I’m skipping to the end of freethoughpedia.com’s list of reasons to abandon Christianity. Why? Well, it’s simply because most of the reasons don’t have to deal with the doctrine of Christianity, but the conduct of individual Christians. Yes, some Christian/Catholic nations have messed up. Yes, Christian individuals and groups have messed up. But that has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity itself is true.
The 18th reason (out of 20) states, “The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings.”
There we go! Finally we have a real, bona-fide reason that, if true, would mean Christianity is wrong. Christians hold the Bible to be a few things, namely the history (and future) of God’s plan to save mankind and the authoritative manual on how to live.
Now, if the Bible isn’t reliable when it talks about Jesus… we basically can chuck the whole thing. Jesus is our rock, but if we don’t know what exactly He said and did, we don’t know how to think and act. We are called to live like Jesus, but that’s impossible if the Gospels (biographies on Jesus) are unreliable.
But first, let’s examine the actual reasons given before we throw the Bible away.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1) We don’t know who wrote the Bible. Answer: That depends on what is meant by “know”. Paul writes in his epistles the usual “Paul, called to be an apostle…” thing at the beginning of his epistles. John writes in Revelation that it is him writing. Jude does the same. In the old Testament, Isaiah writes that he had a vision. Jeremiah writes that it is indeed him writing.
I could go and on. A lot of the books mention* their writers. So yes, we know the people who wrote a lot of the Bible.
But what about the books that don’t mention their author? Frankly, I fail to see how that affects the reliability of the Bible, seeing as how prophecies come true and lives change. Oh, and archeology supports and third party sources agree with the Bible. Does knowing who wrote the thing change any of that? Yes, it is nice to know, but I fail to see how that affects the reliability of Christ’s teaching.
Now, if they were complaining that the Gospels were written too far after Jesus’ death to be accurate, that would actually matter. Oh wait…
2) The Gospels were written between 30-200 years after Jesus’ death. His teachings couldn’t possibly be accurately recorded.
The people who raise this as a problem simply don’t understand what they are saying. Are you kidding me?!?! 30 years! That is golden in terms of textual accuracy. What scholars wouldn’t give to have copies of Plato and Homer that were 30 years older than the originals.
Even 200 years ain’t that bad, even though it is still wrong (scholars tend to view the gap between the originals and the oldest copies to be 30-150 years old). Copies of John, the “newest” Gospel, could be put anywhere from 60-120 years after Jesus died**.
Besides showing that they really don’t understand the gravity of what they are saying, people who raise this objection also don’t understand the culture of that day. Stories and teachings were passed down orally. Everyone knew these things, so when someone told someone else about Jesus’ teachings, he had a whole community ready to correct him if he misspoke.
In this age of misinformation, where the media is just as eager as its audience to spread the sensational, we don’t understand this concept of internal “accuracy police”. Look at what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:4-8:
(4) “And that he (Jesus) was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures;
(5) “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.
(6) “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren (!) at once; of whom the greater part remain unto the present, but some are fallen asleep.
(7) “After that he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
(8)“And last of all he was seen of me also…” (KJV).
Now why would Paul go through all this trouble? He does this to show the Corinthians that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus who were still alive. He is saying that there are people who will back him up.
Unlike Islam and Mormonism, the Bible was assimilated in the open. Paul didn’t go to a cave where Jesus suddenly appeared to him in secret. Paul didn’t lock his room where he met Jesus. No, what he was writing in his epistles could be backed up by Jesus’ teachings and His resurrection. Why? There were eyewitnesses.
To summarize this point, at the time of the Gospels being written, there were eyewitnesses. These authors weren’t writing about something that had happened 150 years before, but around 20-50 years before. Due to their culture, they would have many eyewitness “spell checkers” who could correct them.
30-200 years? Not a problem.
3) Freethoughtpedia.com states that, according to a group of scholars known as the Jesus Seminar, only 18% of the statements and 16% of the deeds of Jesus actually have a high chance of actually happening.
On the surface this seems tough. But let’s examine who these Jesus Seminar-ians are. Gregory Boyd, a highly respected Christian scholar, writes that the Jesus Seminar is a small group of very left wing scholars who are on the fringe of New Testament thinking. Lee Strobel*** writes that they deny the supernatural from the outset. Also, they say the Bible isn’t reliable while some in their camp champion questionable documents of suspicious origins.
What stops me is the radical left description. Radical leftists deny the supernatural, opting for a more naturalistic approach to… just about everything short of salvation. Also, they tend to eisegete, which means they read what they want to into the text. If majority opinion says something in the Bible isn’t true, they’ll go with the opinions of the day.
The Jesus Seminar went into the Gospels with a mindset of what could and couldn’t be legitimate, and their findings reflect this. Jesus couldn’t do miracles, therefore… He didn’t do miracles. Jesus couldn’t be God… therefore He wasn’t. Etc.
The Jesus Seminar was composed of people who do not reflect scholarly opinion on the New Testament. They were and are extremely leftist, and y’all know what that means. They were almost a publicity stunt. They knew that what they said would be received with open arms, and they went straight to the public without first checking through academia.
This third option fails because the Jesus Seminar, put simply, is not reliable****.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Free Thought believes the Bible doesn’t accurately portray Jesus’ teachings. They give three reasons. The first one doesn’t really matter. The second one is not true due to eyewitness accounts. The third one is extremely questionable due to the party making the claim.
*If people say, "Well, how do you know those documents aren't lying?", you have to question the wisdom of talking to them. They'll deny whatever you say anyway. The simple answer to that question is, "Because there is no reason to doubt them."
**I used Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus here.
**I used Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus here.
***Most of the information I used in this post I researched from Lee Strobel’s book The Case for Christ. He writes about the Jesus Seminar in several places, most notably in chapter 6.
****Gregory Boyd writes about the Jesus Seminar among other things in his book Cynic Sage or Son of God?
No comments:
Post a Comment