How to Refute These Claims?

[Della]

There is way too much there to go into things point by point.

However, consider that no one doubts the authenticity of Caesar’s Gallic Wars. And yet the earliest mss. we have dates to the 10-11th century. The same with most–if not all–of the other books from classical Greece and Rome. If I have made a nice new copy, why would I keep the tattered original? Much like today, if I have a tattered paperback of a book printed in 1950, and I buy a new copy, why would I keep the old one? I wouldn’t. But that doesn’t mean the replacement copy is false.

I don’t think there is much doubt the the scholarship of Metzger, Ehrman, et al. is accurate. I think there are something like 30,000 variations in the New Testament mss., most of course, just being misspellings or transposed letters. But some variations are significant, and it seems clear that some words, phrases, and even stories, are the additions of later copyists (who were trying to clarify what they were copying according to their own understanding).

Now to Bart Ehrman (now an atheist), all those variations are deeply disturbing, as they should be to anyone who thinks that God is somehow preserving his actual words and not allowing mistakes to creep in. However, that’s not the position of the Catholic Church (look up “inspiration” and “revelation” in the catechism or Vatican II documents). In the Catholic view–which is very logical and common sense–the Church came first; the New Testament came later (St. Paul’s epistles began to appear c. 50 AD; Mark c. 60 AD; Matthew and Luke c. 80 AD; John c. 90 AD). So obviously the Church was around long before the epistles and Gospels. So the Church decided which writings would be officially accepted (canonical), and the Church decides the interpretation.

So when someone comes along and questions a verse or passage’s authenticity, the correct answer for a Catholic is “So what?” If you read Garry Wills’ book on the Gospels, that’s exactly what he says.

But ultimately, you can’t “prove” the authenticity of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. You either believe what your parents taught you or weigh the evidence and choose to believe or not believe. Religion isn’t mathematics. There are no proofs.

Thank you for your fuller explanation. I posted pretty much the same idea, from a slightly different tack, but it cuts no ice with many because they want to argue semantics and proofs, etc. because it gives them reasons to not embrace the faith. Actually, all they have to say is that they don’t believe because they don’t want to believe and no one would care one way or the other.

Some were brought up in very restrictive homes, using the Bible to punish every little thing or to keep them from enjoying the ordinary and innocent pleasures of life. So, they rebelled against all that and blame it, not on their parents’ poor interpretation of the Bible or on being abused, but on God and the Bible, as if either had anything to do with it. Sigh!

In the end, it’s a matter of feelings for many against which there are no arguments except to say that their feelings are misplaced. They’re usually quite relucltant to give up their feelings since they’re become their reason for living the life they lead.

It’s not just a matter of producing proofs or even solid evidence (of which there is plenty) but of people being willing to surrender their emotional connections to what they think is the faith and/or their need to use faith as an excuse for all that went wrong in their lives. They are wounded and sometimes they lash out, which explains much of the hatred for religion that I’ve seen online over the years. It’s sad. They need our prayers more than apologetics.

 

[mamlukman]

Thank you for your fuller explanation. I posted pretty much the same idea, from a slightly different tack, but it cuts no ice with many because they want to argue semantics and proofs, etc. because it gives them reasons to not embrace the faith. Actually, all they have to say is that they don’t believe because they don’t want to believe and no one would care one way or the other.

Some were brought up in very restrictive homes, using the Bible to punish every little thing or to keep them from enjoying the ordinary and innocent pleasures of life. So, they rebelled against all that and blame it, not on their parents’ poor interpretation of the Bible or on being abused, but on God and the Bible, as if either had anything to do with it. Sigh!

In the end, it’s a matter of feelings for many against which there are no arguments except to say that their feelings are misplaced. They’re usually quite relucltant to give up their feelings since they’re become their reason for living the life they lead.

It’s not just a matter of producing proofs or even solid evidence (of which there is plenty) but of people being willing to surrender their emotional connections to what they think is the faith and/or their need to use faith as an excuse for all that went wrong in their lives. They are wounded and sometimes they lash out, which explains much of the hatred for religion that I’ve seen online over the years. It’s sad. They need our prayers more than apologetics.

I went back and read your earlier post more carefully. Yes, I think we agree, and I certainly agree with what you said above.

For me, Catholicism is based on logic and common sense. There are optional things that you are free to believe or not believe, but “pious” Catholics often act as if these optional elements are required doctrines. I have been called an atheist or charged with agreeing with atheists more times than I can count. But I can agree with Bart Ehrman on all his facts and yet disagree with him on his conclusions. And there is nothing in the catechism or official doctrines that I disagree with.

I think it is tragic that all too many people say “I stopped being a Catholic because of x” when “x” has nothing to do with being a Catholic. And of course it doesn’t help that “pious” Catholics insist that “x” is a necessary Catholic belief / practice.

As you said, there is plenty of evidence. But there is no proof, and of course that’s logical too–if I could “prove” a certain religion was true, there would be no free will.

 

[Della]

I went back and read your earlier post more carefully. Yes, I think we agree, and I certainly agree with what you said above.

For me, Catholicism is based on logic and common sense. There are optional things that you are free to believe or not believe, but “pious” Catholics often act as if these optional elements are required doctrines. I have been called an atheist or charged with agreeing with atheists more times than I can count. But I can agree with Bart Ehrman on all his facts and yet disagree with him on his conclusions. And there is nothing in the catechism or official doctrines that I disagree with.

I think it is tragic that all too many people say “I stopped being a Catholic because of x” when “x” has nothing to do with being a Catholic. And of course it doesn’t help that “pious” Catholics insist that “x” is a necessary Catholic belief / practice.

As you said, there is plenty of evidence. But there is no proof, and of course that’s logical too–if I could “prove” a certain religion was true, there would be no free will.

Well, I for one am very happy the Church allows so many spiritualities and modes of living. I came from a repressive sect my mother took us into when I was a young teen, and which I didn’t leave until I was in my 30’s. It was refreshing to come into the Catholic Church that, while solid on doctrine, was very lenient in matters of lifestyle and termperment. In the sect the Bible was nearly our God. I swear if Jesus had stood in our midst and declared the things he did as recorded in the NT they’d have thrown him out as a heretic. Ha! Anyway, I was so happy to be free of that life, it was like stepping out of prison, so I too take no notice of overly zealous types that try to tell me what I must do/must not do as a Catholic. Neither am I not comforable reading people’s work that tries to disclaim the miraculous, etc. because it’s just not worth my time when I know their conclusions are based on personal dislike rather than the evidence. I’d much rather read the great Saints–a better use for anyone’s time, IMHO.

 

[Lucretius]

I think it’s intellectually dishonest for any person who studied Judaism or Islam in depth to leave their respective religions. Maybe emotional or social reasons lead to apostasy but any intellectually honest person who does their homework could never convert to christiantiy. This is according to the founder of Jews for Judaism.

So…a claim with no reasons to back it up?

Consensus of Biblical scholars states.
The NT is a poorly preserved document reference Nestle Aland 28th edition New Testament Greek

This is false. The New Testemant is probably one of the best preserved text, with fragments found within one century of the writing date. Furthermore, if copying errors can be claimed without reason, than any text can be doubted, since most ancient texts, if they even survive the sands of time, are copies from Medieval monks: all of history is doubt (just so someone can reject Christianity). They would rather abandon logic in order to doubt the Logos.

Word of advice: when every you see the phrase “consent of Scholars,” you should become skeptical real quick. Biblical Scholars do not consent on much, especially on something so general and vague as the authors “claims.”

There may be nearly 150 years between the original writing/delivery of a New Testament text and the now-preserved manuscripts

As I mentioned before, most of our ancient texts survive because monks copied them, so most of our history is known through copies of copies of copies of text written centuries after the events. The New Testemant, by just this theory alone, would be one of, if not the most reliable historical record in history, in comparison, as we have fragments within a century of the actually writing of the text.

Christian scribes fabricated deeds and sayings into Jesus’s life. Reference Dr. Craig Evans books on authenticating sayings and deeds of Jesus.

This is claimed, but never proven. Furthermore, it is inconsistent to doubt some of the text, but not all of it. Finally, many scholars have refuted these claims (like Mr. William Lane Craig).

None of the NT contains eyewitness testimony

Except for GMatthew and GJohn (and GJohn straight out claims to be an eyewitness anyway). GMark is basically the Gospel of Peter, an eyewitness. An then there is letter of Peter and the letter of James, at least.

The authorship are unknown

Except that friends of the Apostles, like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias, as well as Tradition in general, tell us who the authors are. Why should we doubt these witnesses?

FLAT OUT forgeries*

The author is reading in modern ideas regarding authorship. Back in the day, people could write “in the Spirit of” another famous person, and build on what they started.

Jesus did not even believe he was divine.

Before Abraham was, I Am.

It’s all speculation with no hard evidence. The second coming of Jesus will clarify all of these points.

Except for those eyewitness report which you reject without any “hard evidence”

There is absolutely no evidence to believe in christianity."

No evidence at all? None? Not even a little bit? So Christians/Western Culture was literally stupid for 1000 years? Is this person so closed minded that he cannot possible see any plausible arguments for Christianity, even if he has good reason to reject them?

OP, please stop reading this garbage. All it can do is frustrate you and create emotion doubt. Don’t waste your time. Most Scholars who make these claim base their theories on assumptions that reject Christianity a priori, which makes them fallacious if these theories are introduce when Christianity is at issue (its called “begging the question”).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[steve_b]

I was posting on Reddit earlier, asking ex-Jews and ex-Muslims to explain why they crossed over to Christianity. I received this response, and would be grateful for any help on refuting the claims:

"As a son of adam I need to make this very clear.

I think it’s intellectually dishonest for any person who studied Judaism or Islam in depth to leave their respective religions. Maybe emotional or social reasons lead to apostasy but any intellectually honest person who does their homework could never convert to christiantiy. This is according to the founder of Jews for Judaism.

However, even if a person was not a muslim, jew but just studied biblical scholarship this alone is enough for one to not believe in Modern Christianity (blood atonement, triunity, etc.) because it’s rooted in falsehood:
Consensus of Biblical scholars states.
The NT is a poorly preserved document reference Nestle Aland 28th edition New Testament Greek

"Third, this edition reflects a shift in assumptions about what the evidence allows one to reconstruct. Where previous generations, emboldened by a confidence in science which was possible only in the Enlightenment, claimed to be able to reproduce the “New Testament in the Original Greek,” late twentieth century scholars have known that extant evidence reaches only back to the second century, and that for only a scattering of passages. There may be nearly 150 years between the original writing/delivery of a New Testament text and the now-preserved manuscripts. Given the strong dependence on a genealogical method, "
concordiatheology.org/2012/10/a-new-edition-of-the-greek-new-testament/[1]

1b. Christian scribes fabricated deeds and sayings into Jesus’s life. Reference Dr. Craig Evans books on authenticating sayings and deeds of Jesus.
None of the NT contains eyewitness testimony to Jesus’s earthly ministry or can be authenticated back to any of his earthly companions. The authorship are unknown or FLAT OUT forgeries which makes the NT even less trustworthy. Reference Forgery and Counter Forgery by Dr. Bart Ehrman
Jesus did not even believe he was divine. Reference historical Jesus scholarship EP Sanders, John Meier, Paula Fredricksen, etc.
Lastly the vast early diversity in Christianity (in addition to poor record of artifacts) makes it impossible to authenticate what was taught by the Jerusalem (earthly companion of Jesus) apostles. Which christian community inherited the truth (the petrine or paulian traditions).

It’s all speculation with no hard evidence. The second coming of Jesus will clarify all of these points.
There is absolutely no evidence to believe in christianity."

The exact same argument discrediting Christianity, could also be laid at the feet of Judaism. iow, Jews made their story up.

So now what?

BTW, this is probably why Jesus said most people go to hell.
Matthew 7:13 , Matthew 7:14