You left Christianity to be Atheist or Agnostic? (prophets, Vatican, pray)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even though we have over 500 eyewitnesses to Christ's ascension and many of His being alive after He was put to death according to historic documents, you used logic to conclude it was not real? Did your logic cause you to believe there never was a Jerusalem, Israel, Pontius Pilate, Jews, sheep, sun light etc. as spoken of in the Bible too?
We have Paul's second-hand claim of 500 eyewitnesses, not 500 actual eyewitnesses and certainly not the testimony of each of them. Big difference.
We have more reason to believe in the other things you mention because we have independent testimony and shared experience of humanity for them. Also there are no extraordinary claims of the sort being made for Jesus, and so the evidentiary standards are, or can be, lower.
Taking the least likely of the other ones you listed, Pontius Pilate looks solid as a real historic figure, though there is some confusion about whether he was prefect or procurator, or both at different times. He appears on stone markers and in secular accounts. No one claims he worked miracles or raised the dead, either (there need only be a historic Pilate, not a "Biblical Pilate" for whom extraordinary claims are being made). We DO lack any source other than scripture for Pilate's role, if any, in Jesus' execution, and the details thereof, but that story doesn't really stand or fall based on Pilate's (in)actions or even whether it was Pilate or someone else.
On the other hand the oldest (as close as we can rough date them anyway) writings about Jesus are from Paul, sometime after 40 CE and into the 50's. They are nowhere near as detailed as the gospels, which were written some decades later and are in some respects at odds with what Paul did say. Paul explicitly disqualifies himself as an eyewitness and even explicitly disowns eyewitnesses to whom he had access (e.g., Peter) as the source of his own knowledge, stating that his source was a personal subjective experience (a heavenly vision). "Luke" was not an eyewitness and characterizes his gospel as a researching of various accounts, maybe or maybe not first hand; most scholars seem to think the bulk of his material is the gospel of Mark and the hypothetical "Q" sayings. The other gospels make no claims one way or the other and are written too late for either the authors to be eyewitnesses or, likely, to even have the ability to interview any.
There are no contemporaneous secular or public record accounts, monuments, or other surviving evidence of the life and ministry of the historical Jesus, much less the Biblical one.
Paul would not have made that assertion if it weren't true. If there were none or just one who witnessed it, they would have called him on it.
This claim wasn't being made in the 21st century. There was no mass media or journalism or rapid communication. Much of Paul's ministry was far from the original events, whatever they actually were, both in terms of geography and time. By the time Paul's writings received wide dissemination, Jesus had already passed into legend and the eyewitnesses were dead and the claims and counterclaims fuzzy. I don't think Paul would have much cared if anyone "called" him on it anyway; he seems to me to be the sort who would not fear naysayers. Increasingly I have the impression that he was constructing doctrine and a body of stories and he was content to let the legend grow, knowing that time was on his side.
Of course I know that for you and much of Christianity, Paul is a larger-than-life figure who can do no wrong. I don't think it's a stretch to call him the co-founder of the faith; in fact, I think it's quite possible he's the actual founder in a very real sense. But I see him as an inventor, not a conduit.
Well you do not get saved by works such as praying constantly, going to church, following the ten commandments, being baptised and living a moral and respectable way of life.
It is through grace that we are saved through Jesus Christ. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
One can go to church all their life and not be a Christian. They can be religious and know the bible back to front. Yet claiming to be a Christian according to the Bible will not ensure the person will enter heaven.
That would be an empty assertion based on Paul's unfounded premises. I never left grace, Thankfully, I have far more humility now, as a confessor of human agnosticism. I had faith, I'm fully sure of that. I had grace, the blessesings were and still are manifest. Explain how you demonstrate grace to yourself? I do it through Faith.
Even thought we have over 500 eyewitnesses to Christ's ascension and many of His being alive after He was put to death according to historic documents, you used logic to conclude it was not real? Did your logic cause you to believe there never was a Jerusalem, Israel, Pontius Pilate, Jews, sheep, sun light etc. as spoken of in the Bible too?
Meh, I don't think Jesus was even an actual person. I think he's a collaboration of several people in the ancient world. I think if there was a way to travel back in time, we would be amazed at how far off we are in regards to who most biblical characters actually were and how insignificant they might have been. If you want to believe what you believe, I say more power to you, but I'm unable to believe in something unless there is some form legitimacy to it. The entire concept of organized religion is ridiculous. Isn't it strange how when the new world was discovered, nobody had ever heard of Jesus, yet there were major civilizations that had been around for thousands of years. Isn't it strange that most religions are based on free will, yet we now know that genetics and environment play the largest roles in shaping who we are. Does a schizophrenic have free will? Will a cloned human have a soul? What is the point of mental retardation, cancer, MS etc. Religion has no way of answering these questions for an intelligent person that actually seeks the truth. I don't have the answers to life, but I can tell you that it has nothing to do with any of the organized religions.
Meh, I don't think Jesus was even an actual person. I think he's a collaboration of several people in the ancient world. I think if there was a way to travel back in time, we would be amazed at how far off we are in regards to who most biblical characters actually were and how insignificant they might have been. If you want to believe what you believe, I say more power to you, but I'm unable to believe in something unless there is some form legitimacy to it. The entire concept of organized religion is ridiculous. Isn't it strange how when the new world was discovered, nobody had ever heard of Jesus, yet there were major civilizations that had been around for thousands of years. Isn't it strange that most religions are based on free will, yet we now know that genetics and environment play the largest roles in shaping who we are. Does a schizophrenic have free will? Will a cloned human have a soul? What is the point of mental retardation, cancer, MS etc. Religion has no way of answering these questions for an intelligent person that actually seeks the truth. I don't have the answers to life, but I can tell you that it has nothing to do with any of the organized religions.
So are you saying, according to my OP that you were once a Christian but now an atheist?
If we took a time machine back to the time of Christ we would be amazed at how many people He raised from the dead and all the wonderful deeds He did in healing people.
This claim wasn't being made in the 21st century. There was no mass media or journalism or rapid communication.
And your proof?
Quote:
Much of Paul's ministry was far from the original events, whatever they actually were, both in terms of geography and time. By the time Paul's writings received wide dissemination, Jesus had already passed into legend and the eyewitnesses were dead and the claims and counterclaims fuzzy.
Not really. Paul, when writing to the Corinthians wrote that most of the over 500 witnesses to Christ being alive after He died were still alive.
Quote:
I don't think Paul would have much cared if anyone "called" him on it anyway; he seems to me to be the sort who would not fear naysayers. Increasingly I have the impression that he was constructing doctrine and a body of stories and he was content to let the legend grow, knowing that time was on his side.
Paul certainly would have cared if people knew he was just making stuff up. He always wrote in his letters that he spoke the truth and had a clear conscience. He also met the risen Lord. So what you think what what actually occurred are two entirely different matters.
Quote:
Of course I know that for you and much of Christianity, Paul is a larger-than-life figure who can do no wrong. I don't think it's a stretch to call him the co-founder of the faith; in fact, I think it's quite possible he's the actual founder in a very real sense. But I see him as an inventor, not a conduit.
The 12 apostles knew Paul was chosen by God to go to the nations and be the apostle of the nations. They actually agreed with Paul this was so. He invented nothing. Israel was being set aside in God's program and grace had to go to the nations. Paul was the apostle of a new administration of grace.
We have Paul's second-hand claim of 500 eyewitnesses, not 500 actual eyewitnesses and certainly not the testimony of each of them. Big difference.
We have more reason to believe in the other things you mention because we have independent testimony and shared experience of humanity for them. Also there are no extraordinary claims of the sort being made for Jesus, and so the evidentiary standards are, or can be, lower.
Taking the least likely of the other ones you listed, Pontius Pilate looks solid as a real historic figure, though there is some confusion about whether he was prefect or procurator, or both at different times. He appears on stone markers and in secular accounts. No one claims he worked miracles or raised the dead, either (there need only be a historic Pilate, not a "Biblical Pilate" for whom extraordinary claims are being made). We DO lack any source other than scripture for Pilate's role, if any, in Jesus' execution, and the details thereof, but that story doesn't really stand or fall based on Pilate's (in)actions or even whether it was Pilate or someone else.
On the other hand the oldest (as close as we can rough date them anyway) writings about Jesus are from Paul, sometime after 40 CE and into the 50's. They are nowhere near as detailed as the gospels, which were written some decades later and are in some respects at odds with what Paul did say. Paul explicitly disqualifies himself as an eyewitness and even explicitly disowns eyewitnesses to whom he had access (e.g., Peter) as the source of his own knowledge, stating that his source was a personal subjective experience (a heavenly vision). "Luke" was not an eyewitness and characterizes his gospel as a researching of various accounts, maybe or maybe not first hand; most scholars seem to think the bulk of his material is the gospel of Mark and the hypothetical "Q" sayings. The other gospels make no claims one way or the other and are written too late for either the authors to be eyewitnesses or, likely, to even have the ability to interview any.
Quote:
There are no contemporaneous secular or public record accounts, monuments, or other surviving evidence of the life and ministry of the historical Jesus, much less the Biblical one.
Of course there are. Google "Early historians wrote about Jesus"
Also, If Rome was not burned to the ground we would still have the official records of Christ's trial and crucifixion. But even then, you would just say those documents were planted by early Christians. Can't win.
So are you saying, according to my OP that you were once a Christian but now an atheist?
If we took a time machine back to the time of Christ we would be amazed at how many people He raised from the dead and all the wonderful deeds He did in healing people.
I actually envy people like yourself. It must be nice.
I was raised in a christian household. My parents are religious, but none of their children including myself are. Like my brother and sister, I am not religious. I believe my brother considers himself to be an atheist, but my sister and I simply are what you would call agnostic I suppose. I personally don't like labeling my beliefs because it seems a bit ridicules considering I have none. My parents don't talk about religion with us anymore, as they know we don't want to hear it. My dad has been through a lot in his life. He is definitely skeptical of his faith, but he claims to be a strong believer. I feel religion is more of a social thing for him, but who knows? My mom is stupid. I love her to death, but there is no getting around the fact that she is not an intelligent person. She has a heart of gold, she is one of the most gullible people you will ever meet. She doesn't get jokes, she can be talked into almost anything, and she's really big on the power of prayer. She is a very simple person that probably could not function without her faith dumbing down the perplexities of life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
