BIBLE SCEPTIC ANSWERED
Atheist arguments drawn from the Internet examined and exposed
The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God' (Psalm 14:1)
An commercial advert on British television for batteries shows two
battery operated toy drummer boys beating a drum. A clock in the corner
shows that they have been going full power for a number of hours. One
drummer boy falters and then stops while the other keeps going. Lesson:
His batteries were a lot stronger than the rival brand. I often use
this illustration to illustrate that sceptics and atheists can keep
going for a while with great bluster. No one said that they cannot
talk. Lets apply this. Jesus said that the devil is a liar. This means
that his arguments are built on lies and therefore are fatally flawed.
Fair enough… some of them (the religious ones) have some very
clever arguments but remember the truth of God is eternal. If I can go
back to the illustration - there is power in these batteries to keep
going for ever. On many occasions, it doesn't take that many brains to
expose the gaping hole that exists in atheistic arguments. The secret
is just to keep close to the word of God. It is ever a light unto our
path and a lamp unto our feet. (Psalm 119:105)
In debates like this, I always seek to be charitable. I do not read the
worst into every line and I am more inclined to give the other person
the benefit of any doubt. I like my arguments to be completely
watertight and will forgo a weak argument rather than use it. The cause
I espouse does not need weak or flawed arguments to bolster it up.
The atheist's contribution below is in black. My comments are in red.
*******************************************
Eye-witness Accounts of Jesus' Life? I think Not!
This is the Atheists own title.
By Evil Atheist
Again, we must point out that this is his own descriptive title. He certainly lives up to his name.
Christians claim that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses to Jesus' life and ministry.
It is extremely noteworthy that Mr
Evil Atheist do not give any documentation for this claim. Sorry to
challenge him so early - not a habit I can assure you - but it would
give considerable and much needed support to his claims if he could
actually produce where Christians claim that every one of the four
gospel accounts was written by an eye witness. Until he does, we have
to conclude that he is just gathering straw again to build up and then
tear down a straw man. Which might satisfy him and a few of his
sceptical friends, but really doesn't impress the average neutral
onlooker, much less the Christians.
Is this really the case? I think not.
I don't think so either i.e. that
Christians believe that all four gospel accounts in the New Testament
were written by eye witnesses. Which renders your little exercise
meaningless. I mean, why refute what nobody believes? Mr Evil Atheist
has more evidently time in his hands than I have. Really I should stop
here having shown that the foundation of his allegation does not exist,
but I notice that he does not believe that any of the four gospel
writers were witnesses and so this debate takes on a little more
relevance.
To begin with, Mark, who probably wrote the first gospel, is said to
have been a convert of Peter's and not one of the early disciples who
followed Jesus' ministry, so he wouldn't have been an eye-witness.
In 1 Peter 5:13 Peter acknowledges
him as his son (in the faith) which is another way of describing a
convert. Of course, it is possible that Peter pointed him to the Lord
Jesus during the various evangelistic efforts in which the Apostles
took part (An example of such evangelistic activity is found in Luke
9:6) The silence of the scripture in this finer detail rules nothing in
or out. Even if still unsaved in those days, he could still be a
witness of what Jesus said and did. It is thought by some (again the
silence of the scripture on the matter not allowing us to speak
dogmatically) that the young man mentioned in Mark 14:51-52 was Mark.
As Gresham Machen points out, the incident itself seems trivial and its
insertion in the gospel is best explained if it had some personal
interest to the author. Whatever…I think it is a bit rich for Mr
Evil Atheist to blandly dismiss the whole with a very definite "he
wouldn't have been an eye-witness." Mr Evil Atheist doesn't want him to
be an eye-witness and to this desire every other circumstance must bow.
Of course, to Christians who believe in the inspiration of the whole
scripture, including the New Testament, whether the writer was an
actual physical eye witness or not is largely immaterial (providing he
does not claim to be if he was not.) The reason for this is that the
writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God and we may rest assured
that He was there.
Second, Luke himself admits that he wasn't an eye-witness right at the beginning of his gospel:
Which makes me wonder why Mr Evil
Atheist portrays Christians as believing that all the gospel writers
were present. We are not illiterate. We can read just as well as him.
We all have access to the same copy of Luke's gospel as he does. Why
should he take time to build up this particular argument when it is so
easily refuted?
Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have
undertaken to draw up a relation concerning the matters fully believed
among us, 2 as those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses of and
attendants on the Word have delivered them to us, 3 it has seemed good
to me also, accurately acquainted from the origin with all things, to
write to thee with method, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that thou
mightest know the certainty of those things in which thou hast been
instructed. (Darby, italics mine) Since Luke admits he wasn't
an eye-witness and Mark was not of the original disciples, the best
that can be hoped for where these two are concerned is that their
gospels are based on hearsay; not much in the way of solid evidence.
I'm afraid not. We have already
suggested how Mark could have been an eye-witness although we also
acknowledge that he might not have been. Luke here (in Darby's
translation which Mr Evil Atheist turns to) tells us how he got his
information. Darby tells us that he gained accurate acquaintance from
the "origin" What does that mean? Mr Atheist, thankfully, doesn't offer
us his interpretation. However, the Greek word behind the English
translation is "anothen" and it is translated elsewhere "from above" In
other words, Luke is claiming divine inspiration for his account. So
like Mark who might or might not be have been there, he is the human
penman of the Spirit of God. If you want to use the term "hearsay"
that's fine with me providing you mention that it is Matthew or Mark
who is hearing what the Spirit of God is saying. Somehow I don't think
that is what Mr Evil Atheist has in mind.
Luke claims that his accounts are from eye-witnesses, but so what?
No he doesn't. Read it carefully.
Read what is there, Mr Evil Atheist…not what you want to be
there. Luke acknowledges that others wrote accounts but he himself
claims to have got his account from the "origin" (to quote Darby) i.e.
the Spirit of God.
Making a claim is by no means proof that it's true.
No it's not. Not in itself. There is always someone, somewhere who will stamp his feet and find objection. That's life.
Some NT scholars believe that Mark's gospel was the first to be
written, then Matthew's and then Luke's, both relying heavily on Mark.
Other NT scholars believe that the
order is relatively unimportant and that Matthew, Mark and Luke (and
John…just to finish off the list) were inspired separately by
the Spirit of God. If you believe in an overall guiding Hand that kept
them free from error, then such details, whilst interesting, do not
detract any from the overall product.
In fact, many verses in Matthew and Luke are copied verbatim from Mark with some added stories and other assorted details.
How do Mr Evil Atheist know all
this? Can the same repetition not show the same overall Author behind
the human penmen? Mr Evil Atheist has a problem making or accepting
suggestions. He is always most definite when others are cautious.
John was the last gospel written; at least the last one in the NT as we have it today.
Thankfully, Mr Evil Atheist refrains from using this fact to deny the Bible. Which is nice.
It is believed that the gospels were written anywhere from 70 -
100 C.E.; some even going as far as saying they were written between 80
-120 C.E. Others date the Scriptures earlier, but again this in itself
does not really matter that much. If you deny the inspiration of these
particular scriptures and reduce them to mere eye-witness evidence,
then obviously the longer between the sight and the writing is
important. But if you believe as Christians do that the Spirit of God
is the ultimate author, then time doesn't matter at all. These dates,
of course, don't cover later additions by Christian scribes, such as
the interpolation in Mark 16:9ff.
The vast majority (over 90%) of
the available Greek texts include this passage of scripture. To say
that is an interpolation by Christian scribes flies in the face of such
a vast array of evidence.
As you can see, date fixing isn't easy when it comes to the NT autographs.
It's not. I have never lost much sleep over it myself.
The gospels were also written anonymously, the authors never
identifying themselves, references to the authors always being in the
third person.
But if you look at Luke's account
as given above, you will notice that he refers to himself in the second
person. To reapply the observation which I employed there… Mr
Evil Atheist not illiterate. He can read just as well as us.
All of these facts mitigate against their being written by eye-witnesses.
What facts? Mr Evil Atheist has
not told us yet how Matthew was not a witness. He mentions, almost in
passing, that Matthew copied verbatim from Mark. Just like
that…with no proof nor even with any reasoning. Luke, as we have
seen, used the second person. As yet he has not mentioned John at all,
except to say that his was the last gospel written. Mr Evil
Atheist…Why should we believe you? Are you Sir Oracle? Do you
really expect Christians to abandon their Bibles because you state your
notions in such definite statements? Do you think that a neutral
onlooker in this debate is going to be bowled over by such shoddy
research? Let me mention John in this aspect for you. Although he does
not identify himself by his own personal name, he uses a lovely
identifying phrase. He is "the disciple Jesus loved" (John
13:23/20:2/21:20) I notice that you designate yourself by an
appropriate name i.e. Evil Atheist. This does not lessen any the fact
that you write these things which I am easily refuting. The writer of
John's gospel, claims that this disciple whom Jesus loved (21:20) and
who (as clear from the narrative was with Jesus) is "the disciple which
testifieth these things and wrote these things" (21:24)
There are other problems to the eye-witness claims:
Other problems? To
recap…not all the gospel witnesses claimed to be eye-witnesses.
I don't know a single Christian apologist or commentator who says they
did. The doctrine of Bible Inspiration makes the whole matter largely
academic except to sceptics like Mr Evil Atheist who has a bee in his
bonnet. The problems here belong to Mr Evil Atheist.
Many of the events depicted in the gospels could not have been
witnessed by any of the gospel authors, even if they had been the ones
the church claims are the authors.
True. Obviously you need to expand upon this.
Where were the gospel authors when the angel appeared to Mary to tell her she would be pregnant from the Holy Spirit?
Probably somewhere else. There is
no evidence that they were present and as far as I know, no one ever
claims that she had apostolic company.
How could they have known all the details, including everything that
was said, word for word, between Mary and the angel? Did Mary tell
them? If so, we have only her word for it and it's nothing but hearsay.
In a court of law, even the
lawyer's apprentice on his first day in the job would wonder why the
angel could not have conveyed the information. (I'm not saying he
did…but Mr Evil Atheist's logic has trouble staying upright on
its feet) If the angel was able to communicate with
Mary…do you not think he was able to communicate to Luke who
records the story? Am I wrong to think that he is insulting our
intelligence? Hearsay? Is hearsay not when a third party tells the
story and not the first? If you applied Mr Evil Atheist's spin on
second hand information, then you could reject every history book and
every encyclopaedia as mere hearsay. Indeed, if only Mr Evil Atheist
had the wit to think of it…why should you believe what he is
writing? Is it not hearsay as well? How did Luke know what the angel
said to Mary? The answer is simple. Luke tells us at the very beginning
of his gospel where he sourced his information. He got it from the
origin i.e. the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit who doesn't tell lies.
How could they have known about the wise men who came to worship the
child Jesus? How could they have known about the conversations between
the wise men and Herod? Did Herod's servants tell the gospel authors
the conversation between Herod and the wise men? Again, nothing but
hearsay.
The painful thing about answering
Mr Evil Atheists objections is that he gets it wrong at the very
beginning. His foundation is faulty and then he erects a ten storey
building on it. Once again, Matthew wrote under the inspiration of the
Spirit of God. The argument about hearsay is exploded above. Use of my
search facility shows that thankfully he does use this rather silly
argument again…so we are spared this at least.
How could they have known about the flight to Egypt and how Joseph was informed he had to flee with his family?
And when they were departed,
behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying,
Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt,
and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the
young child to destroy him. (Matthew 2:13) As easy as that.
How could they have learned from Joseph about this event when
the gospels were written after he died? Joseph is not mentioned in any
of the accounts of Jesus' public ministry and tradition has it that he
was dead by then.
Joseph probably did die young. The "eternal Spirit" of God (Hebrews 9:14) is very much alive.
Granted, someone could have related these events to the gospel authors,
but isn't it stretching the lines of credibility to claim, for
instance, that the authors could have gotten every detail and every
word spoken by the wise men to Herod? And even if we admit that an oral
tradition had been long established concerning these events, how could
we ever believe that it was reliable without begging the question of
divine inspiration?
Ah…Mr Evil Atheist is aware
of the doctrine of divine inspiration. Why didn't he say so instead of
asking of those questions as if he was completely in the dark? Why ask
questions when he knew the answers? If the reader is feeling somewhat
baffled and mystified by this approach…then so am I. If you get
the impression that such Bible scepticism is another form of time
wasting, I completely agree. The question of Bible inspiration will
ever be begged by the likes of Evil Atheist, so I wouldn't worry about
it too much.
In the gospel of Matthew we have an account of Jesus being led into the
wilderness by the Spirit and staying there for forty days without
eating (Matt 4). No one was there to witness what happened to Jesus and
the exact words which were spoken between him and Satan.
But in this very paragraph itself,
Mr Evil Atheist acknowledges the presence of the Spirit of God. He
witnessed the exact words and revealed them to Matthew.
We also have to ask ourselves why Matthew has Jesus being taken first
to Jerusalem and tempting him to jump off so that God would save his
life (v.5 - v.7) and then taking him to "an exceeding high mountain"
(v. 8 - 10) and showing him all the kingdoms of the world, while Luke
has Jesus being taken first to the mountain (4:5 -8) and then to
Jerusalem (4: 9 - 12). Which was it, the mountain first or the holy
city?
Matthew appears to be giving the chronological order. Careful study of
his account shows his use of words like "then" (v5) and "again" (v8)
Luke is relating the incident in a more popular anecdotal fashion.
Why could these "inspired" writers get it straight?
Since when was it bent to write in a anecdotal fashion?
More importantly, why couldn't the Holy Ghost, who is said to have inspired the authors, get it straight?
If you can answer the previous question, then you will answer this one as well.
And this doesn't even begin to answer the question of how Jesus could go without eating for forty days and survive...
How many days can a man refuse
food and survive? Mr Evil Atheist evidently thinks that forty days is
unattainable. The World Book Encyclopaedia under the heading
"Starvation" tells us that "most people can survive only sixty to
seventy days without food." This is pure nit-picking on Mr Evil
Atheist's part.
...and how a mythical being, Satan, could fly Jesus anywhere
since he was supposed to have been a spirit being. What did he use,
magic?
Because Mr Evil Atheist believes
that Satan is a mythical being, it doesn't follow on that he is. After
all, Mr Evil Atheist has intellectual difficulties accepting that
people can go forty days without food.
Moreover, how does one see all the kingdoms of the world from a mountain top unless the authors believed the earth was flat?
We are dealing here with the
supernatural. Even if the world was flat, you still couldn't see the
all the kingdoms of the world. There are mountain ranges etc., to block
the view plus of course the sheer distance from one end to the other.
This is introduced just to give Mr Evil Atheist his golden opportunity
to try and say that Christians believe or believed in a flat world.
Which we don't.
Again, didn't the Holy Ghost know what every schoolboy knows, i.e., that the earth is a sphere?
Yes. He tells us so in Proverbs
8:27 "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass
(literally a "circle" upon the face of the depth:"
Another serious problem…
I'm sorry…have I missed
something? No one denies that in the Bible there are "some things hard
to be understood" (2 Peter 3:16) but what Mr Evil Atheist is serving up
isn't exactly faith testing, is it? We Christians actually sing a hymn
that starts off each verse with the line "I know not how" and another
famous hymn uses similar words: "I cannot tell how…"
…are the accounts of Jesus' passion and crucifixion.
Go ahead. Unless you up the tempo considerably, I am confident that I can answer your objections.
Jesus quotes a prophet as saying that God would strike the shepherd and the sheep would flee:
John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be
scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am
not alone, because the Father is with me.
You do not make clear your
objection. Let me do it for you. In Matthew 26:31 Jesus unto his
disciples, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it
is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall
be scattered abroad." Here, he is quoting from Zechariah 13:7 applying
it to Himself. He is speaking of that time when it "pleased the LORD to
bruise Him" (Isaiah 53:10) i.e. at that particular point on Calvary
when He took our sins on his own body (1 Peter 2:24) and the Father
forsook Him (Matthew 27:46) The reference above from John 16:32 is not
in the future tense, but in the present. As he spoke these words, the
Father was with Him. The Father was with Him right up to that precise
moment when Christ took our sins. Then Zechariah 13:7 comes into play.
Mr Evil Atheist, if all my problems were as serious as this one, I
would be a very happy man indeed. Surely you can do better than this?
One has to ask how they could have known exactly what was said
at the various trials Jesus went through with the Sanhedrin, Herod and
finally Pilate.
As Mr Evil Atheist acknowledges
above, Christians believe in the Inspiration of Scriptures through the
agency of the Spirit of God who was present. Indeed we are specifically
told that the Lord Jesus through the eternal Spirit offered Himself
without spot unto God (Hebrews 9:14) This kind of objection has been
met with before and answered. The trouble for Mr Evil Atheist with our
answer is that it embraces all his objections of this kind. Of course,
he must fall back on that hoary old objection which like Eleazar's
sword (with apologies to Eleazar) cleaves to his hand that such a
doctrine "begs the question" But then any answer begs the question as
far as Mr Evil Atheist is concerned. His mind is made up. He rejects
the Bible on the flimsiest of excuses and wants us all to do likewise.
We could posit Jesus telling them…
Which is extremely generous of
you. Up above, such would have been blown out of the water as mere
"hearsay" but I understand that you are only conceding ground here in
order to get a better run at your next attack. Take all the ground you
want. We're waiting.
…but this brings up some problems with contradictory
events and words in the gospel accounts concerning what happened to
Jesus after they had all fled.
Like what?
Wasn't Jesus supposed to be God? And isn't God omniscient?
There is no supposing about it. Christians claim that Jesus is indeed the omniscient God of the Bible.
If so, then why the contradictory accounts of the passion, trials and crucifixion, if Jesus had told them of it?
Is this it? As they would say in
the court, "Where is the evidence?" I am putting now to Mr Evil Atheist
that he cannot produce any. Having raised the allegation, here would be
the place to tell us about it. But there you have it. No details. No
incidents. No nothing. Therefore, no case.
Another serious problem…
Go ahead again. Maybe this one…
…with the eye-witness claim is the veritable maze one has to navigate when one reads the resurrection accounts.
Christians love the resurrection
of Jesus. This is why we meet together specifically on Sundays in
church. To rejoice together that our Saviour conquered sin, death and
hell for us at Calvary. Proof of this victory is seen in the fact that
He rose again physically from the dead. But come, Mr Evil Atheist wants
us to lose us in a maze.
What a mix up! Contradictions abound and sorting the mess out is impossible…
Quit the bluster. Get on with it.
…no matter what Fundamentalists may claim.
We'll see. You have made these
unsubstantiated claims before. They are starting to wear thin. Long in
proclamation and short in content best describes your "serious"
objections.
The whole thing is just too incredible to be believed.
You really do overplay the introduction, Mr Evil Atheist, don't you? Go on…roll the drums again and then get to it.
If you read Mark's gospel, for example, you get the clear impression
that when the women left the tomb, they didn't utter a word to anyone,
despite the fact they had been told to tell the disciples:
"The clear impression…?"
Would you go to the police and press charges on an impression? You
might have suspicions and that is fair enough.
But Mr Evil Atheist is not
interested in what is actually the truth. The matter here is not open
for discovery. Mr Evil Atheist is actually judge, jury and executioner
all rolled into one.
Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, he goes before
you into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as he said to you. 8 And they
went out, and fled from the sepulchre. And trembling and excessive
amazement possessed them, and they said nothing to any one, for they
were afraid.
Did they tell the disciples or not?
Yes they did. John, who was one of
the disciples, records that Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples
that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto
her. (John 20:18) Because Mark does not distinctly record the fact,
does not mean to say that it didn't happen. It would a real problem if
Mark or any of the writers was to indicate that the ladies went home
and refused to communicate with the disciples at all. And even then, it
would not actually be a contradiction because Jesus gave them a command
which they might or might not have obeyed. But thankfully they did obey
as acknowledged by John who was there.
And if Jesus was going before them in Galilee then why,
according to Luke, did Jesus appear to two of them on the road to
Emmaus and then to the apostles in some room in Jerusalem, in which
they were locked up?
There are two groups distinctly
identified as being Christ's disciples in the Bible. You have the
Twelve, who alone in the gospels are also called the Apostles, and then
there is another group popularly identified as "The Seventy" (Luke
10:1) Discipleship, of course, was open to any man and once a man
believed savingly on the Lord Jesus, he too could be called a disciple
(Luke 14:27) This term disciple was used right up to Acts 11:26 when
the disciples in Antioch became known as "Christians" and this second
identity has stuck ever since. Even today, though, Christians still
talk about "discipleship classes" because as Matthew 28:19-20 (margin)
makes clear, this is for all time. However…the two on the road
to Emmaus were not of the Twelve to whom the command was given to meet
Him in Galilee. One of the two was called Cleopas (Luke 24:18) and he
is not in the apostolic list (Luke 6:13-16) Again the contradiction is
imaginary rather than real.
Why were they in Jerusalem when Jesus told them specifically that they he would "go before them" them in Galilee?
Because at this point, they were
still in unbelief that He had risen from the dead (Mark 16:14) It would
be strange to go to Galilee to meet what you are still convinced is
going to be a corpse. So they stayed initially in Galilee and the Lord
Jesus, graciously, came to them and upbraided them for their unbelief.
Which was it, Jerusalem or Galilee?
They saw Him first in Jerusalem. They saw Him again in Galilee when He ascended back up in Heaven (Matthew 28:16)
Depends who you read, doesn't it?
Not so much who you
read…but how you read. If you read the accounts honestly then
you will observe complete harmony. If you read it determined to find
fault, then you can twist and insinuate and concoct an account which
makes the writers to be at odds with one another.
There are other problems with the eye-witness claim.
At least Mr Evil Atheist has dropped his use of the word "serious" Is he learning the value of such words?
One of them can be found in 1Cor 15.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received:
that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 and that
he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according
to the scriptures; 5 and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the
twelve; 6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of
whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; 7
then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles;-
I now quote from a book by Earl Doherty: "From this, one might conclude
that Peter (Cephas) is not a member of "the Twelve" and that the group
known as "the apostles" is larger than the Twelve and may not include
them." (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 42, Copyright 1999, ISBN # 0-9686014-0-5)
Earl raises enough doubt in the above to make anyone, except for
die-hard religionists, not only wonder about the so-called
"eye-witness" accounts, but even about the determination of who are the
original disciples who were supposed to have witnessed this event.
I must disagree with Mr Doherty's
interpretation. Although (as seen above) the term "disciples" is much
wider than the Twelve, I do not see any warrant in Scripture to extend
the term "Apostle" any wider than the Twelve.
As well, Paul gets his story mixed up.
I think Mr Evil Atheist…it is you that is getting all mixed up.
Jesus didn't first appear to Cephas and then to the Twelve, at least not according to the gospel accounts.
Here in 1 Corinthians 15, either
the Apostle is referring to an event which was not recorded by the
gospel writers, or more than likely, he is saying that although Peter
was with the group known as "the Twelve" when the appearance was made,
Christ appeared unto him first of all (in order of importance) before
the others. I do not say this to elevate Peter over the rest of the
Apostles (Romanism) but because Peter sinned more than the others and
was in need of greater restoration. This appearing corresponded with
the command given in Mark 16:7
In John's account Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene…
Nowhere does Paul claim that he is
observing chronological order in his list of whom Jesus referred
to…except at the end when he specifically relates that Christ
appeared last unto him. Paul does not even give the complete list i.e.
there is no mention of the women at all. He says enough to prove his
point.
…and in Luke's he first appears to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.
As above.
And where does Paul get "the Twelve"? Judas was dead and a replacement apostle hadn't yet been chosen (Acts 1:15ff).
The title "the Twelve" was a
popular title used regularly in the gospel accounts. Although
technically, as Mr Evil Atheist points, out there were only eleven, yet
Paul keeps to the popular designation. It is a small point to make.
One would think that an omniscient deity would get his facts straight before "revealing" them to his chosen apostles.
One would so think and indeed
expect it to be so. We do not meet with any disappointment in this
aspect. The disappointment must belong to those who are determined to
bring the gospel into disrepute and fail miserably to do so.
Conclusion
Here the Judge, Jury and Execution begins to sum up.
The best explanation is that the gospels were written decades
after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection, after an oral tradition
had been around for a few decades.
Best for sceptics who love their
sin and hate the thought of having to stand before the Resurrected
Jesus and give an account of their hatred of Him. The Christian has a
better way.
The gospels were not written by Matthew the tax collector, or
Mark the companion of Peter, or Luke the physician, or John the beloved
disciple. They were written half a century or more after Jesus' alleged
existence by anonymous authors no one has yet been able to identify,
despite centuries of research.
Answer me this, Mr Evil Atheist.
If the writers were anonymous - meaning that we do not know who they
were - then how can you be so definite that they were not written by
Matthew the tax collector, Mark the convert of Peter and Luke or John?
You manage to plead ignorance and knowledge in the same point of the
same argument.
They were the kind of tales one would expect from a movement which believed Jesus was messiah and came to "save the world."
Mr Evil Atheist has not brought
forth any consistent argument to disprove their realism. Instead he
employs faulty reasoning and takes every single opportunity to rubbish
every account or claim he can.
Paul had laid the theological groundwork and stories of an
earthly Jesus were needed to give Paul's theology some historical
backdrop.
Proof is needed for this allegation. And conspicuous by its absence.
It is impossible to prove that Jesus of Nazareth even existed,
let alone believe the tall tales which were written about him. There
were no contemporaries of Jesus who ever wrote about him and certainly
no disinterested contemporaries.
Mr Evil Atheist sought to prove this above. We have already refuted it.
The only reason to believe that the fantasies known as the
gospels were written by eye-witnesses is to buttress the Christian
faith, which needs it if its adherents are to keep believing the
unbelievable accounts of their hero, Jesus of Nazareth.
Mr Evil Atheist believes that the
faith came first and then the evidence. Instead the Bible says that
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans
10:17) We can either believe the Apostle Paul or the man who chooses to
call himself "Mr Evil Atheist"
Any reader who appraises the evidence in a dispassionate and
reasoned manner will readily see that these tales are just that, tales
made up about a person who may never have existed.
I am quite happy to let Mr Evil
Atheist say his party piece and put it on our church website. Read his
comments and our reply. I certainly do not think that his arguments are
dangerous. If this is the best that he can do, then I do not have much
to worry about.
END OF THE ARTICLE AND MY REBUTTAL
e mail sent to Mr Evil Atheist: grgaud@bigfoot.com
Dear Mr Evil Atheist,
Recently when surfing the net, I came across your site. Reading through
some of your pieces which purport to destroy the Christian faith, I
thought that they should be answered. I picked out, almost at random,
three pieces and I have refuted them and show them to be what I believe
is the failed attempt of a renegade to destroy the faith which he once
professed. You will find these refutations at the following:
[Note: These appeared on our old site. I have chosen only to reproduce this one here]
I had downloaded some others. However, after three rebuttals, I have
come to see that your arguments are not merely unsound, but grossly
unfair and unscrupulous. You name yourself "Evil Atheist" and you seek
to live up to your name. You use every attempt you can to twist what
the Bible writers say. In some cases your allegations are
unsubstantiated and rather than withdraw such when you cannot provide
any evidence, you let them stay hoping that the mud will stick.
Personally, I find this most despicable. "Any reader who appraises the
evidence in a dispassionate and reasoned manner" (to quote your own
words above) will doubtless see this for himself. I make an
acknowledgement in one of our rebuttals that there are atheists who
refuse to stoop to the level you are prepared to wallow in. I believe
in being fair to all men, even if they disagree with me and my faith.
Lest you should say that I am running from you, I would like you to
pick me what you feel is your strongest piece - the most devastating of
all your arguments - and I will reply to it before looking elsewhere
for a higher quality of objection. I would not like even my friends to
think that I had picked your arguments because they were so easy to
refute. I do not see myself as a Fundamentalist gunslinger but I hate
the thought that sceptics could be winning arguments by default.
I have printed this challenge on my website: [This page] (At the end of the article)
I intend to keep my readers informed of your response. It would help
that if you intend to send me your strongest arguments and if this
should take any length of time, then if you would inform me of the
fact, I will duly acknowledge the same and wait patiently. You may
email me on cfpc@esatclear.ie
Colin Maxwell.
27th March, 2001
I got a reply back the same day. It is as follows. My replies, as usual, in red.
Hello Colin,
Hello Mr Evil Atheist. Thanks for getting back so quickly.
Nice of you to visit. A renegade, huh? Cute, I like that.
Truth always has a warm ring to it. That's why I believe it.
I read your refutation of my "Eye-witness Accounts..." essay. I
was singularly unimpressed. Your refutation confirmed what has been my
experience in debating Christians on the Internet for the past three
years: Your use of circular reasoning, appeals to authority, special
pleading, all generously salted with "how-it-could-have-been"
scenarios, was par for the course.
Again unsubstantiated allegations.
I understand why you feel the need to defend your faith against
renegades and despicable Atheists such as myself, because I've been on
that side of the fence. I, on the other hand, feel no need to justify
my personal opinions to you or your readers.
In other words, I must turn down
your challenge. I would substitute "no need" to "not able"
True…you don't have to reply to me again if you don't want to or
justify yourself to me or my readers. But then…neither can you
expect us to take you seriously. However, I'll leave you alone in your
new found religion. I've had my say. I'll probably look at the weekend
for a another sceptic who actually backs up his arguments with solid
reasoning.
Tell you what, though, if you're up for it you could join a
debate list to which I subscribe and defend the validity of your faith.
The list is populated by both Sceptics and Christians. It's your call.
If you should wish to join, just follow the instructions at this URL"
(Name given of site.)
I might do so. I'll keep my
options open at the moment. (Actually, I tried 3 times to make contact
with this site, but an automated email kept coming informing me that my
application was unsuccessful. They seem to know as much about computers
as they do about the things of God)
Thanks for visiting and don't forget to tell all your friends about me
and my website. I'll add a link to yours and let my readers know that
you disagree with me.
I have already mentioned you. Feel free to point your viewers to our site.
As for your challenge, well, Homey don't play dat.
I'm not surprised in the least. Even Carl Sagan wasn't much use to you in one of those contributions.
Have a nice day. :-)
Mr. Evil Atheist
Likewise. Isn't God good to give us nice days?
Colin Maxwell
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan
B. Anthony
"I notice that Jonah knew that God wanted him to go to Ninevah, he fled instead to Joppa." -- Colin Maxwell. 
Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland