The other day I started thinking about what would have happened if I had stopped looking critically at Christianity after reading those articles that first made me question the Bible’s legitimacy. What if I had turned from them and decided to never look at anything else that might cause me to doubt my faith? If I had, I’m sure I’d still be a Christian today.
But would that really be good enough? Obviously, the things my faith were built upon weren’t solid enough to withstand scrutiny. So if I had maintained faith only by refusing to investigate my reasons, would that kind of faith be pleasing to God? I think that’s a question believers should consider. If that level of faith is good enough, we’re essentially saying, “oh, if only you hadn’t taken your faith so seriously!” But that seems crazy.
The alternative is that my faith might have been good enough until the day I ran across things that made me doubt. At that point, the only way to remain pleasing to God would be to investigate the claims and come out the other side with a stronger faith. Of course, that’s not how it worked out for me. If God’s real and Christianity’s true, then I think this view makes the most sense. However, it causes problems for those Christians who have refused to look at any evidence that might call their beliefs into question. I’ve had several tell me that they won’t read anything an atheist has written, or don’t want me to point out the passages that I found problematic because they don’t want to lose their faith. How does that make sense? If their faith is worth keeping — if it’s true — then further investigation should only support their beliefs, not call them into question.
I’m not trying to pick on Christians here, we can all be guilty of this from time to time. It’s essentially an extreme case of confirmation bias — one in which we realize we’re being biased and we even think of it as a good thing. In fact, it’s extremely dangerous, and if we feel ourselves thinking along those lines, it should be a red flag. What’s wrong with our current position if we have to hide from information in order to keep it?
And in the end, I’m glad I didn’t stop looking. The journey out wasn’t easy, but I feel like things make so much more sense with my current worldview. Even if I’m still wrong, I’m closer to the truth than I was before, because I’ve learned new information and corrected some past misunderstandings. That can only be a good thing.
Finding Truth 
Actually Arch, the main source I would use for that fact would be EP Sanders, though Ehrman agrees. (I mentioned Ehrman because he is better known, but really Sanders is more expert in this.) Sanders identified 11 important facts about Jesus’ public life that are “almost beyond dispute” and said there were also many more facts that weren’t so important.
“We know the Gospel writers were not among those”
Actually, we don’t know that at all. The scholars are certainly not all united on that. And we need to define what we mean by “writers”. Most scholars agree that the gospels were compiled from various sources, written and oral. The writers or speakers of many of those sources were almost certainly eye-witnesses, and it is possible that some of the Gospel writers/compilers were also, though the majority of scholars don’t think so.
But the late Maurice Casey, one of the most respected of NT historians and a recognised expert in Aramaic, identified many aspects particularly of Mark’s gospel that have a clear early Aramaic source and concludes that Mark wrote an accurate account based on good Aramaic eye-witness sources. Richard Bauckham has argued strongly the case of a strong eyewitness basis for the gospels, and of course many conservative scholars would agree. And von Walde has shown that John was very familiar with the geography of Jerusalem, including aspects that had changed within 1-3 decades of Jesus’ death, so he concluded there is eye-witness information in John too.
So the stories we have generally come from eyewitnesses and were written down later. And historians find that adequate to draw conclusions about Jesus. Those who disagree have to show that they have sufficient expertise in ancient history, language, culture, archaeology and literature to make a judgment that can stand against the overwhelming consensus of the historians who do have that expertise.
LikeLike
Hey Josh, I’d like to comment on a few things you mentioned. It seems to me that you believe that you NEED Jesus/God to be able to be a moral person, to do the right things.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. There are many many people with zero religious beliefs that manage to be kind, decent human beings.
To the point, in my little neck of the woods there is a huge issue with the state wanting to buck federal rulings to allow same sex marraige. The amount of christians that I see spitting hate towards these folks that just want a basic human right is unreal. They can’t even manage to hate the sin but love the sinner, these folks just don’t get being a decent human being.
So that being said, being a total douche or a really nice guy doesn’t seem to me to have anything to do with being redeemed by your saviour. In my experience it just boils down to if you actually want to.
LikeLike
Hey Matt-
No. I don’t think I need Jesus/God/religion to be a moral person. Most of us seem to have a moral compass, if you will, regardless of what we believe. What I’m talking about is, what happens when we see that compass in ourselves and we can’t seem to follow it. That issue, to me, raises the question: if we are just a product of natural processes, why don’t we just follow the compass we seem to have? That we’re just human and that’s how we are is unsatisfying to me as an answer. That’s just one of many questions I think atheism is unable to answer.
LikeLike
UnkleE,
havent made it through all the comments yet, so forgive me if this has already been said, but you said this,
“So christianity depends on historical facts which can be in principle verified (plus of course teachings that cannot be verified historically), whereas the core of Buddhism and Baha’i are teachings which cannot be verified.”
But are the alleged teachings of jesus verified just because jesus may have been a real person?
if so, why couldnt Buddha’s teaching be verified in the same way?
and do you think history supports the actual life of buddha?
LikeLike
“The NT references other writings too, such as Greek philosophers and non-Biblical Jewish legends. Their truth or otherwise has no bearing on the historical truth of the NT.” unhleE
but they’re not the same are they? Jesus said things like “I came not to abolish the law (OT) but to fulfill…” and “not one jot nor one tittle shall be abolished until the sun and moon pass away…”
the book of hebrews makes great pains to show a correlation between the two, as a way of justification or vetting the NT based off of the OT.
and when they cited the greek philosophies, etc, it was usually preceded by something like, “and even the heathen know this or that…”
LikeLike
“The scholars would disagree with you – they say more than that can be verified. Check out EP Sanders’ list of 11 facts about Jesus that “are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.)” And he is slightly on the skeptical side of scholarship!” – unkleE
for every scholar in support of jesus, there are those scholars who oppose jesus.
I’m more interested in how and by what said scholars form their opinions. Are they making intellectual leaps in their conclusions, etc?
LikeLike
“Do you really think we can compare the NT with The Iliad? Really?” 0 unkleE
LOL, well no, not really. But there are similarities, and I suppose I was trying to use those similarities as a way of making an analogy. real places, real people, real events…. at least on the extremes we agree that those factors do not confirm the whole of certain claims.
LikeLike
“if we are just a product of natural processes, why don’t we just follow the compass we seem to have?” – josh
I think this is because we dont have just one compass.
I want to eat healthy food, because I realize it’s good and beneficial, and I even feel better when I eat healthy. but why do I often eat unhealthy things? It’s because they taste good, or they’re convenient, or whatever. There are a multitude of factors, and with practice and determination, it gets easier to avoid the unhealthy things.
what’s better, to have $10,000 today, or $1,000,000.00 tomorrow? both have their value and both have their consequences. and the selection depends on whether you’re thinking long term or short term, whether you need or want something badly now, current financial situation, etc… somethings just arent cut and dry – and I think that the good vs evil that all men deal with is more complex that it may seem on the surface.
With religion, with jesus, is it easier for you to follow the good azimuth of your compass, or are you still often torn between wanting to be good, but also having “wordly” tendencies and selfish or lustful desires?
I suspect that jesus hasnt made your compass work any better. The thought of him may have solidified a focal point to walk toward, but in my experience, defined goals do this as well.
LikeLike
and unkleE,
in regard to the jesus/buddha thing, I assume your position is that jesus life was an integral part of his teachings where as buddha’s life wasnt.
But the parts of jesus life that made it integral are the parts that we have no evidence for, like: the literal son of god, like did his death really absolve mankind of sin, and did he die and comeback to life and did he fly into heaven, etc
all the parts of his life that make it an integral part of his teachings are mere claims, without support – other than jesus was most likely a real guy who lived in Palestine (real place, real people, surrounded by certain real events like the Roman occupation – see above Iliad comment and comparison).
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE,
Thanks for the response.
I’ve never denied that non-believers can be just as ignorant of the facts as anyone else. When I talk specifically about Christians who fit into that camp, I’m not doing it as a contrast to everyone else as though I think the rest of humanity is educated and objective. It’s just that we’re talking about whether or not Christianity is true, and I think the people who claim it is should know a lot about it.
First of all, I didn’t say I agree with the mythicists’ position. Like Howie often says, I don’t feel like I’m enough of an expert in this field to make a solid, informed decision, so I tend to side with the majority of scholarship on the issue. At the same time, I don’t see how anyone (even someone like Bart Ehrman, whom I admire very much) can say Jesus’ existence is as certain as history can be. The Jesus of the Bible is a supernatural character, which raises flags immediately. The gospels are written decades after his death, which isn’t necessarily a problem, but it would have been better for his historicity had they been contemporary. While we have historical references to a number of other “messiahs” both before and after Christ, we have no comparable references to Jesus, though his fame should have been much greater, if he had been legit.
There are plenty of other arguments as well — but again, I’m not saying I agree with the mythicists. I’m only saying that their case isn’t as weak as many would like to say. It doesn’t matter to me if Jesus was a real person or not. I’m not trying shift the playing field to help my position; I’ve just never had any interest in that kind of thing. I’m only saying that there are problems with the gospels, and we don’t have any other primary sources for Jesus’ life, so I find it hard to say his existence is as close to “fact” as history can be.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. But if religion weren’t a factor, why couldn’t these same individuals still do the same practices? Personally, I’m just as likely to give to charitable causes now as I was when I was a believer. And if I’m not mistaken, those studies show that religious individuals who give charitably, still give far more to churches than to charities. How much more good could be done if even a fraction of that money went to charities instead?
The happiness stat doesn’t surprise me, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if children who believe in Santa tend to be happier than children who don’t. Would it be beneficial to maintain a belief in Santa throughout one’s life?
But even if we accept everything you just said unequivocally, I still think the world would likely be better off without religion.
Just yesterday I heard about an acquaintance who probably has some legitimate psychological problems, but some of the people close to him think he’s demon-possessed. I’m not sure that he’s going to get the treatment he needs, because some people would rather just pray over him. My wife knows of someone who’s currently battling a heroin addiction. Instead of checking her into rehab, her husband made her spend a weekend with a couple from their church. I can’t help but think that’s a really poor substitute. Then of course, there are all the horrors that have been committed in the name of religion.
I’m not saying no good can ever come from religion, but I do think that it would be a net positive if we didn’t have it at all.
LikeLike
William-
No, it’s not easier. But, I don’t think Jesus represents a moral compass. He represents the announcement of the Good News that, even though we fall short in so many ways to be the people even WE want ourselves to be, there is hope. Granted this brings up all sorts of other questions, like: why did God choose to make us this way, why wouldn’t he have made this abundantly clear to all people of all time, and many, many more questions that I have no answer to. The Kingdom is here. Jesus offers the physical representation of the first-fruits of the Kingdom and reconciliation, with God and with who we believe ourselves capable of being if we weren’t always getting in our own way. Like I said earlier, I fully recognize and acknowledge the fact that the Kingdom does not seem visible now. And, I don’t know why, if God exists, he chose to do things this way. Jesus announced there is a place of hope and reconciliation for us all, that “I go to my father to prepare that place, and will come back for you” and “I, if I be lifted up, draw ALL men to myself”. The moral improvement of mankind wasn’t Jesus’ announcement. The reconciliation “from before the foundation of the world” was his announcement. Again, see previous books by Robert Farrar Capon that I mentioned for a much more detailed discussion of those points.
LikeLike
… or a few people said that jesus those things.
maybe you’re right, but it’s all coming from faceless secondhand sources. and it’s a pretty tall tale too.
LikeLike
William-
Fully acknowledged 🙂
LikeLike
So in essence then, E, it sounds like you’re describing a reporting method similar to the game of “Telephone,” aka, “Chinese Whispers,” and we’re still missing any actual, identifiable source whose credibility we can verify.
What percentage of “historians find that adequate to draw conclusions about Jesus,” vs what percentage do not? Are you saying that those who conclude that Jesus existed represent “the overwhelming consensus of the historians who do have that expertise“?
LikeLike
Hi William, I’ve tried to give brief answers, but please ask for further elucidation if you like.
“But are the alleged teachings of jesus verified just because jesus may have been a real person?”
No, I don’t suggest that. But scholars generally accept as historical that he was a teacher and known to be a healer, that he was believed to have risen from the dead from the very first, and that he taught about the kingdom of God, repentance, etc and predicted a redemptive death.
“if so, why couldnt Buddha’s teaching be verified in the same way? … and do you think history supports the actual life of buddha?”
I haven’t studied it but I think far less details can be known to be historical. But the main point is that it is the teachings that matter, not the life. It wouldn’t matter if you gave the teachings rather than him, but it matters with Jesus.
“but they’re not the same are they? Jesus said things like “I came not to abolish the law (OT) but to fulfill…” and “not one jot nor one tittle shall be abolished until the sun and moon pass away…” ….the book of hebrews makes great pains to show a correlation between the two, as a way of justification or vetting the NT based off of the OT.”
Don Richardson has written about “redemptive analogies” – finding things in a culture that are analogies of the christian message – and he has found them all over the world. The OT is another redemptive analogy, but this time it was more directly inspired by God.
“for every scholar in support of jesus, there are those scholars who oppose jesus. ….I’m more interested in how and by what said scholars form their opinions. Are they making intellectual leaps in their conclusions, etc?”
This is an important point. We should distinguish (1) historical “facts” or conclusions from (2) personal beliefs. When I quote scholars, it is generally on (1), and I try to quote what is broadly accepted as historical regardless of personal belief – that’s why I can quote non-believers like Ehrman, Casey or Sanders. Beliefs very greatly among scholars – not all are christians as is sometimes claimed.
“But the parts of jesus life that made it integral are the parts that we have no evidence for, like: the literal son of god, like did his death really absolve mankind of sin, and did he die and comeback to life and did he fly into heaven, etc”
I agree. We must each make our choice based on what we can know, and other factors such as philosophy and personal experience. The questions are: Can we trust the authors and eye-witnesses to be telling the truth (not necessarily 100% but well enough)? Can we trust the Jesus they portray?
Thanks for interesting questions. I think they are important and what needs to be resolved before a thoughtful person could believe in Jesus.
LikeLike
Hi Nate, again, I will try to be brief.
“I don’t see how anyone (even someone like Bart Ehrman, whom I admire very much) can say Jesus’ existence is as certain as history can be.”
I honestly think you should read some more, I can’t possibly say much here. Casey’s “Jesus of Nazareth” is excellent though a little idiosyncratic. It is considered certain (I think) because historians know people don’t often completely make up stuff like mythicists sometimes claim, especially within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. And if they do, not enough do it in harmony. Invention cannot explain all the sources of references to Jesus.
“The Jesus of the Bible is a supernatural character, which raises flags immediately.”
Not to historians. They are used to dealing with it. They assess the historical evidence (e.g. that Jesus was a healer) and some stop there. Some argue that it didn’t happen, but that is philosophy, and most put the question aside and simply affirm what people believe was the case. That is enough for a start for me.
” we don’t have any other primary sources for Jesus’ life”
I think you are speaking from a 21st information age perspective. Several independent sources is more than we have for almost anyone else of that time! Many many scholars say we know more about Jesus than we know about almost anyone else of his time. They don’t say this for no reason!
“I find it hard to say his existence is as close to “fact” as history can be.”
Surely a more reasonable response is to say that you recognise the experts say he almost certainly existed and did x and y, but you don’t find that enough to believe any more?
“But if religion weren’t a factor, why couldn’t these same individuals still do the same practices?”
Each person is different, but I can agree to some degree with Josh – I am a sometimes deeply flawed individual, but at 70 I am a much better person than I was at 20. And the two main influences on that change have been Jesus and my wife.
“The happiness stat doesn’t surprise me, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if children who believe in Santa tend to be happier than children who don’t.”
I wasn’t arguing that we should believe because it makes us happier. I was pointing out that your statement ignored some of the evidence.
“I’m not sure that he’s going to get the treatment he needs, because some people would rather just pray over him.”
Yeah, sh*t happens and it sucks. But people of all beliefs and none do sh*tty things.
“But even if we accept everything you just said unequivocally, I still think the world would likely be better off without religion.”
I won’t argue with that, that is your judgment, although I think it isn’t that simple (e.g. the studies clearly show it depends a lot on the type of religion – intrinsic or extrinsic). But my point was that you presented only a few of the facts, and we should base our judgement on all of them.
Thanks for the opportunity for us to clarify a little.
LikeLike
Hi Arch,
“it sounds like you’re describing a reporting method similar to the game of “Telephone,” aka, “Chinese Whispers,”
I don’t think I can recall one scholar ever using a description like that!
“we’re still missing any actual, identifiable source whose credibility we can verify”
That’s not true. Historians know that multiple independent sources are good verification, especially so close after the event. I think you may be approaching this with too much of a 21st century mindset.
“What percentage of “historians find that adequate to draw conclusions about Jesus,” vs what percentage do not? Are you saying that those who conclude that Jesus existed represent “the overwhelming consensus of the historians who do have that expertise“?”
There is no doubt that all but a handful of scholars accept that Jesus truly lived. See these quotes from a “Who’s Who” of historians.
Twenty years ago, EP Sanders wrote this (The Historical Figure of Jesus, p10-11):
“I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.)
Jesus was born c 4 BCE near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village;
he was baptised by John the Baptist;
he called disciples;
he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
he preached ‘the kingdom of God’;
about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover;
he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
he had a final meal with the disciples;
he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;
he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.”
He goes on in the rest of the book to discuss what more we can and cannot know, so his conclusions of what are probably historical facts are larger than that list. For instance, if I recall correctly, he says it is clear Jesus was known as a healer, though he remains agnostic about what was actually happening.
In my reading, the only historians I can recall who would dispute this list are the same mythicists. Most would argue for more historical information as Sanders does himself – I include here historians I have read such as Wright, Casey, Evans, Bauckham, Grant, Meier, Hurtado, Dunn. But others probably wouldn’t go much further than this – e.g. Ehrman, Vermes.
So that is the state of play as best I understand it.
.
LikeLike
I’m curious, unklE …
Aren’t these “facts” that Sanders presents all from the bible … which is still in dispute by many as being an actual and historical record of events?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE “Telephone” or “Chinese Whispers”:
“I don’t think I can recall one scholar ever using a description like that!” – Which proves – what?
“<emHistorians know that multiple independent sources are good verification, especially so close after the event.” – So you’re considering 45 – 70 years to be “close after the event”? I know police officers, interviewing definite – not presumed – eyewitnesses immediately after witnessing a crime, who couldn’t agree on the color of the getaway car, and often, even on the color of the criminals, but that might just be, as you suggest, a “21st century mindset” on my part – doubtless people’s observational skills and recall abilities were much more acute in the 1st century —
RE your “list of statements about Jesus”: every one of those can be found in the Gospels, and I know of no one who says that pseudo-Matthew didn’t copy roughly 90% of his Gospel from pseudo-Mark, embellishing along the way, and pseudo-Luke copied roughly 60% of his from pseudo-Mark as well. Yet you consider this information to be “almost beyond dispute.”
I’d hate to see you go into court with that kind of evidence.
LikeLike
Hi Nan, I’m not sure if I understand your question. It seems as if you are suggesting that either the New Testament is an “actual and historical record of events” or else it is totally false. But of course you know I’m sure as well as I do that it isn’t like that. Historians, whether considering the gospels or any other ancient text, work with the materials available to them and they draw whatever conclusions they feel are warranted, while discounting bias and possible error.
So yes, most (not all) of those conclusions are based on the gospels, but Sanders doesn’t think the gospels are a 100% accurate “actual and historical record of events”. But he and all the other scholars find much in them that they can examine and test and show to be almost certainly historical to the satisfaction of almost all other historians.
I don’t think there is any serious dispute about the gospels on that level (i.e very few would dispute Sanders’ basic points), but of course there is significant dispute when you get down to detail, such as whether a certain pericope is historical, or the meaning of the phrase “son of man”.
LikeLike
Not what I meant. Will adress more tomorrow. Late here — at least for me.
LikeLike
Hi Arch, I’m not sure if there’s that much more to say.
“Which proves – what?”
I wasn’t attempting to prove anything. I was trying to summarise what historians have concluded, and what you said was something I’ve never heard a scholar say.
“So you’re considering 45 – 70 years to be “close after the event”?”
I’m not considering it, the historians do, for ancient times.
“doubtless people’s observational skills and recall abilities were much more acute in the 1st century”
Yes, you’re right – that has been proven I think.
“Yet you consider this information to be “almost beyond dispute.””
It’s not me making that statement, but EP Sanders, one of the most respected NT historians of the past 50 years – and almost all other historians agree with him.
BTW, just a heads up – are you aware that you are not using the term Pseudo Matthew in the way that historians use it? Check out Wikipedia.
LikeLike
An interesting statement, Unk – do you see anything wrong with it?
“But he and all the other scholars find much in them that they can examine and test and show to be almost certainly historical to the satisfaction of almost all other historians.“
LikeLike
I’m pretty skeptical of that — do you have any references for it? I’ve heard there were some rabbinic groups that practiced memorization of the Torah, much like some madrasahs today teach children to memorize the Qur’an. But these are outliers — they take many years of strict memorization. As far as I’m aware, there’s no evidence that the early Christians had anything like that in place. Their brains don’t appear to have been any different from our own, either. So I don’t see how anyone could determine that they remembered things better than people today do.
Unless of course, we suppose that God miraculously gave them an ability to transmit stories orally without alteration. But if we’re going down that rabbit hole, why not just suppose (like most Christians used to) that God inspired the writers of the Bible to be 100% accurate? We know that’s not the case, because of the errors and discrepancies found within the texts. We know for a fact that some of the written stories changed over time — we have the manuscripts to prove it. But we’re supposed to think that the oral versions didn’t?
LikeLike
Nate I think you make a very good point here. While there were groups back then who were amazing at memorizing oral law, to apply this kind of process to all religious writings of that time period has never made much sense to me. If that were the case then scholars would agree that the gospels of peter and thomas and many others should be taken to be trustworthy as well (although I realize there are other factors making those books different). I think the main point for me is that there were very clearly religious books written in the time period which are viewed with high skepticism today, so I’m skeptical that the Talmudic process applied by the strict rabbis of the day was applied very much elsewhere. Regarding the 4 gospels there seems to be agreement that there was embellishment and myth added in, but how much seems to be all over the map kind of leaving me shrugging my shoulders and feeling like there isn’t enough for me to build a worldview around.
Just for the record though (and I know you know this) I wouldn’t claim mythicism in the case of Jesus simply because the percentage of scholars claiming it is incredibly minute as Unklee has stated properly. While I wouldn’t say we know he existed in the same sense that we know about common descent, the existence of Ronald Reagan and even the existence of Julius Ceaser (and I’m pretty sure those can all be demonstrated) I still think the mythicism thing is better left for the experts to talk about, and maybe they need to work a bit more on it now to make sure any respectable claims of it are properly answered and flushed through.
LikeLike