Atheist interpretation of the Bible?

[historia]

In an earlier thread from last year, Jagella (R.I.P.) argued that Matthew 24:29 demonstrates that Jesus had a pre-scientific understanding of the stars and that this somehow belies Christian claims about Jesus' divinity.

Arguments like this are always predicated on a number of unstated (and sometimes unexamined) assumptions. And yet, what stands out to me about this particular example is precisely how common it is: The peculiar assumptions underlying this argument appear to underly many, if not most, atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ on this site.

Which got me wondering:

1. Is there a common atheist hermeneutic of the Bible? That is, do many atheists follow a distinctive (even if informal) set of principles or methods when interpreting a passage like Matthew 24:29?

2. Is there a common Christology assumed by many atheists? That is, when atheists assail the divinity of Christ, are they often critiquing a distinctive conception of Christ's nature?

3. Do either of those distinctive views correspond to orthodox Christian interpretations of the Bible and the divinity of Christ? If not, then are atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ properly critiques of Christianity, or are they something else?

[Difflugia]

Can you be more specific? Which verses in Daniel 8 are referenced in Matthew 24:29? Daniel 8:10 mentions stars, but I see nothing about the sun or the moon. Daniel 8 is a vision, but beginning in verse 15 Daniel states explicitly that it is a vision with symbolism. We have no such indication of metaphors in Matthew 24:29. Even then, it does not say that the stars mentioned are not meant to be celestial bodies.

I'm switching to Mark 13, which is the original that Matthew copied mostly verbatim. Mark 13:24-25 reads (ESV):

“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.”

This is mostly quoted from Isaiah 13:10, but salted with Daniel 8:10. Isaiah 13:10 reads:

For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.

Mark's "the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light" is close enough to the Greek of the Septuagint that it's almost certainly copied. The change from the "stars ... will not give their light" to "the stars will be falling from heaven" is much more important than it looks. Mark is describing a coming apocalyptic war that is based on Daniel 8-12. Though the specific verse we're talking about quotes Isaiah, the Isaiah reference is minor, in my opinion. Isaiah is referring to God ushering in a new order after an apocalyptic chaos, but I think Mark specifically sees the Herodian temple in the Daniel imagery. It's debatable whether Mark was written before or after the Temple's destruction, but in either case, I think Mark sees a conflict in Jerusalem preceded by defilement of the Temple by Herod, the occupying Romans, or both. Whether that was a good guess or hindsight is immaterial.

Several times in Daniel's vision, he refers to the "abomination that makes desolate." The Septuagint translates this using the exact same phrase that Mark uses ("βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως"), so it's not a coincidence. Daniel 8 begins the vision by remarking on a continuous and unholy sacrifice that coincides with a war in which the forces of evil appear to triumph over the armies of God Himself. Throughout the Old Testament, the stars are referred to as the armies ("host") of heaven. In the vision, many of the stars are defeated and trampled underfoot while unholy sacrifices defile God's temple. Mark is saying that a similar "abomination of desolation" will precede a similar apocalyptic war. At some time in the future (Mark isn't definite), you will see some sort of defilement of or unholy sacrifices being made in the temple. When you do, drop everything and run for the hills because there will be an earth-shattering conflict that mirrors the one in Daniel in which the forces of good will appear to fail against evil, but will ultimately triumph with God ushering in a new age.

Aside from the obvious (to me, anyway) parallel with Daniel, Mark tells us that he's about to get allegorical. In verse 13:14, he says, "let the reader understand." That's the clue that what's coming might be difficult to understand because it's not literal. Note the similarity to the language of Revelation 13:18:

This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

If that's not enough, Matthew and Luke both reinterpret Mark's vision as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Herodian Temple. Since both Gospels were written after the actual event, it should also be obvious that they knew that no stars literally fell.

[unknown soldier]

I'm switching to Mark 13, which is the original that Matthew copied mostly verbatim.

That's a good idea. Personally, if I use an alternate passage B to shed light on passage A, then I make sure that the content of B relates to the content of A. In this case you are correct that Mark 13:24-25 is almost identical to Matthew 24:29, and since Mark was written first, we know that Matthew copied the passage in Mark. A lot of people make the mistake of citing a passage B that has for them a preferred meaning over what they read in A whether B really says anything to clarify A or not.

...Mark tells us that he's about to get allegorical. In verse 13:14, he says, "let the reader understand." That's the clue that what's coming might be difficult to understand because it's not literal.

I'm not so sure that "let the reader understand" necessarily implies that everything Mark is going to say that follows is figurative. "Let the reader understand" is very vague and ambiguous. I do agree that it's a hint of some sort and that verses 24 and 25 are coded some way. However, even if language is coded in some fashion, it doesn't follow that that language must be figurative; it could still be literal.

Note the similarity to the language of Revelation 13:18:

This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

Again, we see coding in the language, but coded language isn't really the same as figurative language. For example, is the "man" in this passage a literal man or a metaphor? He could be a literal man. So in the same way although Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24-25 may be a code of some sort, the "stars" mentioned in those passages need not be figurative.

...Matthew and Luke both reinterpret Mark's vision as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Herodian Temple. Since both Gospels were written after the actual event, it should also be obvious that they knew that no stars literally fell.

But is "the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory" (verse 26) all figurative too merely symbolizing the destruction of the Temple? No, both the stars falling and the Son of Man coming are predicted events that are to happen some indeterminate time in the future. Since the coming of the Son of Man is obviously meant to be taken literally, then I see good reason to interpret the stars falling as a literal event too.

I should point out that yes, Christ is quoted as using a lot of metaphors. However, when he did so, he very often made it clear that he was using figurative language. Consider Matthew 13:31 (NRSV):

He put before them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field...

Christ here points out that the mustard seed is a metaphor for the kingdom of heaven by using the phrase "is like." In Matthew 24:28 and Mark 13:24-25 no such clarification is evident.

[Difflugia]

I'm not so sure that "let the reader understand" necessarily implies that everything Mark is going to say that follows is figurative. "Let the reader understand" is very vague and ambiguous. I do agree that it's a hint of some sort and that verses 24 and 25 are coded some way. However, even if language is coded in some fashion, it doesn't follow that that language must be figurative; it could still be literal.

It could be intended to be read literally. Jesus may have literally said and believed those things and Mark may have faithfully reported them. Is that what makes the best sense of the story, though? More to the point, reading it figuratively makes enough sense that it's not just an apologetic dodge to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion.

For contrast, consider the story of Jesus and the donkey/donkeys in Mark 11 and Matthew 21. Whether the event actually happened or not, Mark reports that the disciples found a colt, brought it to Jesus, put their cloaks on it, and Jesus rode it into Jerusalem. Matthew, on the other hand, reports that the disciples found a colt and a donkey, brought them to Jesus, put their cloaks on them, and Jesus rode them into Jerusalem. As an atheist, it's obvious to me that Matthew rewrote Mark to better fit a prophecy. I also don't have any dogmatic reason to try to harmonize the accounts. Mark's account involved one animal and Matthew's involved two. Mark's Jesus rode one animal and Matthew's Jesus somehow rode two simultaneously. For Matthew, the anatomical difficulties were apparently less important than Jesus literallly fulfilling a prophecy as he read it. The narrative is grossly improbable as historical narrative, but crystal clear as a theological statement about Jesus.

Unfortunately for most Christians, if the story is allegorical fiction, then any portion of the Jesus story could be fiction and that's dogmatically unacceptable. Unfortunately for inerrantists in particular, the details in Matthew and Mark conflict.

As atheists, we can ask questions about why Matthew changed the story and whether he was a bit dense and just didn't understand the wording of the prophecy. I actually read a pretty convincing argument that Matthew knew that the prophecy didn't mean two donkeys, but was intentionally making the event fit the prophecy even more literally than the prophecy was meant in the first place. The theology of most Christians, though, doesn't allow that, so we end up with apologetic nonsense that tries to somehow make the two stories compatible.

Again, we see coding in the language, but coded language isn't really the same as figurative language. For example, is the "man" in this passage a literal man or a metaphor? He could be a literal man. So in the same way although Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24-25 may be a code of some sort, the "stars" mentioned in those passages need not be figurative.

You're right. They're different. Part of your original argument, though, is that Mark offered no clue that the stars passage was meant figuratively. The similarity between the verses in Mark and Revelation make it at least plausible that Mark did offer such clues.

But is "the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory" (verse 26) all figurative too merely symbolizing the destruction of the Temple? No, both the stars falling and the Son of Man coming are predicted events that are to happen some indeterminate time in the future. Since the coming of the Son of Man is obviously meant to be taken literally, then I see good reason to interpret the stars falling as a literal event too.

I don't think it's fruitful to claim that the Bible is silly because a plausibly sane literary construction can be read in a silly way. I also don't think it's as obvious as you do that "the Son of Man coming in cluds" is meant literally. After the vague tribulation, we have God's avatar appearing to us in triumph. The imagery was perhaps intended to be a literal description, but I don't think it harms the narrative if it wasn't. I personally think that Mark's gospel was intended as fiction in a much broader sense than is usually assumed, but even if it's not, badly written or hamhanded allegory is still allegory.

Christ here points out that the mustard seed is a metaphor for the kingdom of heaven by using the phrase "is like."

That technically makes it a simile.

In Matthew 24:28 and Mark 13:24-25 no such clarification is evident.

And that's the difference between a simile and a metaphor.

I don't think it's certain that Mark meant the details of the Olivet Discourse to be treated non-literally, but I do think it's certain that he intended a connection to Daniel 8-12. Since Daniel's vision was certainly allegorical, I don't think it's fair to assume that Mark incorporated elements of it without being allegorical himself. He might have, but in the absence of other evidence, that's just speculation.

[unknown soldier]

My comment above was to note that your odd presumption that Jagella was somehow "forced" into "silence" because he could not be "out-argued" is simply detached from reality.

What an astute rebuttal. Deny the censoring of Jagella's troubling argumentation by asserting with a wave of the hands that any such charge is "detached from reality." We all know that in reality Christians have never censored those who argue against their beliefs.

Are there Christologies in which Christ, in his human nature, is not omniscient? Yes! In fact, I would contend that this is the predominant view within Christianity today...

...We could look at numerous other examples from modern theologians and church leaders, both Protestant and Catholic. And yet, it doesn't appear that you (or Jagella) took that into account when developing your critique.

So you conclude that Christ didn't know what he was talking about, or at least there were some things he didn't know. Actually, I am familiar with the Christian idea of "divine amnesia" as it applies to the incarnation of Christ. He is believed to have forgotten some of what he knew as God in some immaterial realm when he came down to live among us. Not to worry, though, because when he got back home, he remembered it all! I see the Catholics explain this temporary earth-bound amnesia as the inability of God to pack all that omniscience into one little guy's head.

In any case, I would still expect Christ to know what stars are really like--even with temporary earth-bound amnesia. I see no reason for God to deny him knowledge that any person can know, so his being a mere man should in no way prevent him from knowing what stars are like.

And in case you missed it, this business about Christ "emptying" himself to become a man is a lot of baloney that the church made up to explain away Christ's very human ignorance. It's strange that people can fall for something like that.

I see. So, in other words, many atheists have an incomplete understanding of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, since they don't take into account what Christian theologians say about Jesus' human nature. Is that fair?

Oh sure. That is fair and correct. A lot of atheists don't know everything that Christian theologians have come up with about Christ. Many atheists don't care what Christian theologians say. Heck, no doubt the large majority of Christians don't understand all of their own theology. In any case, I just go with what I have read in the Bible and with what some Christians say about their theology.

Oh, and which Christian theologians are you referring to? They often contradict each other. It is then impossible to agree with all of them.

...as DavidLeon and Diffugia have rightly noted, stars and other celestial objects are oft-used metaphors in ancient Jewish prophetic and apocalyptic works, such as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel, which Matthew is clearly referencing here. It seems, then, that you just missed this one.

I rebutted most of Diff's arguments in post #22. I pointed out some very common errors of interpretation people make when they jump to different passages hoping to interpret another passage in a way that they prefer.

Would you say that's typical of atheists when reading the Bible?

I can't speak for all atheists, but I try to read the Bible like any other book allowing it to "speak for itself." It's not difficult to recognize metaphors because for the most part they are obvious. If a metaphor is not obvious, then I usually interpret the passage literally. What I won't do, obviously, is to interpret a passage figuratively merely because a literal interpretation will falsify it. If a Bible passage is wrong, then it's wrong.

And yet, it doesn't appear that you (or Jagella) took that into account when developing your critique.

Speaking for myself, if I don't respect what I'm fed, then no, I don't normally consider it when forming an argument. Do you keep in mind the "space-alien Christology" when you argue Christ's nature?

...stars and other celestial objects are oft-used metaphors in ancient Jewish prophetic and apocalyptic works, such as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel, which Matthew is clearly referencing here. It seems, then, that you just missed this one.

Like I explained to Diff, the references he made to passages in the Old Testament that he thought formed a basis for Matthew 24:29 are far from "clear", and he even gave up on one of them after I explained that Daniel 8 is too different from Matthew 24:29 to serve any good purpose in interpreting Matthew 24:29.

Would you say that's typical of atheists when reading the Bible?

I don't know. Ask those "typical" atheists.

What Christ is is only limited by the believer's imagination, is it not?

No, the vast majority of Christians belong to churches that affirm historical creeds and confessions that limit and proscribe what that community believes about Christ.

I'm not naive enough to believe that Christians believe or even know everything that their churches teach. This forum provides ample proof that Christians have very different theologies many of which I've never heard of before. Again, Christ is whatever you want to believe he is or is not. Christologies are a dime a dozen.

The belief that Jesus survived the crucifixion and lived out the remainder of his life in India, for example, is not a Christian doctrine. So some views about Jesus are not Christian, and critiquing such a view is therefore not properly a critique of Christianity, would you not agree?

Not really. "Orthodox" Christianity varies from person to person, and nobody has the final word on it.

The first observation is that it appears that you lump large parts of the Bible together or even the entire Bible together when considering interpretation.

I'm afraid this is simply mistaken.

I'm not mistaken. I was referring to your comment back on post #3:

Okay, so when you read ancient Jewish poetry, such as the Psalms, do you interpret them literally?

Here you are asking me how to interpret Psalms. Obviously, it would be folly to interpret a work that big lumping it all together! I corrected you explaining that it only makes sense to interpret small parts of it individually. Some parts are literal, and some parts are figurative.

The problem here, though, is that a well-read atheist like Diffugia also recognizes that Matthew intended this passage to be taken figuratively (see post 13).

I already responded to it explaining in detail why I disagree.

He and I agree on that point based on historical-critical considerations of the text, rather than anything having to do with faith. So your concern here is misplaced.

OK, if you say so. It does seem odd, though, that you work so long and so hard to deny the most obvious interpretation of Matthew 24:29. Why is it so important to you that that passage be interpreted so that its "sun, moon, and stars" are not the sun, moon, and stars?

[Tcg]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

Given the details provided in the OP, an honest title of this thread would be, "One theist's reported claims concerning one atheist's interpretation of one verse from the Bible." Of course if one hopes to draw unfounded conclusions about all atheists based on one atheist's comments, this title probably wouldn't further that cause.


Tcg

[unknown soldier]

It could be intended to be read literally. Jesus may have literally said and believed those things and Mark may have faithfully reported them. Is that what makes the best sense of the story, though?

Yes. I see Matthew 24:29 as a prediction of impending doom from the sky in which the Son of Man metes out punishment on sinful humanity using his magical powers. Such an interpretation is entirely consistent with the Gospel's core message that God would soon judge people for their sins, and their only hope was Christ. Like much of the Gospel, this "coming" would be attended by supernatural effects on nature.

More to the point, reading it figuratively makes enough sense that it's not just an apologetic dodge to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion.

Then please post what Matthew 24:29 means if it was not meant to be taken literally. What do the sun, moon, and stars symbolize in that passage?

As atheists, we can ask questions about why Matthew changed the story and whether he was a bit dense and just didn't understand the wording of the prophecy. I actually read a pretty convincing argument that Matthew knew that the prophecy didn't mean two donkeys, but was intentionally making the event fit the prophecy even more literally than the prophecy was meant in the first place. The theology of most Christians, though, doesn't allow that, so we end up with apologetic nonsense that tries to somehow make the two stories compatible.

Here you seem to be making my case for me. If Matthew had a habit of taking the Jewish scriptures literally, then why insist that he didn't rewrite them to be taken literally?

Part of your original argument, though, is that Mark offered no clue that the stars passage was meant figuratively. The similarity between the verses in Mark and Revelation make it at least plausible that Mark did offer such clues.

Again, Mark like Matthew was alluding to something when stating "let the reader understand," but the fact of the matter is that we don't understand what he's hinting at. So I think I'm right when I said we have no clues that that Matthew 24:29 meant the stars it mentions than to be anything other than stars.

I also don't think it's as obvious as you do that "the Son of Man coming in cluds" is meant literally. After the vague tribulation, we have God's avatar appearing to us in triumph. The imagery was perhaps intended to be a literal description, but I don't think it harms the narrative if it wasn't.

You then think that the return of Christ is perhaps merely a metaphor. That might explain why Jesus never shows up. In any case, what does the coming of the Son of Man represent if it's really not the coming of the Son of Man?

I personally think that Mark's gospel was intended as fiction in a much broader sense than is usually assumed, but even if it's not, badly written or hamhanded allegory is still allegory.

So Mark unwittingly created the Christian belief that Jesus actually walked the earth, but Mark was just writing a novel to entertain his fellow Jews.

And that's the difference between a simile and a metaphor.

I know you're being disingenuous, but a simile is a metaphor that uses some form of "is like." So Jesus' mustard seed is both a simile and a metaphor.

I don't think it's certain that Mark meant the details of the Olivet Discourse to be treated non-literally, but I do think it's certain that he intended a connection to Daniel 8-12. Since Daniel's vision was certainly allegorical, I don't think it's fair to assume that Mark incorporated elements of it without being allegorical himself. He might have, but in the absence of other evidence, that's just speculation.

In that case, if anybody reports seeing a white whale, we cannot take the report as involving a literal whale because Melville didn't mean Moby Dick to be a real whale!

[Difflugia]

I see Matthew 24:29 as a prediction of impending doom from the sky in which the Son of Man metes out punishment on sinful humanity using his magical powers. Such an interpretation is entirely consistent with the Gospel's core message that God would soon judge people for their sins, and their only hope was Christ. Like much of the Gospel, this "coming" would be attended by supernatural effects on nature.

[...]

Then please post what Matthew 24:29 means if it was not meant to be taken literally. What do the sun, moon, and stars symbolize in that passage?

As I said before, it's an adaptation of Isaiah 13:10, which is in the middle of an apocalyptic and allegorical vision. In that passage, the sun, moon, and stars together stop giving light to show that all of creation is at God's command. Mark (copied by Matthew) changes up the stars to represent the divine army. I think this ends up creating a mixed metaphor (the sun and moon being darkened by God at the same time that the divine army is facing a preliminary defeat by evil forces), but I don't think an inexpert metaphor means that Mark was being literal.

Here I'll point out that I'm liable to just keep saying the same thing. I assume that it was obvious to Mark and Matthew that both Isaiah and Daniel were allegorical visions and they were applying the vision to contemporary circumstances. That's my only real reason for thinking that specific passage is nonliteral allegory if the rest isn't. If you don't find that compelling, I don't have a stronger case to make.

Here you seem to be making my case for me. If Matthew had a habit of taking the Jewish scriptures literally, then why insist that he didn't rewrite them to be taken literally?

This is one place (admittedly of many) where I differ from orthodox Christianity. I think Matthew intended his entire gospel to be read as fiction. Matthew feels free to adjust Mark's details to more closely (and perhaps absurdly) match a prophecy because he's not fettered to history. In my view, it's the orthodox interpretation of this passage as intended history that is more difficult to support. I think Matthew is writing allegory that more slavishly matches the prophecy. If we assume that Matthew was a credulous doofus (which I used to think, by the way, so I don't think it's out of the question), then I admit that I have helped make your case.

If you think, though, that Matthew actually believes (or would have us believe) that the donkey scene literally happened, then that would certainly be consistent with incorporating the Olivet Discourse as history. My opinion is that so much of Matthew is so over-the-top weird as history that he couldn't possibly expect a reader to see it as such. The slaughter of the innocents and flight to Egypt (with direct quotes from Exodus, no less) are meant to present Jesus as the new Moses, for example, but are barely plausible at best as history. The counterargument is that Matthew was credulous enough to have taken such legends as true history, in which case, I suppose there's no argument (the argument from presumed intelligence?) against treating even bizarre prophecies as foretelling bizarrely literal events.

You then think that the return of Christ is perhaps merely a metaphor. That might explain why Jesus never shows up. In any case, what does the coming of the Son of Man represent if it's really not the coming of the Son of Man?

This might be splitting hairs, but I think the return of Jesus as king is literal and the events surrounding it are allegory. Aside from a consensus that Jesus was a real guy, though, there's not much to hang that on. If the mythicists are right, then it could go either way (i.e. either all allegory or a supernatural, unearthly Jesus literally steps out of clouds).

To further support your point, though, I think Paul was unhinged enough that he did literally believe the weirdness he spouted ("caught up to the third heaven" and such). There are signs that Mark's gospel was heavily influenced by Pauline theology, so Mark might also have been that fascinating combination of talented writer and uncritical believer.

So Mark unwittingly created the Christian belief that Jesus actually walked the earth, but Mark was just writing a novel to entertain his fellow Jews.

With the caveats that Mark may be deriving from another similar story that we don't have and that "entertain" is defined broadly enough to include energizing and focusing the faith of Mark's Christian contemporaries, then I think that's probably right.

If Jesus was a real, historical figure, then "actually walked the earth" might be historical in that sense, but I then think that Mark is a fictional and ahistorical account of a real guy. I don't think that's materially different than your characterization of my position.

In that case, if anybody reports seeing a white whale, we cannot take the report as involving a literal whale because Melville didn't mean Moby Dick to be a real whale!

I think that's a perfect example. If someone reports seeing a white whale, it's not completely ruled out as a straight report, but I hope you'd agree that absent any other evidence, a report of a white whale is more likely to be a Melville reference than an actual whale sighting. If it included other, related literary references (something about tilting at windmills, perhaps?) then I'd say it would almost certainly be a Melville reference.

[Tcg]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

Given that a couple of theist posters have made the claim that it is an atheist mistake to take Matthew 24:29 literally, let's examine one theist's take on the issue. We could certainly find many others, but presenting one will suffice. This is from Ray Steadman's website which is subtitled, "AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY." I suppose you can't get much more Christian than that.

But immediately following this tribulation terrifying signs appear in the heavens. The phrase, "the powers of the heavens will be shaken," suggests severe gravitational disturbance of the solar system. This in turn would produce phenomenal effects on the earth. Showers of meteors will flash through the darkening skies. Earthquakes cause the land to heave and shake, and great tidal waves sweep the coasts. Luke reports that, "men [will be] fainting with fear," and there will be great "distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves." Volcanoes erupt, spouting out streams of lava and vast clouds of cinder and ash which obscure the sun and the moon. The sun is darkened and the moon reddens and is finally unable to shine at all.

https://www.raystedman.org/new-testamen ... -the-glory

Clearly, taking this verse as describing literal events is not unique to atheists. If Ray Steadman's subtitle is taken seriously, Authentic Christianity supports this view.

We can also conclude from the discussion between unknown soldier and Difflugia that atheists disagree on how this passage should be taken. There is no "common" approach to this passage amongst either atheists or theists. Given this fact, it is clearly inappropriate to disparage poor Jagella for taking it literally and of course by extension libeling all atheists.


Tcg

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

Given that a couple of theist posters have made the claim that it is an atheist mistake to take Matthew 24:29 literally, let's examine one theist's take on the issue. We could certainly find many others, but presenting one will suffice. This is from Ray Steadman's website which is subtitled, "AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY." I suppose you can't get much more Christian than that.

But immediately following this tribulation terrifying signs appear in the heavens. The phrase, "the powers of the heavens will be shaken," suggests severe gravitational disturbance of the solar system. This in turn would produce phenomenal effects on the earth. Showers of meteors will flash through the darkening skies. Earthquakes cause the land to heave and shake, and great tidal waves sweep the coasts. Luke reports that, "men [will be] fainting with fear," and there will be great "distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves." Volcanoes erupt, spouting out streams of lava and vast clouds of cinder and ash which obscure the sun and the moon. The sun is darkened and the moon reddens and is finally unable to shine at all.

https://www.raystedman.org/new-testamen ... -the-glory

Clearly, taking this verse as describing literal events is not unique to atheists. If Ray Steadman's subtitle is taken seriously, Authentic Christianity supports this view.

We can also conclude from the discussion between unknown soldier and Difflugia that atheists disagree on how this passage should be taken. There is no "common" approach to this passage amongst either atheists or theists. Given this fact, it is clearly inappropriate to disparage poor Jagella for taking it literally and of course by extension libeling all atheists.


Tcg

No one is trying to disparage Jagell nor libel all atheists. All you have to do is read what's before you. When you read what Difflugia's has to say you immediately get the impression that he isn't biased. He has good reason for his answer. Often atheists tend to interpret the Bible in a negative way because that's what they want to see, and of course, theists do the opposite. When you read the stuff you posted from the theist it is obvious he likes to think God is going to vindicate his beliefs by punishing all of those that disagree with him. He's doing it in a quasi-scientific way by attempting to make an allegorical expression fit with a plausible scenario.

In Isaiah 13:10 which Difflugia, The JWs, myself and the traditional commentaries I linked to earlier mentioned the exact same references to the sun, moon and stars came to pass with the destruction of Babylon without any of the events the "Authentic Christian" you linked to mentioned. The same applies to the other verses describing other events I referred to.

[Overcomer]

unknown soldier wrote:

As I see it, critiquing Christ is critiquing Christianity.

That is a truly insightful statement. Thank you for making it.

The reality is that, if people get Jesus wrong, they get everything wrong. And if you look down through the centuries, you see that all the heresies ever presented are heresies about the identity of Jesus Christ which is why Christians have zealously protected the truth of who and what he is in the face of attacks.