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 
MY statement was made sarcastically (surprise!), I too, would like to see a reference or two.
LikeLike
Thanks Howie. Yeah, that’s how I see it too. While I was surprised recently to find out that the mythicist arguments seem to have more going for them than I first thought, I do agree I don’t personally have enough knowledge about the subject to weigh in on it. It will be interesting to see what scholarship does over the next few decades.
LikeLike
I don’t see, Howie, that it makes a lot of difference whether or not the details of the lives of Reagan or Caesar are entirely accurate, as neither of those expected us to worship him – well, at least Caesar didn’t.
LikeLike
to me, it’s like considering any other book. Some is true and some is not. Some can be verified and parts cannot be.
Like any other book or claim, if one of the parts that can be verified turns up to be untrue, then i can be certain that the book or claim contains errors. the bible has this.
The parts that cannot be verified must weighed; weighed on possibility, weighed on the trustworthiness of the source. With the bible, we already see that some of the verifiable parts come up as failed, so for me, whether in the bible or in any other book or with any other claim, if there is an unverifiable part that claims some miraculous or supernatural event, i am extremely skeptical at the very least.
Take bigfoot – with a multitude of witnesses, countless accounts that span the world and extend far back into history, video and photo evidence and other physical evidence like hair samples and foot-molds. Credible or not? Whichever side you’re on, is it sense-able to demand that anyone believe one way or the other regarding it, with eternal consequences in the balance?
LikeLike
unkleE,
As usual, you twist and turn until you make your point … and your “arguments” always go back to what the “historians,” the “scholars,” the “apologists” say. At times it makes me wonder if you have any thoughts of your own … but I digress.
OK, let’s go back to your initial comment where you quote Sanders: “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.
So, according to Sanders, the listed “statements about Jesus” offer proof of his existence, right? But where do these “statements” come from? The bible! Of course if you believe the bible is a factual account of the first century, then I suppose the statements could be considered as “proof.” However, it has been shown by many that this is not the case. (As William commented: Some is true and some is not. Some can be verified and parts cannot be.)
So let me again ask my question (Note: I was not “suggesting” anything):
How can Sanders consider these to be “facts” that Jesus existed when the bible is still in dispute by many as being an actual and historical record of events?
P.S. While I personally tend to believe Jesus was a real person, I find it very difficult to verify my belief since I feel the bible accounts of him are based on hearsay … and are definitely biased. It’s unfortunate that the only writer that seems to offer contemporaneous information about him is Josephus — and even some of his writings are in dispute.
LikeLike
and josephus was no contemporary of jesus. If he wrote what he is said to have written about jesus, it was based on hearsay and not on eye witness or first hand knowledge.
LikeLike
Hi Nan-
Could you give an example of what you would consider a factual account from the first century? Aside from the miraculous claims, in what ways is that factual account different from the gospels? For example, is there a greater percentage of the document that contains verified accurate history from the time? I’m just curious what you consider a factual document from the time, and what factors make it a factual document.
LikeLike
And, Nan, if you could discuss how you know the document from the first century you’re referencing is accurate. From this quote
you seem to imply that we shouldn’t be looking to historians and scholars and apologists, but to our own thoughts. How would we know if our own thoughts are accurate?
LikeLike
Arch,
You mean you don’t worship Reagan? 🙂
Yeah, I think that’s a very good point Arch.
LikeLike
Hi Josh,
Nan can answer these questions better than I, but I thought I’d throw my own two cents in anyway. I feel that no historical document can be considered inaccurate, unless there are other sources that contradict it. So if we simply had one gospel, there would be no way to know which portions were accurate and which weren’t. Doesn’t mean everyone would believe it, but there at least wouldn’t be a way to falsify any of it.
However, since we have 4 accepted gospels, it’s possible for us to compare them to one another. And when we do, as you know, we find there are certain discrepancies. This immediately tells us that at least some of the authors were mistaken about some of their information. In a few places, we also have archaeology, geography, and other contemporary accounts that call certain things into question (there are more of these kinds of problems with the Old Testament than the New).
LikeLike
I agree, it’s common practice and valuable to see what the experts have to say, in this case historians and scholars. but when it comes to the bible, the historians and scholars are split as to how much of the bible can be trusted.
there is some ground where they all (or at least the majority agree), like in that the gospels were all written long after chirst had died. and the bible contains errors.
they all agree that rome occupied palestine and we’re very certain that herod the great was real and that pontious pilot was real.
To say that the historians and scholars agree that jesus was real is misleading, because it acts as if there’s a consensus – there is not. And to say that jesus was really the miracle working son of god is all non-verifiable, non-expert opinion.
and again, take certain events that the bible claims happened. events that would have been witnessed by many, like the dead raising out of their graves at jesus’ death… no one of that time thought that significant enough to record?
I know that UnkleE doesnt really buy into the OT, but it had events where the sun stayed still or where it moved backward… yet no one recorded it? there were several cultures in those days that recorded the stars and solar events, but they didnt think these unique occurrences were note worthy?
it would be like 5 people making journal entries about 9/11 and one mentions alien spacecraft flying around the towers. Are we to believe that the most likely scenario is that there were in fact alien spacecraft but that 4 out of 5 people just didnt think it noteworthy? or would we assume the 1 out of the 5 was lying, nuts, tripping, or badly mistaken?
LikeLike
Nate-
I go back to the question I asked Nan: What is an example of an event or a document that you would consider accurate from the first century? Are there multiple accounts? If so, do those multiple accounts agree on everything? If they don’t agree on everything, does that mean we discount them?
LikeLike
Hi Josh,
As you can see, Nate and William have offered their perspectives on your concerns … and I tend to agree with them.
However, I do want to point out something. I’m not comparing other documents to the bible. I’m simply saying that if Sanders (and others) were correct that the bible is based on fact, then their “proofs” related to the existence of Jesus might stand. But there are many, many in the religious field who say — and have provided credible arguments — that the bible is not a factual document.
As to offering one’s own thoughts — unkleE consistently references “scholars’, et al, whenever he presents his comments related to religious issues. Yes, in most cases, these individuals have many years of study under their belt so it’s natural to acknowledge their work. But to me, simply ticking off a list of noted individuals doesn’t really “prove” anything.
I guess it’s more the way he presents things. Sometimes it’s just interesting to hear someone else’s thoughts and/or opinions without a list of “references” accompanying them.
LikeLike
That’s fine, Nan. And, I agree. The problem is, once you start talking about your own thoughts on this blog, you’re immediately inundated with questions about what evidence and references you have. One can hardly blame unkleE for going there to start with after being trained so well, can one?
LikeLike
If they don’t agree on everything, does that mean we discount them? – josh
does it mean you believe the supernatural claims of everything?
LikeLike
I didn’t think E and Nan were talking about supernatural claims. I thought they were talking about which parts of Jesus’ life could be considered historical. Did I miss something?
LikeLike
maybe not. just a reflex.
but they do tie together when you’re trying to go:
historian–> jesus—> some thought he was a “healer”—” literal son of god
all from a source that contains errors. verifiable errors.
I agree with unkleE that we must treat the bible like we would anything else, i just disagree that doing so means you’ll buy all the supernatural claims.
so I’m willing to concede that all or most historical sources have errors in them. which of those do we then also accept the supernatural claims of? or is it that we think certain parts are credible and certain parts incredible in regard to other historical sources?
is this line of though really that far out in left field?
LikeLike
Slightly off-topic, but relates to previous comments on Nate’s blog re: video games.
Found this interesting entry on gipsika’s recent blog posting…
HA!
LikeLike
ah, the same reasons women read romance novels. We’re not that different afterall.
LikeLike
I don’t want to speak for E, but I will agree with you here. I’m not sure that he would argue that doing so means you have to buy all the supernatural claims, but I’ll let him speak to that if he wants.
LikeLike
Nan-
I happen to be one of those fully grown men up at all hours sometimes playing PS4!
LikeLike
I guess that’s probably the point of decision, William. Much as E has laid out above, I tend to be convinced that Jesus lived, was considered a healer, that he was crucified, buried in a tomb that was later found empty, had followers who said they saw him after his death and believed he was resurrected. If, for the sake of argument, you were also convinced of those things (I’m not saying you are), you would then be faced with either finding a plausible counter-story, or measuring all of those things up with all of the other more subjective things that persuade you personally one way or another.
LikeLike
I think it is the point of the discussion.
you have a book that contains errors. Internal discrepancies, historical issues, scientific problems, etc.
yet because the places and some of the names may have been true, you’re willing to accept that the accounts of divine intervention, the stories of walking on water, flying into heaven and raising from the dead are true… despite that book of claims being also wrong in several verifiable places?
again, what other book do you treat that way? I’m guessing not the iliad. I’m guessing there arent many of the other “healers” and “messiahs” that you’d accept so readily.
LikeLike
I didn’t say that. I acknowledged, in my previous response, that there are also subjective factors that go into each person’s consideration.
LikeLike
Not Nate here, Josh, but I want to throw in my cent and a half’s worth.
“If they don’t agree on everything, does that mean we discount them?”
I’m not going to answer that, I’m going to let you tell me – Matthew relates that Yeshua was strolling on the beach near the Sea of Galilee and spotted Peter, Andrew (brothers) and James and John (brothers, and sons of Zebedee, the fisherman) – he called them to follow him, telling them he would make them, “fishers of men.”
John (brother of James and son of Zebedee), in his book, tells us that the four of them, Pete, Andy, Jim and himself, were followers of John the B, and were with him as he baptized people in the Jordan River. He spots Yeshua strolling along on the other bank, waded across, chatted a bit, and walked off to spend the night with him. The next morning, the two came back and collected the other three.
Which do you believe? And whichever you choose, what does that say about the rest of what the other one has to say? If one part was false, or incorrect, how reliable is the rest likely to be?
Matthew copied 90% of his entire book from Mark (lay two copies side by side sometime!) – how much can you believe the other 10?
LikeLike