Hell isn’t a real big feature of the Bible. Jews started getting an idea of hell from the Greeks around the time of Jesus - there was Sheol before, but it wasn’t really “hell”. This idea of perpetual torment in a some sort of arrangement run by Satan is something that developed of thousands of years, and isn’t Biblical. The hell we imagine is mostly the creation of a late medieval poet :)
I’m not a Christian, but I think it might be helpful for you to read the Bible as a historical document. If you read it angrily, and just look up verses to disprove Christianity, then you work yourself up and don’t develop a better understanding of the text. You seem to be arguing with a lot of people in this thread as if they are religious when they are not. The fact that God is not real and that the historical Jesus was not the Son of God does not mean the Bible is stupid and garbage.
Right except Paul talks about hell 3x in the authentic letters. There was a concept of it around and yes it probably had Greek roots. Really not seeing what difference this all makes. This is Christian doctrine and just because people can point to the history of it doesn’t mean that suddenly people don’t believe it. I argue with people on the ideas that they present not the ones I would have liked them to.
The Bible is fucking stupid hot garbage. The books are propaganda that have almost nothing to do with real life events and provide multiple contradictiary ways to live that are somehow all terrible. You know it endorses the very worst behaviors. Who the heck cares if the Christians borrowed hell from someone else? They still have it. Paul grabbed and since the Gospels were all fanfics off his letters they have it as well.
Oh and Jesus never existed so you can drop that historical Jesus stuff.
The majority of scholars who study the Bible agree that there was a historical Jesus. I’m not saying “scholars” from my local Bible college, I’m saying that if you read articles on the Bible on JSTOR that is the going consensus. The degree to which he resembles the Jesus in the Bible is up for debate.
Which letters do you believe are correctly attributed to Paul? Can you cite those three examples? What are their soteriologies and descriptions of hell, and how do they compare with contemporary depictions?
I’m not sure that you are really “argue with people on the ideas they present” because you consistently rail against straw men. I don’t think you’re really interested in the history, I think you are just angry about religion. But as a fellow atheist, rallying against “skydaddy” makes us look like 14 year olds posting on r/atheism :)
“Christian doctrine” is extremely nebulous. Not every Christian in the 2nd century was reading the same texts. It’s difficult to get a consistent set of answers from Christians today what Christian doctrine is.
The majority of scholars who study the Bible agree that there was a historical Jesus
The majority of scholars who study the Bible believe the resurrection was a true historical event and that the gospel attributions are 100% accurate. I.e. a man named Marc wrote the first gospel. What’s the matter? The logical fallacy of Argument from Authority only works when you want it to work?
m not saying “scholars” from my local Bible college, I’m saying that if you read articles on the Bible on JSTOR that is the going consensus.
Right you gathered a bunch of True Scotsmen and now the plural of what they say has become data. Is something true because it is or because a lot of people say it is true? Does a lie become truth if really smart amazing people say it is?
The degree to which he resembles the Jesus in the Bible is up for debate.
Yeah something a lot of us have noticed. The total inability to keep the story straight. Ask 5 True Scotsmen scholars the same question about Jesus and you get 5 different answers that can’t all be true.
Which letters do you believe are correctly attributed to Paul? Can you cite those three examples?
Corthininas 6:9, these 1:8, Romans 2:5.
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
1 Thessalonians
Philemon
Not to be too whiny but you could have done this yourself.
What are their soteriologies and descriptions of hell, and how do they compare with contemporary depictions?
Who cares? I already explained this to you. Just because something is not in the Bible doesn’t mean it isn’t in Christianity. The Bible is a product of it, not a manual for it. The Trinity isn’t in there either. We know that Paul had a concept of it and the gospels writers added to it. I don’t even know why you are arguing this with me? Christians have an idea of hell. Do I agree it is for bad reasons? Yes, I am an atheist. You should be arguing with them.
m not sure that you are really “argue with people on the ideas they present” because you consistently rail against straw men. I don’t think you’re really interested in the history, I think you are just angry about religion. But as a fellow atheist, rallying against “skydaddy” makes us look like 14 year olds posting on r/atheism
Thanks for the advice Grandpa.
Christian doctrine” is extremely nebulous. Not every Christian in the 2nd century was reading the same texts. It’s difficult to get a consistent set of answers from Christians today what Christian doctrine is.
It’s really clear that you aren’t interested in learning. The scholars on JSTOR do not believe that someone named Mark wrote Mark. I would suggest getting a nice Oxford annotated Bible to get a good view of the scholarship, but I’m afraid that might upset you further. I think you are likely to reflexively dismiss any scholarship that isn’t “Christianity is a hoax.” Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to do any serious critical analysis. When I took my religious historiography class, it was very clear that starting with any sort of agenda is a bad idea.
“Which letters were written by Paul” is a big point of debate, and scholars differ greatly in their opinions. Considering that your views on history tend to not align with mainstream historical consensus, it’s a pretty important thing to establish.
I really like Bart Ehrman’s work myself - it’s pretty easy to find online and he writes in a style that is pretty accessible to a casual audience.
. I would suggest getting a nice Oxford annotated Bible to get a good view of the scholarship, but I’m afraid that might upset you further.
Lay off the personal attacks. I own a copy of the Oxford annotated Bible and studied the semetic languages as well as Greek. I planned to be a biblical scholar before I learned that God was a lie. Says so very much that you can’t produce evidence of your claim that Jesus was real instead you are reduced to basic logical fallacies and personal attacks while dismissively hinting that I don’t know anything. Give me any page of the OT and I can reliably translate about 80% of the words and tell you where it is from. Since we are apparently using knowledge as a weapon instead of evidence I am going to ask you if you can do the same.
See how crap this argument is? Am I right because I know Hebrew and Aramaic and a bit of Greek? Am I wrong because I don’t live on JSTOR? Stop with the no True Scotsmen and Argument from Authority. Produce your evidence for your god existing if you can’t I can dismiss him. On my side I see absurd claims told by liars that are inconsistent and so far the only fucking evidence you have produced is someone else said 20 centuries later on what they thought.
Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to do any serious critical analysis.
I am happy to do critical analysis. Go right ahead and make your point.
When I took my religious historiography class, it was very clear that starting with any sort of agenda is a bad idea.
I won’t apologize for caring about the truth.
Which letters were written by Paul” is a big point of debate, and scholars differ greatly in their opinions. Considering that your views on history tend to not align with mainstream historical consensus, it’s a pretty important thing to establish.
Why? I am sorry but why? If I disagree with scholars on one thing does that mean I must on all things? Do I have to sit here with serial killer obsession levels building up thousands of claims of consensus and rate them on how much I agree with them and why? Tell me the reason. I won’t to know the exact reason why I am required to do that. Maybe some biblical scholar can answer it for you.
Christianity has hell which letters of Paul are forgeries and which are not is independent.
I really like Bart Ehrman’s work myself - it’s pretty easy to find online and he writes in a style that is pretty accessible to a casual audience.
He is alright. Listen to his podcast and have almost all of his books. Not sure what name dropping is doing for you but whatever.
I suspect that you attended a fundamentalist Bible college and have had little exposure to mainstream academic scholarship. I do find it hard to believe that you are fluent in Greek, because you don’t appear to be fluent in English (forgive me if it is not your first language). I have at multiple points explained that I am not religious for example. I do not believe in God.
We would laugh if a creationist claimed that citing scientific studies was an “argument from authority.” By arguing against mainstream historical consensus, you make it easy for Christians to dismiss everything you say. If you “care about the truth” you should be aware that it is very hard to come to the truth if you have strong emotional biases.
I generally avoid using podcasts for historical research :) Ehrman’s books have awesome footnotes, reading one of his books usually adds ten to my TBR list.
I understand being angry at Christianity. I’m a queer person and live in a very religious place. I can’t use the fucking bathroom legally because of Bible thumpers. But we have to do better than Tony Evans when we study history.
I suspect that you attended a fundamentalist Bible college and have had little exposure to mainstream academic scholarship.
Wrong again. I gave it up in high school. Went for engineering at a state school.
do find it hard to believe that you are fluent in Greek, because you don’t appear to be fluent in English (forgive me if it is not your first language).
Nice personal attack. At least nice try. I am not fluent in Greek. I was very careful in what I claimed. I sucked at Greek and I am confident I suck even more now. Self-trained so yeah you get what you pay for. Decent at the semitic languages, probably because I studied them first. I had this idea in my head that I was going to learn the Bible in its original starting from page 1. I still remember the point when I could read the Book Of Job with very little struggle and how proud I was. Left Christianity when I was a late teen and was working on Matthew.
We would laugh if a creationist claimed that citing scientific studies was an “argument from authority.
False comparison for two reasons
I have as much evidence of evolution as I want and we are constantly discovering more. There hasn’t been a new discovery of a major text since the 1940s.
Science doesn’t depend on arguments from authority. It has data. Claims about the Bible almost always come down to arguments from authority, such as you are using.
you make it easy for Christians to dismiss everything you say.
Don’t care.
If you “care about the truth” you should be aware that it is very hard to come to the truth if you have strong emotional biases.
Still waiting on the evidence instead of the debate tips. Let me know when you have some for your son of god.
I understand being angry at Christianity. I’m a queer person and live in a very religious place. I can’t use the fucking bathroom legally because of Bible thumpers. But we have to do better than Tony Evans when we study history.
Right so being mad at that belief system doesn’t mean it is true. You can overcompensate as well as compensate. There is no good evidence that Jesus existed and a pile of evidence that he did not.
Muhammad was a historical figure. That does not mean Islam is true. Jesus was also a historical figure, and that does not mean Christianity is true. It’s hard to proof that a random person from any historical time period existed, because most folks couldn’t read or write, but Jesus is independently attested in Josephus. We know that John the Baptist existed, we know that Pontius Pilate existed. I’m not sure how you have a “pile of evidence” that someone did not exist, it tends to be very difficult to prove a negative. :)
If you walk into any mainstream research university, and talk to their religious studies department, the idea that Jesus didn’t exist is very fringe. That’s great the you did some passionate research in high school, but that is not enough to disprove the widely accepted academic consensus. This isn’t “argument from authority” - this is peer review. I don’t have the Greek or access to multiple manuscripts, so I have to rely on what they say - and the fact that academics are always looking to disprove each other and get published. The historiography of early Christianity has undergone massive changes since the 1940s. (This is true for historiography across the board - my interest primarily lies in Ancient China, and the debate there is whether the Xia dynasty existed or not)
If you do want some academic support for a fictional Christ, you can try Richard Carrier or Bob Price (Price has a podcast!) Bob Price is absolutely insane but fun and he’s always very clear when he disagrees with consensus.
Hell isn’t a real big feature of the Bible. Jews started getting an idea of hell from the Greeks around the time of Jesus - there was Sheol before, but it wasn’t really “hell”. This idea of perpetual torment in a some sort of arrangement run by Satan is something that developed of thousands of years, and isn’t Biblical. The hell we imagine is mostly the creation of a late medieval poet :)
I’m not a Christian, but I think it might be helpful for you to read the Bible as a historical document. If you read it angrily, and just look up verses to disprove Christianity, then you work yourself up and don’t develop a better understanding of the text. You seem to be arguing with a lot of people in this thread as if they are religious when they are not. The fact that God is not real and that the historical Jesus was not the Son of God does not mean the Bible is stupid and garbage.
Right except Paul talks about hell 3x in the authentic letters. There was a concept of it around and yes it probably had Greek roots. Really not seeing what difference this all makes. This is Christian doctrine and just because people can point to the history of it doesn’t mean that suddenly people don’t believe it. I argue with people on the ideas that they present not the ones I would have liked them to.
The Bible is fucking stupid hot garbage. The books are propaganda that have almost nothing to do with real life events and provide multiple contradictiary ways to live that are somehow all terrible. You know it endorses the very worst behaviors. Who the heck cares if the Christians borrowed hell from someone else? They still have it. Paul grabbed and since the Gospels were all fanfics off his letters they have it as well.
Oh and Jesus never existed so you can drop that historical Jesus stuff.
The majority of scholars who study the Bible agree that there was a historical Jesus. I’m not saying “scholars” from my local Bible college, I’m saying that if you read articles on the Bible on JSTOR that is the going consensus. The degree to which he resembles the Jesus in the Bible is up for debate.
Which letters do you believe are correctly attributed to Paul? Can you cite those three examples? What are their soteriologies and descriptions of hell, and how do they compare with contemporary depictions?
I’m not sure that you are really “argue with people on the ideas they present” because you consistently rail against straw men. I don’t think you’re really interested in the history, I think you are just angry about religion. But as a fellow atheist, rallying against “skydaddy” makes us look like 14 year olds posting on r/atheism :)
“Christian doctrine” is extremely nebulous. Not every Christian in the 2nd century was reading the same texts. It’s difficult to get a consistent set of answers from Christians today what Christian doctrine is.
The majority of scholars who study the Bible believe the resurrection was a true historical event and that the gospel attributions are 100% accurate. I.e. a man named Marc wrote the first gospel. What’s the matter? The logical fallacy of Argument from Authority only works when you want it to work?
Right you gathered a bunch of True Scotsmen and now the plural of what they say has become data. Is something true because it is or because a lot of people say it is true? Does a lie become truth if really smart amazing people say it is?
Yeah something a lot of us have noticed. The total inability to keep the story straight. Ask 5 True Scotsmen scholars the same question about Jesus and you get 5 different answers that can’t all be true.
Corthininas 6:9, these 1:8, Romans 2:5.
Not to be too whiny but you could have done this yourself.
Who cares? I already explained this to you. Just because something is not in the Bible doesn’t mean it isn’t in Christianity. The Bible is a product of it, not a manual for it. The Trinity isn’t in there either. We know that Paul had a concept of it and the gospels writers added to it. I don’t even know why you are arguing this with me? Christians have an idea of hell. Do I agree it is for bad reasons? Yes, I am an atheist. You should be arguing with them.
Thanks for the advice Grandpa.
Fine. 99%
It’s really clear that you aren’t interested in learning. The scholars on JSTOR do not believe that someone named Mark wrote Mark. I would suggest getting a nice Oxford annotated Bible to get a good view of the scholarship, but I’m afraid that might upset you further. I think you are likely to reflexively dismiss any scholarship that isn’t “Christianity is a hoax.” Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to do any serious critical analysis. When I took my religious historiography class, it was very clear that starting with any sort of agenda is a bad idea.
“Which letters were written by Paul” is a big point of debate, and scholars differ greatly in their opinions. Considering that your views on history tend to not align with mainstream historical consensus, it’s a pretty important thing to establish.
I really like Bart Ehrman’s work myself - it’s pretty easy to find online and he writes in a style that is pretty accessible to a casual audience.
Lay off the personal attacks. I own a copy of the Oxford annotated Bible and studied the semetic languages as well as Greek. I planned to be a biblical scholar before I learned that God was a lie. Says so very much that you can’t produce evidence of your claim that Jesus was real instead you are reduced to basic logical fallacies and personal attacks while dismissively hinting that I don’t know anything. Give me any page of the OT and I can reliably translate about 80% of the words and tell you where it is from. Since we are apparently using knowledge as a weapon instead of evidence I am going to ask you if you can do the same.
See how crap this argument is? Am I right because I know Hebrew and Aramaic and a bit of Greek? Am I wrong because I don’t live on JSTOR? Stop with the no True Scotsmen and Argument from Authority. Produce your evidence for your god existing if you can’t I can dismiss him. On my side I see absurd claims told by liars that are inconsistent and so far the only fucking evidence you have produced is someone else said 20 centuries later on what they thought.
I am happy to do critical analysis. Go right ahead and make your point.
I won’t apologize for caring about the truth.
Why? I am sorry but why? If I disagree with scholars on one thing does that mean I must on all things? Do I have to sit here with serial killer obsession levels building up thousands of claims of consensus and rate them on how much I agree with them and why? Tell me the reason. I won’t to know the exact reason why I am required to do that. Maybe some biblical scholar can answer it for you.
Christianity has hell which letters of Paul are forgeries and which are not is independent.
He is alright. Listen to his podcast and have almost all of his books. Not sure what name dropping is doing for you but whatever.
Once again, I am not religious.
I suspect that you attended a fundamentalist Bible college and have had little exposure to mainstream academic scholarship. I do find it hard to believe that you are fluent in Greek, because you don’t appear to be fluent in English (forgive me if it is not your first language). I have at multiple points explained that I am not religious for example. I do not believe in God.
We would laugh if a creationist claimed that citing scientific studies was an “argument from authority.” By arguing against mainstream historical consensus, you make it easy for Christians to dismiss everything you say. If you “care about the truth” you should be aware that it is very hard to come to the truth if you have strong emotional biases.
I generally avoid using podcasts for historical research :) Ehrman’s books have awesome footnotes, reading one of his books usually adds ten to my TBR list.
I understand being angry at Christianity. I’m a queer person and live in a very religious place. I can’t use the fucking bathroom legally because of Bible thumpers. But we have to do better than Tony Evans when we study history.
Fair.
Wrong again. I gave it up in high school. Went for engineering at a state school.
Nice personal attack. At least nice try. I am not fluent in Greek. I was very careful in what I claimed. I sucked at Greek and I am confident I suck even more now. Self-trained so yeah you get what you pay for. Decent at the semitic languages, probably because I studied them first. I had this idea in my head that I was going to learn the Bible in its original starting from page 1. I still remember the point when I could read the Book Of Job with very little struggle and how proud I was. Left Christianity when I was a late teen and was working on Matthew.
False comparison for two reasons
I have as much evidence of evolution as I want and we are constantly discovering more. There hasn’t been a new discovery of a major text since the 1940s.
Science doesn’t depend on arguments from authority. It has data. Claims about the Bible almost always come down to arguments from authority, such as you are using.
Don’t care.
Still waiting on the evidence instead of the debate tips. Let me know when you have some for your son of god.
Right so being mad at that belief system doesn’t mean it is true. You can overcompensate as well as compensate. There is no good evidence that Jesus existed and a pile of evidence that he did not.
Muhammad was a historical figure. That does not mean Islam is true. Jesus was also a historical figure, and that does not mean Christianity is true. It’s hard to proof that a random person from any historical time period existed, because most folks couldn’t read or write, but Jesus is independently attested in Josephus. We know that John the Baptist existed, we know that Pontius Pilate existed. I’m not sure how you have a “pile of evidence” that someone did not exist, it tends to be very difficult to prove a negative. :)
If you walk into any mainstream research university, and talk to their religious studies department, the idea that Jesus didn’t exist is very fringe. That’s great the you did some passionate research in high school, but that is not enough to disprove the widely accepted academic consensus. This isn’t “argument from authority” - this is peer review. I don’t have the Greek or access to multiple manuscripts, so I have to rely on what they say - and the fact that academics are always looking to disprove each other and get published. The historiography of early Christianity has undergone massive changes since the 1940s. (This is true for historiography across the board - my interest primarily lies in Ancient China, and the debate there is whether the Xia dynasty existed or not)
If you do want some academic support for a fictional Christ, you can try Richard Carrier or Bob Price (Price has a podcast!) Bob Price is absolutely insane but fun and he’s always very clear when he disagrees with consensus.