On the Believers Appeals to ‘Scholarly Sources’
Resident Christadelphian Ego, Furtigurn has been insisting that, unless the atheist can provide evidence from ‘scholarly sources’ then his opinion is worthless. Well, I can play at THAT game….
Finkelstein and Silberman, two of Furtigurn’s names writers of ‘scholarly literature’ clearly state that they don’t believe the patriarchs existed in the way the Bible states, that the Exodus didn’t happen, that the Israelites are really just the original Canaanites and that the whole of the conquest under Joshua was a myth, that the supposed glorious empires of David and Solomon didn’t exist, and that the bulk of the Old Testament was put together under the reign of Josiah to justify his desire to unify Judah and the northern Kingdom of Israel.
Furthermore they clearly believe the prophecies written about the destruction of Jerusalem to have been compiled after the events they predict, altered to give meaning to the events that had swept the Jews away just as they were supposed to be entering a period of prosperity under ‘the new David’, Josiah.
Other ‘scholarly sources’ have pretty much proved that Daniel, far from being the amazingly detailed prophecy of the major empires after Israel’s exile, is actually a rather inaccurate history of what had happened hundreds of years before, written between 180BCE and 100BCE, whilst later chapters are just a reflection of the invasion of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Moving into the New Testament, an honest scholar will admit that none of the Gospels were written by first hand witnesses (indeed, the anonymous books were only named in the second century CE), and that the chief voice of early Christianity is that of Paul…a man who claimed to have been sent to Damascus on orders of the High Priest in Jerusalem, despite the fact that the High Priest had absolutely no authority in Damascus …. basically Paul was a liar, and took over the whole early church, even boasting that he’d argued with Peter, the man Jesus has elected as his successor!
Additionally, an honest reading of the supposed extra-Biblical accounts reveal nothing of a man called Jesus (or any Jewish version thereof), with the few that DO mention him being nothing more than work influenced by the beliefs that the nascent church already had.
Furtigurn’s ‘scholarly sources’ completely undermine the Bible.
I wonder if he just ignores those sources, and if not, I wonder why he isn’t an atheist when he knows his faith to be based on fallacy.