Refuting my brother's argument

[EphelDuath]

I was arguing about the reliability of the New Testament, and I proposed that everything that could possibly be verified in the New Testament has been reasonably proven true. Obviously, unrecorded events like miracles are impossible to prove, but the NT should be given the benefit of the doubt being that there has been no impeccable arguments given against its accuracy.

He responded that even if the dates and places actually existed, that doesn’t mean everything that takes happens in the New Testament actually happened in real life. For example, even if Jesus existed, that doesn’t mean he performed miracles. A similar example would be a fictional narrative about Abraham Lincoln, where real people have conversations in real places, but the dialogue itself was completely made up by the author.

How would you reply to this rebuttal?

 

[gookykookypig]

The New Testament has been written by “witnesses” and by “investigators”:

A witness is, for example, is St. John:

"**What was from the beginning, what we have
heard, what we have seen with our eyes,
what we have looked at and touched with
our hands, **concerning the Word of Life–

"and the life was manifested, and we have
seen and testify and proclaim to you the
eternal life, which was with the Father
and was manifested to us–

“what we have seen and heard we proclaim
to you also, so that you too may have
fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship
is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”
(1 John 1:1-3, emphasis mine)

An investigator, for example, is St. Luke:

"**Inasmuch as many have undertaken to
compile an account of the things
accomplished among us,
**
"just as they were handed down to us
by those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and servants of the word,

“it seemed fitting for me as well, having
investigated everything carefully from
the beginning, to write it out for you in
consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;”
(Luke 1:1-3, emphasis mine)

Now, the argument is, by their being “witnesses” and “investigators”, are they likely to make up stories in the front row of an authentic background of place and time?

That’s too absurd for me. A situation is intertwined with a place and a time, and being “witnesses” and “investigators”, they cannot write something they weren’t sure about, especially if they had accuracy and sureness with the scene’s place and time all along.

 

[GJx86]

There are a couple of ways I might respond. The one I like the best has been laid out in a number of places; the one I have in front of me is Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

Briefly, this argument is that the Bible, judged as a purely historical text, exceeds the standards we use to judge the historical accuracy of other ancient texts. (For example, its descent through history can be traced back to many ancient manuscripts, and its text has been excellently preserved over time.) This text contains records of a man named Jesus Christ who (1) claimed to be divine, and (2) instituted a church, giving it his authority. If one can then successfully argue for the divinity of Christ (a separate chapter in Kreeft’s book), then it follows that the church he instituted has divine authority; that church is the Catholic Church, and it used its divine authority to select the texts of the Bible and declare them inspired, so the Bible must be divinely inspired.

That doesn’t mean that every text in the Bible is a literal history, but it does mean that if an author intended to relay that a particular event was historical, then that event was indeed historical. Thus, if St. John’s goal is to relate the literal story of Jesus turning water into wine, and St. John was divinely inspired, then Jesus did, in fact, turn water into wine (and we know this was John’s goal, since he himself states that he wanted to relate the deeds of Jesus so that we might know he is the Son of God).

Others will have other paths to add. Hope this helps you. I highly recommend the Kreeft book – I’ve been picking out chapters from it here and there, but I’ve enjoyed it very much so far.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You’re essentially taking their word for it that, 35 or so years after Jesus’s death, what they wrote down is accurate to the letter.

 

[EphelDuath]

You’re essentially taking their word for it that, 35 or so years after Jesus’s death, what they wrote down is accurate to the letter.

Well, if it actually happened, then it’s not so much of a stretch to think that God divinely inspired them.

Either it’s all made up, or God divinely inspired the creation of the New Testament. There’s no reason to think that God would give a message for all of mankind, but fail to foresee the fallibility of human memory.

 

[MarkBrown]

"He responded that even if the dates and places actually existed, that doesn’t mean everything that takes happens in the New Testament actually happened in real life. For example, even if Jesus existed, that doesn’t mean he performed miracles. A similar example would be a fictional narrative about Abraham Lincoln, where real people have conversations in real places, but the dialogue itself was completely made up by the author.

How would you reply to this rebuttal?"

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Interesting. I would respond in one of the following ways:

1. Are you serious in your rejection of proven historical evidence outside the Bible that Jesus existed? Have you lost your capacity to think critically? (if he was my brother )
2. Better men, or possibly worst men, have tried to prove the Bible is inaccurate. They have all failed. The mantra was that the Bible was wrong because it is the only book to mention Hittites. Was used to show how inaccurate it was, until the 1880’s when a vast library of the Hittites was uncovered in Asia Minor. The Bible is wrong as outside of it there is no mention of a King David. 1994 at the Tel Dan site, numerous finds mentioning the household of King David. So those that have tried to refute the accuracy of Holy Scripture have been proven wrong again and again and again.
   Amazing how the Holy Spirit works.
3. Ask him if he believes Socrates existed. That should confuse him If he says yes tell him to prove it with out using Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle and Aristophsus. It is easier to prove the existence of Jesus without using Matthew, Mark, Luke and John than it is to prove Socrates existed without his four “apostles”.
4. why does he hold scripture to such a higher standard that the rest of literature is not held too.
5. He thinks a given historical fact is false. Have him prove it.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
“You’re essentially taking their word for it that, 35 or so years after Jesus’s death, what they wrote down is accurate to the letter.”

Humm, How do you know Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration? Someones word on it? I just finished reading a book by S. Bowden on Napoleons 1805 campaign. Mr. Bowden was not present and used original sources to include eyewitness testimony. Is he wrong? Abraham Lincoln supposedly wrote the Gettysburg address. But we only have the word of those who listened. And a piece of paper supposedly used by Pres. Lincoln to write the address. Essentially we are taking some ones word on it, until it is proven false.

The books of the N.T. were as early as 44 AD, @ 11 years after. By some accounts, Papias, the canon was completed by the death of Paul and Peter @68 AD. Your asserting of 35 years prior to the apostles beginning to write is wrong.

As to memory. My grandfather was a WWII vet who served in some hellish fighting. His last fight was on Okie. He told me all about it 43 years after the fact in such vivid detail that I was able to walk the beach he washed up on and retrace his steps. Oh some houses had been built, but his memory of this occurance remaind with him until he died. If my grandfather, whose memory I confirmed, could remember a battle. The Apostles could remember the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and acension of the Lord in the same detail.