Why do atheists claim that Daniel is a forgery?

Is there a god? What is the meaning of life?
User avatar
Ptolemy Soter
Fledgling
Posts: 246
Joined: Feb 26th, 2016, 5:15 pm

Re: Why do atheists claim that Daniel is a forgery?

Post by Ptolemy Soter »

averagejoe wrote:Image

For those who think the Romans wrote the Bible to control people....

Saint George is the patron Saint of England and among the most famous of Christian figures. Our earliest source, Eusebius of Caesarea, writing c. 322, tells of a soldier of noble birth who was put to death under Diocletian at Nicomedia on 23 April, 303, According to the apocryphal Acts of St George current in various versions in the Eastern Church from the fifth century, George held the rank of tribune in the Roman army and was beheaded by Diocletian for protesting against the Emperor's persecution of Christians. George rapidly became venerated throughout Christendom as an example of bravery in defence of the poor and the defenceless and of the Christian faith.

The teachings and actions of Jesus are a part of the Bible, just like any other set of stories and lessons in it. He was added in at some point. It's possible to remove parts of a book and still have something to talk about as well. There is nothing to say that later Roman leaders didn't take advantage of what the early Christians believed and run with it. Powerful people do it all the time with various concepts.

As with people today, different people followed different figures for whatever reason they chose. Class and title do not always influence someone's thoughts.
I am... the law!
OREZ
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3330
Joined: Dec 9th, 2006, 2:03 pm

Re: Why do atheists claim that Daniel is a forgery?

Post by OREZ »

Ptolemy Soter wrote:The teachings and actions of Jesus are a part of the Bible, just like any other set of stories and lessons in it. He was added in at some point.


What do you mean by "He was added in at some point"?
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
User avatar
Ptolemy Soter
Fledgling
Posts: 246
Joined: Feb 26th, 2016, 5:15 pm

Re: Why do atheists claim that Daniel is a forgery?

Post by Ptolemy Soter »

OREZ wrote:What do you mean by "He was added in at some point"?

In the progression of compiling a book's content, every detail manifests at some point; whether during the writing of, during the collecting of information, or during the further editing of the book. Any mention of Jesus had to of arrived during one or more of those circumstances.
I am... the law!
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 35286
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Why do atheists claim that Daniel is a forgery?

Post by Glacier »

Ptolemy Soter wrote:In the progression of compiling a book's content, every detail manifests at some point; whether during the writing of, during the collecting of information, or during the further editing of the book. Any mention of Jesus had to of arrived during one or more of those circumstances.

The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament are almost identical to what we have today. There are a couple of minor stories that were added later such as the woman caught in adultery, but there is absolutely no evidence that the overarching message and stories themselves have changed over time. What we have today is as authentic as can be expected, and is as good a copy of the originals as any other ancient Greek writing out there.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
User avatar
Ptolemy Soter
Fledgling
Posts: 246
Joined: Feb 26th, 2016, 5:15 pm

Re: Why do atheists claim that Daniel is a forgery?

Post by Ptolemy Soter »

Yes, however we must ask where the information came from. There may even be sources not currently known to modern scholars (unless there are private collections). It's not safe to trust any ancient text completely, unless it can be backed by archaeological evidence, et al. For example, Arrian's information on Alexander III has proven reliable on several levels. Unless one were witness to his campaigns, though Arrian's is a reasonable account, it's not completely trustworthy. The Bible is no different.

This is why people shouldn't try so hard to prove historical events. A holistic approach to it all reveals plenty enough without the need for absolutes. Besides, humanity benefits from learning lessons in stories, be they true or not. Dwelling on what could have been or past glories helps nothing.
I am... the law!

Return to “Religion & Spirituality”