Why the Bible? (Religion)

by dhw, Monday, September 15, 2008, 15:10 (5911 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George has referred us to an interesting atheist site called ebonmusings. - I read the (rather long) essay called 'Choking on the Camel', which sets out a stimulating thesis that Jesus never actually existed. The main arguments seem to be that there are no eyewitness accounts, contemporary historians barely mention what should have been world-shattering events, the famous Josephus passage is a forgery (convincingly argued, in my view), the gospels ... written long after the events ... clearly build on their predecessors, and how do narrators actually know what happened if they weren't there and had no written records to consult? The author believes that Paul's epistles only refer to a spiritual, not a physical Christ (Paul's only personal contact having been through a vision). - Since Edinburgh4 is the only contributor to this site so far to take the Bible literally, I suspect that most of us will agree that many of the stories are fictional or at best symbolic. The idea that Jesus never actually existed goes one step further. The argument is sometimes circular. If the miraculous events claimed by the gospels were just fiction (as we non-Christians believe), it's hardly surprising that contemporary historians didn't mention them. Nor is it surprising that the comparatively few eyewitnesses did not include an historian. There were others also claiming to be the Messiah, so why should outsiders bother about one more? Only the eyewitnesses would have been convinced. But the fact that later writers embellish a story doesn't mean that the main character didn't exist. Tiddlers turn into whales, given enough story-telling fishermen. It's surprising that the author doesn't mention St Peter, who is said to have been an eyewitness, to have met St Paul on more than one occasion (and quarrelled with him), and to have been crucified under Nero (who certainly existed). I'm in no position to argue about history, but since Peter was the 'rock' and provides the human link between Christ and the church, I find it hard to believe that either he didn't exist (whereas Paul did) or his story revolves round events that never happened (i.e. Christ's human life and death). The virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection, the three-day darkness ... as far as I'm concerned, they all sound like the product of the propagandists. But I'm not convinced that Christ and his contemporaries were fictional, or that the latter suffered their appalling martyrdom for what they believed to be a fictional character. - The author finishes with praise for the "freedom and enlightenment of atheism". I think he's confusing religion with theism. We all agree that there is some colossal creative force out there. What we don't know is whether it's conscious or not. Even the main religions, despite their myths and symbols, may yet have an element of truth in them, so the self-congratulating "enlightenment" might be a bit premature.