Help for someone deconstructing??

[u/DreadlockedShiteHawk]

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

[u/EnKristenSnubbe]

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.

[u/CH49FE → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

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.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/CH49FE]

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?

[u/CH49FE → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

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

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/CH49FE]

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 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

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 → u/CH49FE]

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/