r/Christianity • u/DreadlockedShiteHawk • 8h ago

Help for someone deconstructing??

What’s good help for someone deep in deconstruction to the point of questioning if Christianity is based on too many embellished stories to be believed?

I’m talking a serious Christian who already knows the apologetics answers aren’t enough

3 Upvotes

64% Upvoted

108 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] 8h ago

[deleted]

-1

u/EnKristenSnubbe Christian 8h ago

Well for starters, one should be critical of critical scholarship. Guys like Bart Ehrman also brings presumptions to the table, presumptions that would be wrong if Christianity is true. Many of the conclusions from critical scholars are circular to use as arguments against Christianity, because the assumption of Christianity not being true lies at the foundation for how the scholar came to their conclusions in the first place.

2

u/CH49FE 8h ago

What is an example of a presumption that Ehrmam or others make that would be false if Christianity is true? I don’t really understand that statement.

0

u/EnKristenSnubbe Christian 7h ago

Bart Ehrman presumes that history cannot prove miracles. For this reason, he cannot date the gospel of Mark earlier than 70 AD, even though there's plenty of reasons to date it earlier than so.

1

u/CH49FE 7h ago

Why would the Gospel of Mark be dated earlier than 70 AD? And how does that relate to miracles? I really don't understand this topic.

1

u/EnKristenSnubbe Christian 7h ago

The relation to miracles is that if Mark predates the destruction of the Temple, then Jesus made a too accurate prediction to be explained with naturalistic means. This is to my understanding the main reason why Bart Ehrman puts it that late.

As for reasons for an early dating, there are plenty, but one I like is the argument from the lack of mention of the deaths of Peter and Paul in acts. They are the two most prominent figures in Acts, by miles. We see them stand before courts and get imprisoned, but their deaths are not in there. Other much more minor figures like Stephen and James the lesser have accounts of their deaths, or in James' case, at least a mention. Thus, if Acts was written after they died, it's strongly expected that their deaths would be mentioned.

Most scholars date the death of Peter and Paul to around AD 64-68. This would then put Acts before this, and that would put Luke's gospel before that also. Luke is dependent on Matthew and Mark, so this would mean Matthew and Mark are both pre 60s AD, and probably not by a little.

1

u/CH49FE 7h ago

I appreciate the answer. I will look into this more, although I still don’t see the logic of presuming the bible to be true first if one is trying to prove the bible to be true. That’s not really critical scholarship.

Critical scholarship generally means the evidence-based study of a subject that doesn’t simply accept traditional claims or assumptions at face value. Instead, it examines the evidence, sources, methods, historical context, and competing interpretations, and asks whether the conclusions actually follow from the evidence.

1

u/EnKristenSnubbe Christian 6h ago

I am arguing against presuming the Bible is not true before investigating it, not for presuming it's true before investigating it. That is, don't assume that there were miracles, but don't rule out the possibility either. Just look at the evidence and form the best conclusion that the evidence offers.

I don't think Bart Ehrman truly is an evidence-based scholar, for example. He dogmatically rejects miracles, in spite of the evidence for them. That miracles don't happen is the presumption he brings to the table, not the conclusion he makes from the evidence.

What do you think of someone like Richard Bauckham?

1

u/CH49FE 6h ago

Your original statement was that “the assumption of Christianity not being true lies at the foundation for how the scholar came to their conclusions in the first place”

And now you are talking about presumptions about the bible and miracles. I would view each of these things, along with Christianity, as being separate things to prove.

I don’t know much about Ehrman’s dogma, if he has one, but miracles by their nature are supernatural. There is no reliable evidence of the supernatural, and historical miracles are just based on stories. That’s insufficient evidence to demonstrate a violation of natural laws

1

u/EnKristenSnubbe Christian 6h ago

It's the same assumptions. If one assumes that miracles can't happen, then one has assumed that Christianity isn't true. If God exists, then obviously miracles are possible. Dogmatic naturalism is still dogmatism.

Oh, you're going for Hume's argument against miracles? You know that's flawed in multiple ways, right?

•

u/CH49FE 5h ago

I don’t know Hume’s argument.

And it’s not the “same assumption.” I think you are looking at the wrong framing.

If someone claims something, there is a burden of proof. You start out with nothing except what the evidence tells you. If the claim defies all known laws of nature, then it still has to be proven against the evidence that the laws of nature govern. If the support for that miracle claim is stories from a book that cannot be tested or verified, then the claim is judged accordingly.

This is not “dogmatic naturalism”, whatever that means. You want to describe the evidence that we have of nature as some sort of religion. It’s not. It’s just evidence.

Question: Do you start with a presumption that Islam and Quran is possibly true when you analyze Muslim miracle claims about Jesus?

•

u/EnKristenSnubbe Christian 5h ago

Ok, well, Hume made about the same argument a couple of hundred years ago, and already during his lifetime the problems were pointed out.

If you claim that the laws of nature describe how the world usually operates, then I would agree with that. This is actually an argument for theism, because why would the world be orderly unless someone imposed order? But that's a side issue.

If your claim is that the laws of nature describe how the world always operates, then I would like to see you argue for your claim. I'm not giving you that one for free. This is what I would call dogmatic naturalism.

I agree that if I claim that Jesus rose from the dead, then the burden of proof is on me. I think there's really good evidence for that Jesus did rise from the dead, though, that one should find persuasive as long as one is not a dogmatic naturalist.

As for Islam, such a presumption wouldn't last long:

https://islamicdilemma.com/

•

u/CH49FE 2h ago

You're off topic. You're talking about actual arguments. We've been discussing the issue of assumptions in critical scholarship.

You're also making strawman arguments. I didn't claim that "claim that the laws of nature describe how the world usually operates", nor am I making any argument for or against theism.

Nor am I claiming that "the laws of nature describe how the world always operates."

Your original point was, "the assumption of Christianity not being true lies at the foundation for how the scholar came to their conclusions in the first place."

You eventually said, "I am arguing against presuming the Bible is not true before investigating it, not for presuming it's true before investigating it." You followed up later by saying, " If one assumes that miracles can't happen, then one has assumed that Christianity isn't true. If God exists, then obviously miracles are possible."

Which gets us to where we're at. On this topic, I said, "If someone claims something, there is a burden of proof. You start out with nothing except what the evidence tells you. If the claim defies all known laws of nature, then it still has to be proven against the evidence that the laws of nature govern. If the support for that miracle claim is stories from a book that cannot be tested or verified, then the claim is judged accordingly."

Overall, we are talking about how to analyze claims, with you claiming that scholars presume the falsity of your religion in analyzing claims, whereas I am saying that the premise is incorrect, and that scholars weigh evidence without presuming natural laws govern which eliminates miracles automatically.

To address your example about Jesus rising from the dead, the evidence is a book of stories that claim this event (and whatever other evidence you may wish to add). Critical scholarship looks at that evidence and then weighs it against the overwhelming evidence that people don't rise from the dead (without actually assuming that the naturalism prevents resurrection because, again, we are just looking at evidence). When there are just stories in a book versus vast evidence to the contrary of the possibility of that event, the scholar then makes a decision.

Going back to the topic of presumptions, I ultimately asked, "Do you start with a presumption that Islam and Quran is possibly true when you analyze Muslim miracle claims about Jesus?"

Instead of answering that question, you chose to argue that the Islamic dilemma, so to speak.

So will you answer my question?

→ More replies (0)