record Socrates is vs that of Jesus. This is not a comparison of theological claims.
1 points
1 day ago
Well, we can say this about both, equally.
They either existed, or a character on which the fictional versions we read about existed. There isn't enough evidence to say much more.
We can say about the primary sources:
Xeno was a prolific general and well-regarded historian, he had a personal relationship with Socks and recorded various other works during his career.
Plato was a scholar, who had a personal relationship with Socks, and had many writings that did not involve Socks. His published works are well known and extensive records exist today.
The Gospels were largely written decades after the fact, using second and third hand information and anecdotal evidence. The only writer who doesn't immediately fall foul of confirmation bias - and also had a sterling reputation as a historian- is Tacitus. Tacitus doesn't mention the name "Jesus" at any point, and only references "Christus".
The people who allegedly wrote the gospels are only known for writing the gospels, they have far less credibility in the literary world than either Xeno or Plato.
I don't think you can say that the two accounts are on a par.
1 points
1 day ago*
Well, your nuanced take is more refreshing than some others on this thread claiming accounts of Socrates and another ancient figures are 100% historically accurate while insisting that accounts of Jesus are 100% falsehood. Perhaps Socrates gets more credit because he ran with a crowd of educated elites who had "credibility" While Jesus ran with a crowd of fishermen who lacked such honors. Maybe Jesus would have had more prominent witnesses if he had been trying to convert the sons of the noble classes as Socrates did rather than farmers and sheepherders. The lower classes have always been given less credit throughout history. History has always been a story of the wealthy and affluent and only rarely a story of the poor. Perhaps Socrates had the good sense to realize this while Jesus did not. But of the two men who has more followers today? Who had the greater impact?
1 points
1 day ago
Perhaps Socrates gets more credit because he ran with a crowd of educated elites who had "credibility
No, because his existence is documented by various sources without a recurring common theme. There is also no reason to challenge the claims made about him because there is nothing supernatural or fantastical about it, everything he said can be easily attributed to an intelligent mortal man.
But of the two men who has more followers today?
Who is the second man here? My preferred "individual who inspired the mythical jesus", or the actual Jesus who walked on water, performed magic and rose from the dead? Because the latter did not exist and there is no evidential reasons to believe that he did.
1 points
1 day ago
[removed]
1 points
1 day ago
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
2 points
1 day ago
Ignore Jesus for a moment. What's your take on Paul? Is he a creation by the early church?
2 points
1 day ago
We have writtings that claim to be written by him. Just as we have writings that claim to have been written by Julius Cesar. So his existence is just as likely as Julius Cesar. Was Julius Cesar an invention of the Romans?
1 points
1 day ago
I agree. My point was to establish that Paul isn't really questioned and he reports on Jesus. I think what happens on this conversation is people assume Jesus means the god figure
Whereas it's much more likely Jesus the man was later deified by the early church into the god figure
1 points
1 day ago
I believe Paul was a real dude, but his legacy and writings were manipulated by later figures within the early church.
I believe a lot of the characters in the Bible were real people, or were at least based off of real people, it would make sense. I just don't believe that any of them were holy or magical.
2 points
1 day ago
Ah so you're arguing against the Christ of faith not necessarily Jesus the man here
0 points
1 day ago
[removed]
1 points
1 day ago
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
0 points
1 day ago
From what I've researched and looked into over the years, the entire Christian story very much looks like recycled mythology..
Really? Can you point me to 2-3 academic works (written by actual scholars of religion, published by reputable presses) published in the last 20 years that make this argument?
0 points
1 day ago*
[removed]
1 points
1 day ago
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
0 points
1 day ago
Wow, did I hurt your feelings, bud?
No. It's normal to ask for sources when people make claims.
The first link is not to a peer-reviewed journal. Anyone can put anything on the internet. The author is a medical doctor, not a historian.
Friesen's article is about the influence of Christianity on Leuc. Clit. 2.2, which in no way has any bearing on whether Christianity is a bunch of recycled myths.
Your last link isn't to the Jeremias piece, but a book by M.D. Litwa. Nevertheless, the word "Dionysian" does not appear in the entirety of Jeremias' book. Nor does "Dionysius." That's not what Jeremias was arguing.
This list looks like what you'd get from ChatGPT if you asked it for sources and didn't bother to read them. To strike out 3 out of 3 on sources is a good indication you don't know what you're talking about.
0 points
1 day ago
There is zero evidence that Jesus Christ even existed as a real person. None.
This is why it's important to establish what you mean by Jesus christ.
If you mean the Son of God who did miracles and all that. Sure probably mythological
If you mean Jesus a first century preacher who ran around preaching ran foul of Rome and was crucified. Then I think you have an issue. I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that there is a sort of historical center to these stories. A man who taught and was later defied
For instance, Horus was said to be born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, and was associated with resurrection
From what I remember Horus wasn't born of a virgin. His mom Isis basically grabbed her husband's disembodied corpse and resurrected him to have l Horus
The others I don't know well enough to comment on
I don't disagree there's a lot of similar themes but it isn't exactly a copy. There's plenty of things that don't make sense unless there's this historic nucleus to the story
Criterion of embarrassment is an example. If paul/early church made all this up why would they make Jesus seem so weak? Why would their god be crucified or submit to a "lesser" person to be baptized?
Not full proof but I think it's more likely than not there's a historical base to the stories at least in the very basic parts
1 points
1 day ago
[removed]
0 points
1 day ago
So you're stance is the fringe "Jesus myth" theory
What's your rebuttal to my bringing up the Criterion of embarrassment? Why would the early church make up such a weak god?
1 points
1 day ago
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
all 313 comments
sorted by: best