Countering Christianity

[Guest]

Jackal,

All of my posts—and all of yours—demonstrate one unmistakable fact concerning our respective methodologies: you consistently read the data with a gratuitous bias against the integrity of Christian sources, whereas I see no reason to import this uncharitable judgment against men whom I have no reason to accuse of dishonesty. This difference in methodology will guaratee that you and I will view all relevant data differently from each other.

My approach strikes me as more honest and open-minded. Since honesty and open-mindedness are values that I consider to be essential to the pursuit of truth, I will continue to follow them, and will commit my fate to the truth that they yield. With the permission of all of us here (which, I acknowledge, you have not asked for) you may feel free to commit your fate to whatever values you choose.

[Guest]

Jackal, we are all looking at the same data here and coming to different conclusions. You would posit the notion that you are more genuine in your analysis of the data. I'd like to tell you why I disagree. It's not difficult to see when someone is being overly biased because they generally make the same mistakes. When a contentious person refuses to give an inch to the opposing view on any given topic (especially if dozens of topics are discussed) it more or less proves they are arguing from an emotional, rather than rational, analysis of the data.

It also strikes me as absurd to claim Christian sources are less reliable than secular sources. If the given topic is the history of the Christian church then why would a non-Christian (who is by definition opposed to the views of Christians) be less biased? I could easily say, "I don't care what Joe Liberal says about the authenticity of Luke's gospel because he's a non-Christian and non-Christians lie a lot." Would that be fair? You opperate from a double standard and how this is not obvious to you baffles me.

You obviously enjoy dabating Christians (as do I) but the fact that you never concede a point of contention (and many times you should have) shows that you see these issues in a less-than-honest light. One of my good friends is a very intelligent agnostic, yet he knows when to throw in the towel on certain points. I know he's an honest man because of this so I enjoy debating with him. Debating you is like beating my head against a wall. If a Christian says it's raining outside you will say, "Not everywhere." Perhaps you just enjoy the weather where you are and don't want to move. If so, you're certainly free to it, but don't pretend your approach is more honest than those who hold another view.

[_Evangelion]

There is one evidence for Christianity that I have always found significant, yet it does not seem to be impressive to other fellow Christians. Additionally, I have never actually heard anyone articulate this point, but perhaps someone else has done so, and much better than I will attempt to. The argument is essentially this: If the stories of the Gospels were utter fabrications, why are there no surviving "responses" to debunk them? Or maybe there, and perhaps I am not aware of them.

I think you must have been unaware of them.

The two earliest critics of Christianity were Celsus and Porphyry. Celsus in particular, attacked Christianity on several fronts: historical, philosophical and theological:

• Historical:
  In this context, Celsus attacks the identity and mission of Christ. How could it be, (he asks) that an unknown rabbi of dubious parentage could somehow possess divine wisdom? The Christians have obviously created a fictitious history of their "saviour" in attempt to render him more respectable in the eyes of unbelievers.
  
  It is far more likely (Celsus argues) that Jesus was born in adultery (hence the mystery concerning his parentage) and fed upon the wisdom of Egypt (hence his wild theological notions.)

• Philosophical:
  In this context, Celsus attacks both the central premise of Christianity (that man is "fallen" and in need of redemption) and the apparent novelty of its teachings (Christianity being a new religion in his day.)
  
  Why would the Christian god seek sinners as followers (asks Celsus); surely He should be seeking the righteous, who already deserve Him?!
  
  Judaism may be an barbaric faith (Celsus writes), but at least it has the respectability of established tradition on its side. By contrast, Christianity is just another theological innovation for the gullible masses.

• Theological:
  In this context, Celsus attacks specific doctrines, such as the resurrection of the dead He also attacks the Christians' claim to draw upon the Old Testament for their beliefs; where is Christianity in the Old Testament (Celsus asks)? Why do we not read of it here? Why must we wait until the Christian era for an alleged extension of God's plan to a new age of mankind?
  
  The resurrection of Jesus was a sham (Celsus claims); his disciples were either hallucinating, or complicit in a dastardly plot to deceive unbelievers.
  
  If Christians received divine wisdom from God via Jesus, then why does their testimony not agree? The Gospels are riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies (Celsus claims), of which the most obvious are the varying resurrection accounts. If Jesus' followers cannot even agree on the events surrounding his life and death, what hope do they have of convincing anyone else?

This is a very brief account of Celsus' attacks on Christianity; a mere summary, at best. Examples could be multiplied and described in far more detail.

The point I am making, however, is that Christianity had its critics right from the start; not just from within mainstream Judaism (from which it became increasingly alienated) but also from contemporary scholars, philosophers and theologians of the classical era.

For this reason, I would not place too much emphasis on the apparent lack of objections to Christianity; at the very most, this merely indicates an absence of primary sources. It does not prove (or even imply) that no such objections existed.

I hope you find this information useful. 8)

[Guest]

You say -- Jackal, we are all looking at the same data here and coming to different conclusions.

That is typically the function of a discussion board - to discuss the evidence and arguments on either side of an issue.


You say -- You would posit the notion that you are more genuine in your analysis of the data. I'd like to tell you why I disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean by genuine. I present the evidence I've found, the inferences I've drawn from that evidence, and the reasons why. If someone else is not doing likewise for themselves, then I would agree they are less genuine.


You say -- It's not difficult to see when someone is being overly biased because they generally make the same mistakes.

And what mistakes would that be (and please be sure to explain why)?



You say -- When a contentious person refuses to give an inch to the opposing view on any given topic (especially if dozens of topics are discussed) it more or less proves they are arguing from an emotional, rather than rational, analysis of the data.

That sword cuts both ways. Please name those on this board who have given an inch on any of my points, on any of the threads I've entered. Your characterization of emotional irrationalism must likewise apply to almost everyone else here as well.


You say -- It also strikes me as absurd to claim Christian sources are less reliable than secular sources.

A person who believes in an assertion regardless of the evidence is inherently biased. In the 2nd century, the christians from whom Pliny and Tacitus learned about christianity beleived in their faith and the gospels for no other reason than it was said in the gospel and that is what all the christians beleived. The letters of Ignatius, in response to various heresies, said there faith was true because of prophesy and the Gospel (the oral tradition). He never relied on anything historical, such as an eyewitness testimony, even though John was either still alive or had just recently died, and Ignatius knew his disciple, Poylcarp. Without any historical basis, a profession of belief is inherently biased, unhistorical and unreliable.


You say -- You obviously enjoy dabating Christians (as do I) but the fact that you never concede a point of contention (and many times you should have) shows that you see these issues in a less-than-honest light.

Again, that cuts both ways. Despite making a number of points which I've supported with evidence and rational inference, I receive lame excuses from some christians here for not conceding, such as a bald,"One neeed not see it that way." Further, I have in fact conceded in many instances that my view is an alternative view, and not necessarily the only view. But, since I see no reason to dismiss a reasonable alternative simply because its heretical, that must therefore make me dishonest.


You say -- Debating you is like beating my head against a wall. If a Christian says it's raining outside you will say, "Not everywhere."

So, is what you are in fact saying that you prefer I "dumb down" my arguments to something more lame that you can more easily refute?


You say -- If so, you're certainly free to it, but don't pretend your approach is more honest than those who hold another view.

I certainly don't recall calling anyone else's view here less honest.

Limited, well, maybe.

[Guest]

Yes Aaron, it wound be interesting if there were no objections to the historical /gospel Jesus, because this could mean that no one was able to refute what was certain, Jesus' existence and teachings. But the skeptic could take this same thought, and turn it around for their own convienence, that a lack of rebuttals could mean that Jesus never existed. There is no need to debunk something (or someone) that never came into existence. So with this thought, there are two (perhaps more) possible theories that may or may not be certain.

Yet as Evangelion has pointed out, there were known responses to Jesus, and his disciples and the gospel. So this on the surface appears to validate the need to attempt to rebut the premise and message of Chirst and Christianity, because if there were no existance of a Jesus, then it could easily be said that he just didn't exist. Many a people could all stand in agreement that "this Jesus you preach of simply never existed, but this thought wasn't a widespread idea, if there was such a thought.

[Guest]

Hello,

Dropping in late on this conversation here.

The lack of an extensive early Jewish rebuttal is not that surprising, for a number of possible reasons. First of all, if we exclude sources that have been preserved by Christians (like Philo and Josephus), we find that there is very little evidence of any Jewish literature for the first-century-plus CE. On the one hand, it is understandable if the documents preserved by Christians did not include apologetics against the faith. On the other hand, our small sampling of material is hardly sufficient to gauge the presence of such apologetics in the overall body of Jewish literature. If we were to randomly pluck a dozen Christian books from the North American continent today, what are the odds that we would find an apologetic against the Mormons amongst our sample? It is more likely that we might end up with a hymnal or a copy of the Prayer of Jabez or something like that. The lack of an apologetic against Mormonism in this case would not be a fair indicator that Christians in the twenty-first century had no good objections to Mormonism. Likewise, our limited sample is insufficient to justify the conclusion that Jews in the early period had no apologetics against Christianity.

Secondly, it is important to remember that the first two centuries CE were times of turmoil for Judaism. These centuries saw the shocking destruction of the Temple system and the process of developing a new and viable faith (i.e., Judaism proper, as opposed to Second Temple Judaism). Jews at the time had more immediate concerns to wrestle with than emerging Christianity. They had to wrestle with articulating a faith that was viable without a Temple, in the face of worldwide Diaspora and enslavement. And since there were diverse Jewish subsects and secular interests coming into this period, dealing with the cataclysmic events of the first centuries would have been that much more difficult. There were bigger fish to fry than Christianity.

Thirdly, the physical upheaval of the Jewish rebellions and the Roman reprisals probably destroyed a great deal of Jewish literature from the period. Afterward, many Jews who were enslaved would have lacked the time or opportunity to generate literature.

Fourthly, granted that Jewish-Christian sects endured until at least the fourth century, it must be recognized that Christianity quickly became less and less of a relevant concern to Judaism. Christianity rapidly became a Gentile religion, and with the Jewish people closing ranks and turning inward to preserve their peoplehood in the face of cataclysm, Gentile influences became somewhat less viable than they had been in earlier times. Furthermore, as Christianity embraced doctrine that was unpalatable to Jewish thought, and as the church developed a stronger anti-Jewish bias of its own, these factors widened the gulf between the traditions, making Christianity a less attractive / less relevant opponent to the Jewish faith.

So there are a number of reasons why we might lack sustained Jewish apologetics against Christianity from the early period. What is more remarkable is the relatively small amount of evidence we have for Christian writers from the earliest period. Although we have the writings of some folks like the Apostolic Fathers, our sources for the first hundred years after the apostolic period are fairly limited. There is much about the period that we would love to know, but unless/until we find more evidence in the desert or somewhere, we have to acknowledge the necessary limits of our investigations.

[Guest]

So there are a number of reasons why we might lack sustained Jewish apologetics against Christianity from the early period. What is more remarkable is the relatively small amount of evidence we have for Christian writers from the earliest period. Although we have the writings of some folks like the Apostolic Fathers, our sources for the first hundred years after the apostolic period are fairly limited. There is much about the period that we would love to know, but unless/until we find more evidence in the desert or somewhere, we have to acknowledge the necessary limits of our investigations.


Hi, Re the amount of christian writings for the first 100 years it should be noted the early Christans also were under severe persecution from the Roman emperors and probably very busy trying to stay alive as they practised their faith. And who knows what the Roman govt burned during this time.

[Guest]

Hi, Steve,

Thank you for your very good point! I should have been thinking about that.

[Guest]

Thank you all for the wonderful responses to my initial post. I asked because while I felt it was an indicative of lack of outright refutations against Christianity (compared to say, the early refutations of Joseph Smith), I felt there were probably limitations on the strength of my argument. Some of the anti-Christian apologetics that have been pointed out are an example of such limitations. Also, Kaufmannphillips post really hit on many of the considerations that account for a lack of emphasis on refuting Christianity during its rapid expansion. That said, I suppose my original argument is not that powerful, as it is essentially an argument from silence. I still feel that a religion emerging amidst persecution can still make a somewhat legitimate argument from silence, but I'll admit, it is not that convincing. Finally, I realize that the reason false claims are so easily refuted in the 19th century onward is because of the expansions in communications and the short lapse of time which leads to greater preservation, thus contrasting lack of anti-Christian apologists to the plethora of anti-LDS writers is not very telling. Perhaps there is something still left to my initial argument, but I appreciate those who have pointed out its weaknesses.

Jonathan[/i]

[Guest]

Hello, Jonathan,

Just a note to add: I should have mentioned earlier Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Mid-second century; although it is a Christian document, if Trypho isn't an utter straw man, it may well preserve some authentic Jewish arguments against Christianity. I'm not really familiar with the document, but it may have something relevant to offer.

Text available at:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm

Thanks,
Emmet