In my last blog I posed the question, "Exactly what is the bible?". Is it a message from God to us, or is the message solely from fallible humans? As was shown by the statements from the official creeds of mainstream Christian denominations, most Christians believe it to contain the inerrant word of God. In fact one of the arguments for God's existence (and an underlying assumption for many of the other arguments for God's existence) is the ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE. The logic of the argument is simple:
(1) If the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are a reliable portrayal of Jesus Christ then God exists.
(2) The Gospels are a reliable portrayal of Jesus Christ.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
This is an argument that is promoted on numerous websites [1] and books [2]. It is one that I think is critical for the biblical God. If this argument can be shown to be false then a Christian biblical God almost certainly doesn't exist. While I think that the argument can be clearly shown beyond reasonable doubt to be false, this blog will outline the arguments in favor of it. In later blogs I will systematically dismantle the argument.
As with most logical arguments, the truth of the argument hinges upon the truth of the premises. I will argue that while premise 2 is the most problematic both are flawed. Let's begin by looking at them individually.
Premise 1: If the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are a reliable portrayal of Jesus Christ then God exists.
The evidence the proponents of this argument give for this premise is:
(a) Jesus claims to be the son of God and even God himself. If this claim is true then obviously God exists.
(b) The trilemma argument for the validity of a biblical Jesus:
(1) Jesus was either the LORD, or he was a LIAR, or he was a LUNATIC.
(2) Jesus was not a LIAR, or a LUNATIC.
(3) Therefore he was LORD.
(c) The Gospels have overwhelming testimony concerning Jesus performing numerous miracles. If Jesus did actually perform those miracles then he must be God, or at least God must have given him the ability to do so.
Premise 2: The Gospels are a reliable portrayal of Jesus Christ.
Being more problematic, Christian apologists have produced a greater number of arguments in its favor. These arguments include:
(a) The Gospels are eyewitness or second person testimony to Jesus' life. The early Church fathers attest to Matthew, a tax collector also known as Levi who became a disciple of Jesus, was the author of the Gospel of Matthew; John Mark, the secretary of Peter, was the author of the Gospel of Mark; Luke, the physician and travelling companion of Paul, was the author of the Gospel of Luke (as well as the book of Acts of the Apostles); and John, the son of Zebedee, an important disciple of Jesus was the author of the Gospel of John. Furthermore, many pericopes (short stories embedded in the biblical text) contain details that only an eyewitness to the event is likely to include.
(b) The Gospels were written within the lifetime of people who were eyewitness to Jesus. If they were not true then their falsity could have easily been exposed by those eyewitnesses. Furthermore, many people had reason to discredit early Christianity, but it wasn't discredited. That surely suggests that the Gospels were true.
(c) The Gospels were written so soon after Jesus' death that legendary material had not had time to develop. So they must be true.
(d) Many early Christians were martyred for their beliefs. No one would die for something they know is not true.
(d) The pericopes are consistent in their portrayal of Jesus.
(e) Purported contradictions are only apparent. They are not real. All are resolvable with the proper understanding.
(f) There are numerous New Testament documents and they demonstrate that the the text has been reliably preserved over time.
(g) There are non-Christians sources ... Josephus, Tacitus, Pliney the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc ... that support the biblical view of Jesus' life.
(h) Objections against miracles arise from a naturalistic prejudice. If one approaches the bible with an open mind then the evidence for miracles is overwhelming.
(i) Archaeological evidence overwhelming supports the accuracy of the bible.
If all these pieces of evidence were actually true then the argument from the bible would be a strong one. However, there is very little truth in anything above. And furthermore, the people making those arguments SHOULD know better. The evidence is right before their face … in the bible itself.
As believers are keen to point out, it is the best selling book in history. Best selling or not, I have found that it is the people who use it seem to be ignorant of what it actually says. This even includes “sophisticated” Christians who claim to study it. In order to see that the whole argument is obviously bullshit, REAL STUDY will be needed. If you stay with this series of blogs, I think that you will likely learn things about the bible that are obvious, yet which you have never heard or have been led to disbelieve by biblidolators casual dismissal.
There is some good critical scholarship out there about the bible, and especially the Gospels. But most of it is virtually unknown. Even the people doing the research don’t seem to promote it in media. Why not? I believe it is because to do so risks offending the religious sensibilities of a large number of Christians. This is wrong. Knowledge is knowledge, and if the evidence offends someone, then that person needs to be offended.
I will do my best to present you all the offending data, or else you could just pick up the New Testament and read it for what it actually says. Compare the stories between Gospels. Note the similarities, Note the differences. What does it really mean?
In order for me to present the evidence in a form that will be useable, I will need to make up some tables (I cannot find the information presented on the internet the way I want it to be). These tables are going to be very long. If I embed them in a blog, it will make the blog virtually unreadable. It is my intention to make up the tables and post them as stand-alone blogs. I call these “data blogs”. I intend to link to the data blogs at the appropriate places in my blogs that present the arguments I wish to make.
So the next several blogs will be a study of the Gospels. The question you need to keep in the back of your mind as you read them is, “What exactly are the Gospels?” Are they the product of God, or are they the product of men? If they are the product of God, then God exists. If they are the product of men then they have no extraordinary claim for authority of any sort.
I am looking forward to making my argument.
===============
NOTES
[1] Some of the better sites defending the argument from the bible see:
http://garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspe...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200306/ai_n9244775
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliable-more.htm
http://www.ichthus.info/Luke/intro.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/new_testament_manuscripts_the.htm...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/new_testament_manuscripts_the_1.h...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/new_testament_manuscripts_disc.ht...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/the_manuscripts_tell_the_story.ht...
[2] The books I have used as my main sources for the positive side of the argument are:
Kreeft P, Tacelli RK. (1994). Handbook of Christian Apologetics Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinoise 406p. ISBN 0-8308-1774-3.
Stroebel L. (1998). The Case for Christ Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 397p. ISBN 0-310-22655-4.
McDowell J. (2006). Evidence for Christianity. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville. 743 p. ISBN 978-1-4185-0628-5
Gundry RH. (2003). A Survey of the New Testament. Zondervan Publishers, Grand Rapids. 542 p. ISBN 0-310-23825-0
McGrath AE. (2001). Christian Theology: An Introduction Blackwell Publishing, . 616p ISBN 1-4051-1859-8
There is also a uesful online manuscript by Kruse, CG. The Gospel According to John:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kvgTGxdvK08C&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=Gospel...
[3] The notion that Jesus claimed to be God comes mainly from the Gospel of John, Chapter 1:1-18 :
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” ’) From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known. [emphasis added; Unless otherwise stated all bible quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version.]
I have bolded the pertinent passages. Notice that the passage says that the "Word" is God, and that the "Word" became flesh and lived with humans and that he was his "father's only son" ... an unmistakable reference to Jesus Christ. So clearly the passage is saying that Jesus is God. If this is true then obviously God exists.
Great blog I am looking forward to your next one. I would just like to point out to you and that is point of view. The four men that you are going to talk about saw and heard Jesus from the different areas. Also as you stated Matthew was a tax collector, and if you look you will See that Luke was a doctor, and Mark and John were fishermen. So then Luke would be a better reference for Jesus's healing people. Matthew would be more willing to talk about all matter involving money (also note that Matthew was the ONLY one to talk about Judas killing himself and the money he got for turning in Jesus). John and Mark will be more similar due to there profession and their many shared experiences. Like I said at the beginning I am looking forwarded to your next blog.
Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is. Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
Great blog I am looking forward to your next one. I would just like to point out to you and that is point of view. The four men that you are going to talk about saw and heard Jesus from the different areas. Also as you stated Matthew was a tax collector, and if you look you will See that Luke was a doctor, and Mark and John were fishermen. So then Luke would be a better reference for Jesus's healing people. Matthew would be more willing to talk about all matter involving money (also note that Matthew was the ONLY one to talk about Judas killing himself and the money he got for turning in Jesus). John and Mark will be more similar due to there profession and their many shared experiences. Like I said at the beginning I am looking forwarded to your next blog.
In subsequent blogs I will present evidence that:
(1) NONE of the Gospels were actually written by the authors that tradition has ascribed. In other words Matthew, the tax collector disciple of Jesus did not write the Gospel of Matthew; Mark (who was not a fisherman, but was the secretary the disciple Peter who was) did not write the Gospel of Mark; Luke, the physician and traveling companion of the Apostle Paul, did not write the Gospel of Luke; nor did John, the son of Zebedee and one of the three closest disciples to Jesus did not write the Gospel of John.
(2) The Gospels of Mark (along with a lost gospel that contained sayings ascribed to Jesus) was a primary source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; but not John. Therefore Mark, Matthew and Luke are very similar; but John is very different.
I have already discussed some of this evidence in another blog
You are not quite correct concerning Judas:
(1) While GMatt does give the amount of money that Judas was paid (30 pieces of silver), GMark & GLuke say that he was to get money for the betrayal (but not how much)
(2) GMatt does tell of Judas' suicide by hanging; but Acts (which was written the same author of GLuke) says that Judas acquired a field with the money for betraying Jesus and died falling headfirst into that field having his guts gush out.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I really am looking forward to this series. Your crosshairs are on the rational basis of faith for all the otherwise-intelligent Christians I've talked to. You will undoubtedly do a far better analysis of their core beliefs.
Please be sure to read the all of the Gospel you are dismantling. Also, the Old Testament might be helpful to understand some of the allusions included. Most Bibles have notes on the bottom of the page that refer to other books - see what those verses say. You have an interesting premise here, one many others have undertaken (C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel). I hope you find the same thing they did.
If Jesus is not who He says He is, then He is the biggest liar on the face of the earth. If Jesus does not exist, there is no god, nor is there any purpose to life. Please don't forget the aspect of faith (being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see). Obviously, I am a Christian, and I can give you evidence to why I believe that God is trustworthy, but you need to do what you need to do. If you truly can disprove Christianity, I would be very interested in what you have to say. I will be reading your posts eagerly. Just remember that to accurately disprove something, you have to know all about it. Don't let your bias get in the way. Good luck!
Don't let your bias get in the way.
Just like Christians don't let their bias get in the way when proving God does exist, right? :-)
Don't worry, DB's pretty well versed in the books of the Bible and much of the study done of them. He wouldn't be doing the series, otherwise. ;-)
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Please be sure to read the all of the Gospel you are dismantling.
No problems there.
Also, the Old Testament might be helpful to understand some of the allusions included.
I have spent a great deal of time reading that too. I've also invested the time to learn a bit about the biblical history.
Most Bibles have notes on the bottom of the page that refer to other books - see what those verses say.
Been there; done that
You have an interesting premise here, one many others have undertaken (C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel). I hope you find the same thing they did.
I didn't. I have read Lewis & Strobel and I know that both claim to have been atheists. I doubt that they were, at least in the sense that their atheism was based on reason. But if they were, they were both certainly poor atheists. I have read their reasons for being Christians and I know that they are poor. I hope to include blogs that will address their arguments as well.
If Jesus is not who He says He is, then He is the biggest liar on the face of the earth.
I'm disappointed. You have the LORD and LIAR options, but you left out the LUNATIC one.
But what I will argue is that YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HIMSELF. But that's OK, I don't either. What you may know is what the bible says that Jesus said about himself, but if as I am going to argue, the bible is not a reliable testimony to the historical Jesus then you don't know what he really said about himself at all.
If Jesus does not exist, there is no god, nor is there any purpose to life.
Thank you for so clearly demonstrating the brain killing effect religion can have on some people. Now for a rude awakening:
SLAP UP SIDE OF THE HEAD (metaphorically of course) ... GET REAL, MAN!! The universe is a fascinating place. There are opportunities here. If you can't find something (real) that will give you a meaningful life then you are one pathetic son of a bitch.
If you need help, how about this ... your family and friends. With or without God you have those. They should be the most important relationships in your life. How about devoting your life to making those relationships meaningful? I promise you that will give your life meaning and purpose.
Please don't forget the aspect of faith (being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see).
Faith is NOT something to be proud of ... at least faith not based on reason; and that would include the definition from Hebrews 11:1
It almost ensures you will believe what you want even if its not true.
Obviously, I am a Christian, and I can give you evidence to why I believe that God is trustworthy, ...
No you can't. Or at least you can't until you have established that God actually exists. You are assuming it. And the phraseology of your statement suggests that you haven't even considered the possibility that he doesn't. And since you are responding to my blog on the subject one would think that possibility would at least cross your mind. My guess is that you won't allow it. I could be wrong.
... but you need to do what you need to do. If you truly can disprove Christianity, I would be very interested in what you have to say. I will be reading your posts eagerly.
I try not to use words carelessly. I said that I think the argument from the bible for God's existence can be shown false BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I have found that all too often Christians take refuge in UNREASONABLE DOUBT and swiftly convert that into CERTAINTY OF THE EXACT OPPOSITE. In a second, you are going to suggest that is going to be your tact ...
Just remember that to accurately disprove something, you have to know all about it. Don't let your bias get in the way. Good luck!
LOL There you go, unless I have omniscience I cannot present enough evidence to suit you??? ... See what I mean about taking refuge in UNREASONABLE DOUBT. What I am going to show in the posts on the bible is that it is simply unreasonable to believe it to be a message from God to us. I will show that there were a number of early traditions of Jesus as represented by a huge number of Gospels about him. I will show that these gospels were written in support of different communities all of whom considered themselves to be Christian, but many of whom had diametrically opposed views. I will then compare pericopes of the 4 canonical gospels to show that they too have these exact same characteristics. I will then argue vigorously that it is simply unreasonable to believe that they are the product of God. The only reasonable conclusion will be that it is the product of humans with no input from God, and if that is so then it has no more right to be considered authoritative with respect to any spiritual world than does Homer's Illiad and Oddessey.
And unlike Lewis & Strobel (& McDowell & all other Christian apologists I have read) who seem to take a great deal of comfort by saying this authority or that authority says exactly what they want to hear, I plan to include the biblical verses for you to look at so you can make up your own mind ... that would be the actual data. I look forward to see what you have to say once you look at the real data.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I do love your narrow view of the world....
Or, Jesus could have existed, but not have been the son of god. There could be many gods. Or Jesus could not have existed, but god still does. Or, of course, there is no god. But none of those indicate that there is no purpose to life; our purpose could simply be to enjoy ourselves, or better the lives of our fellow man, in order to continue to evolve and survive.
Don't even get me started on Lee Strobel. He went out searching for Christianity to be true, and that's exactly what he found. No shock there.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I am late in fulfilling my promise to read your blog, but I am here now, and you have not disappointed me. After our banter on lennon12's blog, "what is your religion", I am glad to find that you are as thorough in your Biblical research as you are in your scientific research. I admire your scholarly integrity. Thank you for the invite, and I love your blog. You are doing painstaking work I myself have thought about but haven't made time for. I hope to learn a lot from you.
I really am curious to know what your motivation is. This is a lot of work for someone who doesn't have personal interest in God or religion. Why is it so important to you? Don't get me wrong, I think it's admirable, but I would appreciate some insight into why you have chosen to take this on, perhaps from your life experience.
Oddly, I started a religious studies class last week. i am learning about Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I must say, there is a big difference in learning about religion from the perspective of a scholar than a follower. I became a religious scholar when I was 22. I hadn't had any interest in following my religion of birth for about 6 years prior to that. I must say, until now I haven't given due attention to Islam. I am pretty well rounded in my education on eastern religions though.
I am going to write a blog about the information I gather from my studies, and a separate one for my own personal reflections on that information. I hope you will visit me there. I would also invite you to challenge me on the reflections blog with your scientific perspective. I do appreciate purporters of knowledge, and am also not interested in blind, ignorant faith.
I wish you an enlightening journey!
I have always believed that language is very important in studying any sacred text, but especially important with the Bible. Mainly because of King James, who had the text altered in order to make it consistent with his own law.
Judaism holds a high regard for its followers who bother to learn Hebrew because of the importance of language in interpreting scripture. Small changes in articles and conjunctions can completely alter the meaning of a sentence. For instance, when the Bible says,
"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds in the air,..." Genesis 1:26
If instead it said, "Let us make man our image, yet in our likeness,..." The meaning is totally different.
I used to use a parallel Bible which aligns four different translations next to each other. Now I use the Hebrew-Greek Key study Bible which provides notes on translation from the original language.
Just something to think about, if you haven't already.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I wish I had time to study the religions as much as any of you have. What I would really like to know the most right at this moment is more about "King James, who had the text altered in order to make it consistent with his own law." I always wanted to learn the original languages from a secular source so that I may translate on my own...maybe in another life I will.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon
The Blue Letter Bible
Enjoy!
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Thank YOU!
I had heard of the blue letter bible but I was unaware of the Strong's Link.
Thanks
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T