Interesting Reddit thread
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:18 pm
A lifelong atheist with a phd in New Testament and Early Christianity answering questions on reddit.
As good as an athiest can be I would say.This guy is giving people a better view of the bible and a positive view of Christianity. He says quasi-positive and absolutly positve things about the religion like:
"Do you think that Christianity as it is written in the Bible is a positive or negative influence on human behavior? I'm not counting here people who simply use it to support their existing morality, but those who sincerely take it all seriously and try and reconcile the good with the bad.
There are parts of the Bible that are among the most radically life-affirming, love-demanding and morality-promoting texts any human being could ever read. But there are also deeply, deeply flawed parts that Western society has finally begun to realize should be set aside (like issues of sexuality). It is my firm conviction that the best way for believers (i.e., not for myself) to treat the Bible is to recognize that it is a human construct intended as an expression of faith in God, rather than as a divine construct intended as an expression of control over humanity."
But this educated athiest raises some points that us as an apologetic community need to address.
"how many of the messianic prophesies in the torah did jesus actually satisfy?
Virtually none, if you're going off of the lists of messianic expectations that most Jews had at the time. Jesus was an utter failure as far as that goes. In particular, his crucifixion at the hands of the Romans was a big no-no, since the messiah was not supposed to suffer and die; he was supposed to triumph and rule.
The story of Jesus as told in the Gospels was written in part to conform to the messianic expectations about Jesus that Christians had developed by that point. For example, the contortions used to get Jesus to Bethlehem from Nazareth in Luke are different from the ones in Matthew, but both authors did this in order to satisfy the perceived messianic expectations about Bethlehem and Nazareth.
With any text of sufficient size, there will be "uncanny coincidences." But there are vastly more "dull non-events." You can point to virtually any line in the Old Testament and it will not represent a prediction about Jesus. Only a few actually do, and they do so mainly because the traditions about Jesus developed around those ideas, not necessarily because they actually happened.
1) A lot of people on r/atheism claim that Christians should be following levitical and old testament law. Do you think Jesus 'fulfilment of the law' verse dispels that
The Gospel of Matthew clearly wants its readers to believe that Jesus intended for his followers to follow the Levitical, "Old Testament" law.
Paul in particular wants his readers to believe the exact opposite.
2) As far as you're aware do you think the authors of the stories in Genesis (Garden Of Eden, Tower Of Babel, Flood) intended for them to be taken literally?
Yes, probably. (I'd say more, but, yeah, that's about it: yes, probably.)
3) How much of the gospels do you think were revised/doctored later on or after the authors had written them? I understand Bart Ehrman believed the 'he who is without sin, cast the first stone' story was added later.
Yes, the story about the woman caught in adultery was added, as were a couple different endings to the Gospel of Mark (which originally ended at 16:8). But by and large the evidence suggests not much was doctored beyond that. Instead, later writers tended to create their own works (which is why we have Matthew and Luke, and not just Mark and John).
4) There were supposedly eyewitness accounts of the ressurection. What is your view on this, was Jesus a illusionist?
There were no eyewitnesses to the resurrection itself, according to the Gospels, only eyewitnesses to Jesus after he was resurrected. My view is that this was a tradition or set of traditions that developed after Jesus' death as a way to keep his memory and relevance alive. They are not stories accurately representing a historical reality."
If anyone has the authority here to refute some of these claims we need you. These claims make me scared especially since they are giving intellectual power for lay people to casually say no to the gospels.