Can an atheist get into Heaven

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

You just said the thing we were supposed to believe was a mystery. Now you say it's supported by a preponderance of evidence?

I did say that there are unexplainable things in the Bible. The resurrection, for example. However, there are eye-witness accounts that it occurred. Just because I don't understand how it happened and it's not revealed in scripture how it happened doesn't mean that it didn't.

[billvon 2,434]

>I did say that there are unexplainable things in the Bible. The resurrection, for example.
>However, there are eye-witness accounts that it occurred.

That's not unexplainable; just not explained. For example, plenty of people have appeared dead and recovered days later. In the 18th and 19th century, "safety coffins" were commonly used because doctors could not always accurately determine death, and people feared being buried alive. (And during cholera epidemics, there was a huge hurry to get people into the ground to reduce the spread of disease.)

[jaybird18c 4]

billvon

>I did say that there are unexplainable things in the Bible. The resurrection, for example.
>However, there are eye-witness accounts that it occurred.

That's not unexplainable; just not explained. For example, plenty of people have appeared dead and recovered days later. In the 18th and 19th century, "safety coffins" were commonly used because doctors could not always accurately determine death, and people feared being buried alive. (And during cholera epidemics, there was a huge hurry to get people into the ground to reduce the spread of disease.)

After crucifixion, the Roman soldiers would spear them in the side to ensure death. Jesus was speared in the side in this manner.

[Stumpy 256]

jaybird18c

How do we know the Bible is true?

Exactly the same way we know santa claus is real.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[DanG 1]

Ah, if only those eyewitnesses had written their testimony down and those records survived.

Hearsay (especially from people who never met nor even lived at the same time as the original witness) is generally inadmissible.

- Dan G

[jaybird18c 4]

Stumpy

***How do we know the Bible is true?

Exactly the same way we know santa claus is real.

Ha! Ha! Good one! Ha!

[billvon 2,434]

>After crucifixion, the Roman soldiers would spear them in the side to ensure death. Jesus
>was speared in the side in this manner.

Yep. And many stabbing victims have recovered as well - even when first responders thought them dead.

[jaybird18c 4]

DanG

Ah, if only those eyewitnesses had written their testimony down and those records survived.

Hearsay (especially from people who never met nor even lived at the same time as the original witness) is generally inadmissible.

The authors of the gospels, except for Luke, were contempraries of Jesus.

[jaybird18c 4]

billvon

>After crucifixion, the Roman soldiers would spear them in the side to ensure death. Jesus
>was speared in the side in this manner.

Yep. And many stabbing victims have recovered as well - even when first responders thought them dead.

The Roman soldiers were tasked with ensuring his death. You could postulate lots of crazy stuff but it doesn't fit the circumstance.

[billvon 2,434]

>The authors of the gospels, except for Luke, were contempraries of Jesus.

?? No they weren't.

You do realize that Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew, right? It was written about 50 years after the death of Jesus. The author compiled the Gospel based on at least three sources - the Gospel of Mark (written a few years earlier) and two other sources, often referred to as the Q and M sources.

[billvon 2,434]

>The Roman soldiers were tasked with ensuring his death.

Yep. And as we all know, Roman soldiers are infallible, as are any stories told about them.

>You could postulate lots of crazy stuff but it doesn't fit the circumstance.

Occam's Razor. We know people can appear dead and recover hours or days later. This has happened hundreds of times without supernatural intervention. Even when stabbed by someone trying to ensure their death.

So here we have someone who was crucified, who was believed to be dead, and who recovered hours or days later. Simplest explanation is that their experience was similar to the hundreds of observed cases where the same thing happened.

So rational explanation - he appeared dead, he wasn't, he recovered.

Crazy stuff - a supernatural force restored him from the dead.

[JoeWeber 2,326]

jaybird18c

***>After crucifixion, the Roman soldiers would spear them in the side to ensure death. Jesus
>was speared in the side in this manner.

Yep. And many stabbing victims have recovered as well - even when first responders thought them dead.

The Roman soldiers were tasked with ensuring his death. You could postulate lots of crazy stuff but it doesn't fit the circumstance.

High ranking Roman soldiers at that. Centurions. They were officers in charge of 100 men. One important qualification was the requirement that they be literate so as to be able to understand written orders. Yet, to my knowledge, they left no account. Surely something as interesting as a resurrection and the opening of graves with even more dead being raised to go walking through town would have inspired a word or two.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

jaybird18c

Quote

You just said the thing we were supposed to believe was a mystery. Now you say it's supported by a preponderance of evidence?

I did say that there are unexplainable things in the Bible. The resurrection, for example. However, there are eye-witness accounts that it occurred. Just because I don't understand how it happened and it's not revealed in scripture how it happened doesn't mean that it didn't.

Well, first off none of the Bible is an "Eyewitness Account." All of the Gospels were written down a long time after the disciples were dead.

At best they are a 5th or 6th hand retelling of the story.

Second, in accident investigation, eyewitness accounts are often the least reliable information (the word 'evidence' for eyewitness accounts is a bit of a stretch).
There was an eyewitness to James Dean's fatal crash that swore for years (still does if he's alive) that Dean was not driving, that the plaid shirt was in the passenger seat. Nobody else saw it that way, and the position of the victims after the crash was pretty clear.
When TWA Flight 800 exploded over Long Island Sound, there were thousands of witnesses. Most of them gave conflicting stories, almost none of them gave a story that matched the physical evidence (plane wreckage, radar data, flight recorder data, ect). Some claimed they saw a missile (or something that looked like one) go towards the plane before the explosion. This was not supported by any actual data.

There's zero evidence of God's existence.

You want to believe it, fine. That's your right. But to claim that there is actual proof is baloney.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

You do realize that Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew, right? It was written about 50 years after the death of Jesus. The author compiled the Gospel based on at least three sources - the Gospel of Mark (written a few years earlier) and two other sources, often referred to as the Q and M sources.

The traditional view is that Matthew authored the Gospel of Matthew.

https://crossexamined.org/wrote-gospel-matthew/

https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

[jcd11235 0]

jaybird18c

First - How do I know?
…
2. Preponderance of the evidence.

To what specific evidence are you referring?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[gowlerk 1,927]

Quote

The traditional view is that Matthew authored the Gospel of Matthew.

The new testament was written on an Assyrian troll farm. It was written to upset the Romans. The same way that you are trolling us about "evidence".

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jaybird18c 4]

gowlerk

Quote

The traditional view is that Matthew authored the Gospel of Matthew.

The new testament was written on an Assyrian troll farm. It was written to upset the Romans. The same way that you are trolling us about "evidence".

Brilliant!
Are you upset?

[billvon 2,434]

>The traditional view is that Matthew authored the Gospel of Matthew.

Nope; most people learn that in the first week of Scripture. The Gospel of Matthew was written about 50 years after Jesus died - and people didn't live that long back then. It's written in the third person; the Gospel refers to what "they" did rather than what "we" did. It's pretty well accepted that the writer knew Matthew and used two other sources to create the Gospel of Matthew, but was not Matthew.

From Jesus Interrupted, a book by Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman:

============
Chapter Four

Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul — isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.

In this chapter I'd like to explain what that evidence is.

Who Wrote The Gospels?

Though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad consensus among scholars that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them. So if that is the case, who did write them?

Preliminary Observations: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts

As we have just seen, the Gospels are filled with discrepancies large and small. Why are there so many differences among the four Gospels? These books are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were traditionally thought to have been written by Matthew, a disciple who was a tax collector; John, the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the Fourth Gospel; Mark, the secretary of the disciple Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These traditions can be traced back to about a century after the books were written.

But if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels? Why do they contain so many contradictions? Why do they have such fundamentally different views of who Jesus was? In Matthew, Jesus comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles.

Did two of the earthly followers of Jesus really have such radically different understandings of who he was? It is possible. Two people who served in the administration of George W. Bush may well have radically different views about him (although I doubt anyone would call him divine). This raises an important methodological point that I want to stress before discussing the evidence for the authorship of the Gospels.

Why did the tradition eventually arise that these books were written by apostles and companions of the apostles? In part it was in order to assure readers that they were written by eyewitnesses and companions of eyewitnesses. An eyewitness could be trusted to relate the truth of what actually happened in Jesus' life. But the reality is that eyewitnesses cannot be trusted to give historically accurate accounts. They never could be trusted and can't be trusted still. If eyewitnesses always gave historically accurate accounts, we would have no need for law courts. If we needed to find out what actually happened when a crime was committed, we could just ask someone. Real-life legal cases require multiple eyewitnesses, because eyewitnesses' testimonies differ. If two eyewitnesses in a court of law were to differ as much as Matthew and John, imagine how hard it would be to reach a judgment.

A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel according to Matthew." The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books "according to."

Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" — Jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what "we" — Jesus and the rest of us — were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.

With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.

As for the other Gospels, Mark was said to be not a disciple but a companion of Peter, and Luke was a companion of Paul, who also was not a disciple. Even if they had been disciples, it would not guarantee the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. But in fact none of the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be.
=====================

[jaybird18c 4]

The Gospel According to Matthew

Author
Although this Gospel does not name its author, some early manuscripts have the inscription “according to Matthew,” and Eusebius (c. A.D. 260-340) tells us that the early church father Papias (c. A.D. 60-130) spoke of Matthew as having arranged the “oracles about Jesus. Subsequent tradition is unanimous that the disciple Matthew also called Levi (9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17), was the author of this Gospel, and not until the eighteenth century was this tradition doubted.

There are some problems with the tradition. First, Papias apparently said that Matthew “arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect.” This statement seems to indicate that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and Aramaic and scholars point out that Matthew does not read like a translation from these languages. It is also quite similar to Mark which was certainly written in Greek. It is possible that Matthew wrote in both Hebrew and Greek, much as Calvin wrote works in both Latin and French.

Secondly, since Papias did not say “gospel” but “oracles,” some have identified these “oracles” as one of the sources lying behind our Gospels. But Eusebius appears to have understood “oracles” to mean “gospel,” and Irenaeus (writing about A.D. 180) speaks of a “gospel” by Matthew written “for the Hebrews in their own dialect.”

Other objections to Matthew’s authorship are more speculative. Some suggest that the Gospel may have been the product of a group of writers (“school”). Its alleged dependence on Mark and supposedly late composition are given as reasons to doubt Matthew’s authorship. But these objections do not disprove the tradition that Matthew was the sole author.

Since the author did not identify himself, he probably thought that it was not essential for his readers to know his name. Working through the human author was the primary author, the Holy Spirit.

Date and Occasion
The earliest reference to the Gospel of Matthew is probably in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans by Igatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 110). Almost no one dates the book alter than A.D 100. Some scholars have dated it as early as A.D. 50, but many critics date it after the destruction of Jerusalem, usually between 80 and 100. Their reasons include the assumption that Jesus could not have predicted such future events as the destruction of Jerusalem, the view that the Gospel’s Trinitarian theology (28:19 and exalted Christology (11:27) are late ideas that developed in a Hellenistic environment, and the assertion that the word “Rabbi” (mentioned in 23:5-10) was not used as a title before A.D. 70.

Some of these reasons, such as that Jesus could not have predicted the future or that a high Christology is Hellenistic and therefore late are highly dubious and reflect a rejection of supernatural revelation. Further, there is some evidence in the context of the book that Matthew was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Gospel warns against the Sadducees, a group that rapidly declined from prominence after A.D. 70 and ultimately ceased to exist. The language used to describe the destruction of Jerusalem in ch. 24 reflects Old Testament prophecies of the divine judgment that Jesus foresaw as connected with the coming of His kingdom. There is no need to explain the content of ch. 24 as the author’s memory of a historical event.

The writer of this Gospel probably used the Gospel of Mark. Assuming that Mark was composed with the help of the apostle Peter in Rome, an appropriate date for Matthew would be between A.D. 64 and 70.

Antioch in Syria is the most likely location for the writing of the Gospel and for the church for which it was originally composed. Ignatius, the earliest writer to quote Matthew, was bishop of Antioch. The congregation in Antioch was mixed Jewish and Gentile origin (Acts 15), and this would account for the problems of legalism and antinomianism that Matthew particularly addresses.

- Dr. R.C. Sproul

[jaybird18c 4]

The canonicity of Matthean authorship of this gospel were unchallenged in the early church. Eusebius (ca. A.D. 265-339) quotes Origen (ca. A.D. 185-254):

Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25).

It is clear that this gospel was written at a relatively early date – prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Some scholars have proposed a date as early as A.D. 50.

- Dr. John MacArthur

[jaybird18c 4]

And just for the record. Not that someone need be a Christian in order to be an excellent biblical scholar but it does help with understanding their point of view. I have questions as to whether or not the author of a religious history book I had to read for a seminary class was actually a Christian. However, it was one of the best historical books I've read on the topic. Bart Ehrman is a self-proclaimed "atheist and agnostic" biblical scholar.

[billvon 2,434]

>Bart Ehrman is a self-proclaimed "atheist and agnostic" biblical scholar.

You pretty much have to be. You can't do objective research when your religion requires you to come to certain conclusions.

BTW from your post above a very wise line:

"Since the author did not identify himself, he probably thought that it was not essential for his readers to know his name. Working through the human author was the primary author, the Holy Spirit."

He's basically throwing in the towel here - "well, we can't really know, but it doesn't really matter as long as it gets the gist right." And that's an excellent point. It doesn't really matter who wrote it. It doesn't really matter if Jesus was really dead or just very, very sick. It doesn't really matter if the birth was virgin, or if his mother was made "immaculate" or any of the other details. What matters is how Jesus lived and what he taught. And if you can follow what he taught then the Gospels work. (Even if you can't follow what he taught, in general the effort to do so makes you a better person.)

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

He's basically throwing in the towel here - "well, we can't really know, but it doesn't really matter as long as it gets the gist right." And that's an excellent point. It doesn't really matter who wrote it. It doesn't really matter if Jesus was really dead or just very, very sick. It doesn't really matter if the birth was virgin, or if his mother was made "immaculate" or any of the other details. What matters is how Jesus lived and what he taught. And if you can follow what he taught then the Gospels work. (Even if you can't follow what he taught, in general the effort to do so makes you a better person.)

Not at all. Plenary Inspiration – Men chosen by God, without doing harm to their individual personalities or writing styles, etc., recorded exactly as God intended, being moved along like the wind in the sails of a ship. Therefore, while there is secondarily a human author, there is primarily a divine author.

Aside from that, it was early church tradition to not include one’s name as the author. Another example would be with the Apostle John. He’s not mentioned directly as the author of his gospel either. He refers to himself multiple times, however, as the disciple “whom Jesus loved.” This appears to be deliberate. It was most likely to show humility in his relationship with Jesus Christ.

Also, all that you mentioned as not being important is actually foundational and absolutely necessary for any of it to mean anything ultimately. You said “What matters is how Jesus lived and what he taught.” Jesus lived a life perfectly fulfilling the requirements of the Law which we could not and “he taught” that he was the Son of God (Emanuel – “God with us”). You also said “in general the effort to do so (with regard to meeting the standard of righteousness) makes you a better person.” Why is being “good” (in this sense self-righteous) if you are already guilty of transgression of the Law?

[billvon 2,434]

Quote

Not at all. Plenary Inspiration – Men chosen by God, without doing harm to their individual personalities or writing styles, etc., recorded exactly as God intended, being moved along like the wind in the sails of a ship. Therefore, while there is secondarily a human author, there is primarily a divine author.

That's pretty much what I said. The actual author (the person doing the writing) is less important than the message. So it doesn't really matter that Matthew, Mark, John et al didn't put pen to paper - what matters is that the message is approximately right. We know it's not 100% right because the Gospels sometimes do contradict themselves, but for the most part they match.

Quote

He’s not mentioned directly as the author of his gospel either. He refers to himself multiple times, however, as the disciple “whom Jesus loved.” This appears to be deliberate. It was most likely to show humility in his relationship with Jesus Christ.

Again, Occam's Razor. When John refers to "they" (disciples) doing things, and mentions that "we" (the authors) know that the stories are true, he most likely means what he says.

And again, it doesn't matter. What matters is the message.

Quote

Also, all that you mentioned as not being important is actually foundational and absolutely necessary for any of it to mean anything ultimately.

I know that's true for many people - check all the boxes, believe the right things, say the right words, have the right "relationship with God", be saved. I don't follow that belief; I am more on the James 2:14 side of things. What we do matters.

Nor do I require any one else to believe what I do.

Quote

You also said “in general the effort to do so (with regard to meeting the standard of righteousness) makes you a better person.” Why is being “good” (in this sense self-righteous) if you are already guilty of transgression of the Law?

No one is perfect. (To use the standard definition of original sin, and going by what you and Ron post here, everyone is in transgression of the Law.) You'll never be perfect. But the effort to make yourself more perfect - by following the examples of Jesus, for example - makes you a better person.

[DanG 1]

Quote

The canonicity of Matthean authorship of this gospel were unchallenged in the early church. Eusebius (ca. A.D. 265-339) quotes Origen (ca. A.D. 185-254):

Your evidence is a guy born ~240 years after the events of interest quoting a guy born ~150 years after the events of interest.

Rock solid, man.

- Dan G