What is an infidel?

Answer

The term “infidel” simply means “without faith” or “against faith.” An infidel is an individual who rejects religion. However, the term “infidel” has become more widely associated with a website that criticizes the Christian faith – infidels.org. Internet Infidels, also known as Secular Web, is a prominent website for atheists and naturalists online. Its main objective is to advocate and uphold a naturalistic perspective on the internet. Christian apologist J.P. Holding has remarked, “The Secular Web may have a few intelligent individuals, but overall, it has long served as a sanctuary for every skeptical individual to make judgments on matters beyond their expertise.”

This article does not aim to offer a comprehensive rebuttal to all the issues raised by Internet Infidels. Instead, it seeks to highlight some of the numerous fallacies present on the Internet Infidels website.

What defines an infidel? – Rejecting the existence of Jesus

One of the assertions made by Internet Infidels is the claim that Jesus never existed, a theory that has lingered on the outskirts of scholarly New Testament research but has failed to garner substantial support from a significant number of scholars. Marshall J. Gauvin, in his article “Did Jesus Christ ever live?” unequivocally states that “miracles do not occur. Accounts of miracles are false. Therefore, documents that intertwine miraculous narratives with purported facts are unreliable, as those who fabricated the miraculous aspect could have just as easily fabricated the natural part.” If one advocates for a naturalistic perspective by assuming that miracles are implausible, then one could equally attempt to validate a theistic perspective by assuming the existence of God. In either scenario, the argument is self-defeating.

Gauvin’s incompetence and profound misunderstanding of the pertinent issues are further demonstrated in the following pa

On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol–a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders, and arms, holding a cross in his hands–the lamb of God in the process of assuming the human form–the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?

Arguments such as that ought not require any commentary for the Christian who has even a basic knowledge of his Bible. Gauvin doesn’t even address the Passover lamb icon of Christianity; surely it is at least worth a mention?

Let’s focus primarily on three points raised by the articles of the Internet Infidels. These are the lack of secular references, the comparison of the legitimate Gospels to Gnostic sources, and the alleged similarities to paganism.

First, let us consider the reference to Jesus by Josephus. Gauvin writes:

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on “The Antiquities of the Jews.” In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years.After the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of “The Antiquities of the Jews” appeared, in which occurred this passage: “Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

It is true that it is seldom questioned that this passage from Antiquities of the Jews contains some interpolations which have been inserted by later scribes (a very small minority of scholars hold that the entirety of this passage is genuine). But the Internet Infidels apparently hold to the “total interpolation” theory.

What are some of the reasons for accepting this passage as partially genuine, once the clear interpolations have been removed? Perhaps the most important factor leading most scholars to accept the partial authenticity position is that a substantial part of the passage reflects Josephus’ typical language and style. Further, when the clear scribal interpolations are removed, the remaining core passage is coherent and flows well.

A substantial amount of this reference to Jesus is regarded by the majority of scholars as characteristic of Josephus, and only a few phrases are obviously Christian. Moreover, mAny of Josephus’ phrases are missing from early Christian literature, and expressions or terms that Christians would probably not have used are present. Then there is a phrase that any Christian scribe would have recognized as incorrect (“he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin”).

It is noteworthy that Gauvin fails to mention the other reference to Jesus in the writings of Josephus – the authenticity of which nearly all scholars accept in its entirety:

“But the younger Ananus who, as we mentioned, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are strict in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

The majority of scholars consider this an authentic passage for reasons such as the following:

1. There is no textual evidence against this passage. It is present in every single manuscript of the Antiquities of the Jews. This also, incidentally, applies to the aforementioned passage.

2. There is a specific use of non-Christian terminology. For example, the designation of James as the “brother of Jesus” contrasts with Christian practice of calling him the “brother of the Lord.” The passage therefore aligns neither with New Testament nor with primitive Christian usage.

3. The focus of the passage is not on Jesus, nor even James, but on the high priest Annas. There is no praise for either Jesus or James.

4. Neither this passage nor the larger one links Jesus with John the Baptist, as would be expected from a Christian interpolator.

Gauvin proceeds to argue:In the “Annals” of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another brief passage that mentions “Christus” as the founder of a group known as Christians—a community “who were detested for their misdeeds.” These words are part of Tacitus’ narrative of the burning of Rome. The evidence supporting this passage is not significantly stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not referenced by any writer prior to the fifteenth century; and when it was referenced, there existed only one manuscript of the “Annals” worldwide; and that manuscript was believed to have been transcribed in the eighth century—six hundred years after Tacitus’ passing. The “Annals” were released between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after the time of Jesus—thus, the passage, even if authentic, would not establish anything regarding Jesus.

This overlooks the main issue. The existence of Jesus was not disputed in first-century Israel, and the adverse mentions of Jesus by Tacitus and others offer compelling evidence that at least Jesus was acknowledged as a real, notable figure in the first century. Why did these critical commentators not dispute His existence? Where did they obtain their information from? Furthermore, meticulous investigation is one of Tacitus’ most renowned characteristics. His credibility as a historian argues against him uncritically adopting information from any source. The notion that Tacitus acquired his information from Christians is contradicted by the negative nature of the reference.

Would Tacitus have been inclined to merely echo what he was informed by individuals whom he held in contempt? In the end, when recounting the history and beliefs of the Jews, whom he scorned as much as the Christians, it appears quite evident from his disparaging portrayals that Tacitus was not inclined to seek the Jews’ “own perspective” or even that of “Jewish informants.”

Gauvin fails to mention the other early secular references to Jesus, such as those found in the Talmud and in the writings of Lucian, Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Thallus. However, even if we were to assume no first- or early-second-century references to Jesus existed beyond the New Testament, the references in Tacitus and Josephus would still be sufficient to establish the historical existence of Jesus.

Despite first-century secular references to Jesus, we would still have a compelling case for His existence. Why? If Jesus’ followers had chosen to create a mythical Jesus and attribute sayings to Him to portray Him as someone with Messianic authority, several issues would arise. Firstly, they appear to have done so in the wrong manner. If their aim was to establish a new religion, it would have been wise to align it with the expectations of those they were trying to persuade. The Jewish anticipation of a Messiah was a powerful military leader who would lead a rebellion against their Roman rulers. Secondly, contemporary scholarship universally acknowledges that the disciples genuinely believed in their message (they were ready to endure brutal deaths for it, without abandoning their cause, among other reasons). Thirdly, considering that the initial Christian preaching after the resurrection took place in Jerusalem (where Jesus conducted His public ministry), they were somewhat constrained in terms of creating false narratives. If Jesus’ existence had been fabricated, they would have preached in Rome or elsewhere, far from the eyewitnesses.

Furthermore, contemplate the predicament the disciples faced after the crucifixion. Their leader was deceased. Traditionally, Jews did not believe in a dying, let alone a resurrecting, Messiah. Orthodox Jewish beliefs about the afterlife excluded the idea of anyone bodily rising from the dead to glory and eternal life before the general resurrection at the end of days. Rabbinic interpretation of the prophecies regarding the Messiah’s resurrection suggested that He would be raised at the end of time alongside all the other departed saints. It is noteworthy that the disciples did not inherently anticipate a bodily resurrection, as it contradicted Jewish norms, which were prevalent. This could explain why, as John attests in his narrative «For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. », (John 20:9), that upon discovery of the empty tomb “they still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.” If the disciples had been fabricators of an ideal, they would undoubtedly have posited at best a spiritual resurrection, for a physical and bodily resurrection could have been relentlessly exposed with the presence of a corpse. Instead, they talked of the resurrection of the actual physical body which, if untrue, was an enormous risk to take should the body have ever been detected. Rather, they believed in a literal resurrection because they had witnessed it for themselves. The religious leaders of the day wanted nothing more than to stifle Christianity.

A final reason why Jesus’ followers are unlikely to have fabricated a mythic Jesus concerns His death by crucifixion. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution by hanging on a tree showed Him to be a man literally accursed by God «his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.», (Deuteronomy 21:23). The crucifixion was undoubtedly a catastrophe to the mindset of the early church, for it had effectively shown that the Pharisees and the Jewish council had been right, and that the disciples had left their homes, families, and possessions to follow a heretic, a man literally accursed by God.

What is an infidel? – Misleading statements

According to Gauvin:

There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the “Gospel of Paul,” the “Gospel of Bartholomew,” the “Gospel of Judas Iscariot,” the “Gospel of the

Egyptians,” the “Gospel or Recollections of Peter,” the “Oracles or Sayings of Christ,” and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in “The Apocryphal New Testament.” Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: “Pious fraud was admitted and avowed.” The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: “There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive.” Professor Robertson Smith says: “There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views.” The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was a historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.

Given that the Gnostics were attributing their “gospels” to prominent key players in the first-century church such as Peter, Thomas, and Mary Magdalene, one would think that this would give weight to the case that the early church was faithful in attributing their documents to the correct people. Why attribute the gospels to second-rate people like Mark and Luke? After all, the early church readily affirms that Mark obtains much of his information from Peter, so why not attribute it to Peter if this is all about credibility? There is no mention of any of this in the article. Also, the Gno

Stic gospels were NOT written to prove the existence of Jesus. The Internet Infidels show absolutely no understanding or appreciation of the background of Gnosticism, nor the relevant agendas behind the documents being propagated. There was not even really any dispute in the early church with respect to the authorship of the four canonical Gospels. To anyone even vaguely familiar with early church history, this argument is hardly convincing.

What is an infidel? – Claiming “copycat” plagiarism of pagan religions

One claim which surfaces frequently on the Internet Infidels website is the allegation that Christianity is an adaptation of various pagan religions and mythology, a claim that has long been rejected by the majority of scholars. In view of this allegation, it makes no sense why sincere, monotheistic Jews, entrenched in Palestinian culture, would have borrowed from pagan “mystery religions” and subsequently have gone to their deaths proclaiming what they knew to be an outright conspiracy.

Nonetheless, James Still writes in The Virgin Birth and Childhood Mysteries of Christ:

“As time went by it could be seen that the Kingdom of God was delayed. Among the Hellenized Jews and the Greek pagans who were considering conversion to Christianity, this delay posed more questions than answers. Additionally, Greek pagans, from which Christianity was to draw its converts and eventually thrive, were naturally skeptical of any new savior and the heavenly rewards they might promise. These Greeks had to pick and choose among the dozens of mystery cults and gods that had sprung up, each promising riches and eternal bliss in a heavenly afterlife. Jesus had little to offer these Greeks. He was, by all accounts, a mortal Jewish messiah, speaking only to the sons of Abraham and telling them to prepare the way of the Lord who would build a new Jerusalem especially for his chosen people. The Marcan Jesus that was known to his followers during the middle-to-late first-century (before the gospels of Matthew.

Ew, Luke, and John) shared none of the attributes of the time-honored moral-savior deities of Dionysus or Herakles. Jesus’ later-added attribute of virgin birth [was] necessary if Jesus was to be made acceptable to the pagans of the Hellenized world.”

But then, neither of the two birth accounts concerning Dionysus suggest a virgin birth. According to one legend, Dionysus is the product of Zeus and Persephone. Hera becomes insanely jealous and tries to destroy the infant by sending the Titans to kill him. Zeus comes to the rescue, but it is too late. The Titans had eaten everything but Dionysus’ heart. Zeus then takes the heart and implants it into the womb of Semele. In the second legend, Zeus impregnates a mortal woman, Semele, much to the jealousy of Hera. Hera convinces Semele to ask Zeus to reveal his glory to her but because no mortal can look upon the gods and live. Semele is instantly incinerated. Zeus then takes the fetal Dionysus and sews him into his own thigh until his birth. As we can see, no virgin birth takes place, but this is how Dionysus is said to have become a rebirth deity, as he is twice born in the womb.

Richard Carrier makes the case elsewhere that “Horus of Greece is described as first reigning a thousand years, then dying, then being buried for three days, at the end of which time he triumphed over Typhon, the evil principle, and rose again to life evermore.” But Carrier is wrong. The only connection we can make to Horus being resurrected is if we consider the eventual merger of Horus and Osiris. But such a theory is full of contradictions, apparently noticed by the Egyptians since they later altered their beliefs to fix the contradictions. In the Egyptian tale, Osiris is either dismembered by Set in battle or sealed in a chest and drowned in the Nile. Isis then pieces Osiris’ body back together and resurrects Osiris to conceive an heir that will avenge Osiris’ death (although technically Osiris is never actually resurrected, as he is forbidden to return to the world of the dead).

Living).

The Infidels site is filled with other misinformation about pagan deities and the frequent claim that Christians “borrowed” material from them. This assertion has yet to be proven or supported by any evidence.

What is an infidel? – Conclusion

The Internet Infidels website is simply a rehash of old conspiracy theories, along with blatant misinformation and exaggerations, most of which have long been rejected by scholarly consensus. Nevertheless, the infidels continue to attract a significant amount of internet traffic. In history, very little is certain, but there is a degree of skepticism that renders the historian’s task nearly impossible. Furthermore, the argument that the early church borrowed material from ancient pagan religions and that Jesus never existed necessitates a selective skepticism regarding the reliability of sources and how others are properly interpreted. Ultimately, if the Internet Infidels are correct in their claim that Jesus never existed, it would make Christianity a far more remarkable phenomenon than if He did exist. As the psalmist rightly declares, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God'” «The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, There is none that doeth good. », (Psalm 14:1).