Supposed Experts

[Theophilos]

I’m watching a documentary about the life of Jesus Christ. It is astounding how little the supposed experts (secular scholars of high rank) know about the historicity of Gospels, the very books they attempt to study.

“...Words like ‘Father, why have You forsaken me’ are put in Jesus mouth by early Christians...” is what one of such experts on the show just said. Do they not realize the burden of proof for the claim that the Christians put those words in the Savior’s mouth is on them? We have four historically attested accounts of what Christ said and did, and nothing that claims otherwise. A-priori rejection because the Gospels are “religious propaganda” is not acceptable because everything that comes from antiquity is more or less religiously motivated. By that standard we should reject everything that comes from that period.

Double standards is all I hear when listening to the secular world’s criticism of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Dino246]

Welcome to CC!

There is certainly something wrong with sowing doubt about Jesus' historicity. People who love their sin will take such statements as evidence that Christianity is a waste of time. The serpent did essentially the same thing in the garden.

I think it's fair for a secular commentator to say, "Christians believe..." or "according to the Bible, ...." For example, if a Christian is commenting on Islam, it is reasonable to say something like, "Moslems believe..." or "According to the Qu'ran, ...." At the same time, I don't think it's reasonable to imply intentional deception in the absence of substantial supporting evidence.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I’m watching a documentary about the life of Jesus Christ. It is astounding how little the supposed experts (secular scholars of high rank) know about the historicity of Gospels, the very books they attempt to study.

These so-called scholars have CHOSEN to become blind to the truth. Therefore the god of this world has further blinded their minds to the glorious Gospel of God. The danger which is created is that they will mislead many into unbelief.

 

[dcontroversal]

I’m watching a documentary about the life of Jesus Christ. It is astounding how little the supposed experts (secular scholars of high rank) know about the historicity of Gospels, the very books they attempt to study.

“...Words like ‘Father, why have You forsaken me’ are put in Jesus mouth by early Christians...” is what one of such experts on the show just said. Do they not realize the burden of proof for the claim that the Christians put those words in the Savior’s mouth is on them? We have four historically attested accounts of what Christ said and did, and nothing that claims otherwise. A-priori rejection because the Gospels are “religious propaganda” is not acceptable because everything that comes from antiquity is more or less religiously motivated. By that standard we should reject everything that comes from that period.

Double standards is all I hear when listening to the secular world’s criticism of the Holy Scriptures.

The only thing that "Most Experts" are expert in......regurgitating what the SUPPOSED EXPERT before them had to say......or maybe PARROTING the same BS and BLATHER that was spread like MAYO on a ham sandwich by the one bloviating before they got their piece of paper that states they know something........

 

[MessageOfTheCross]

Any person who rejects Faith placed and maintained exclusively in Christ and the Cross for God's prescribe order of victory over sin, the world, the flesh, and the Devil, God will see to it one receives a "strong delusion" because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved. They have pleasure in a particular unrighteousness which is the rejection of the Cross of Christ.

 

[Theophilos]

The danger which is created is that they will mislead many into unbelief.

Well said, that is the risk. But the risk is almost nonexistent once we have been instructed in the matters of Scripture and have the firm and correct understand of what they are, how they came about and who wrote them. I watch these shows partially for information (for I do believe something can be gained out of them) but also to test what I’ve come to learn and accept. So far, I have not been impressed with the scholarly work outside of the realm of church.

 

[Lanolin]

I dont like those shows but it exposes those scholars who think they are above God and think christians just made everything up and its all in their imagination.

I have heard some people have this idea that the jewish people wrote the Bible as a kind of fairy tale to boost their flagging egos. While there is such a thing as healthy skepticism, i think some people just over analyse everything cos they got nothing better to do.

 

[Mii]

I wouldn't watch that stuff unless you feel led to. Sometimes it creates unnecessary tension on a subject and is like going looking for a fight. You know they are not believers and hearing what the enemy has to say on a subject I have found to be unwise.

It's not for idle curiosity and they aren't teachers. The info could easily be found in a book.

I certainly did it at one point but then I found I actually read my bible less and spent less time on my "walk" with the Lord.

It produced some negative fruit in me that took a while to see...Just be aware that there are pitfalls.


I do appreciate where you are coming from though.

 

[maxwel]

Addressing a few of the issues raised:


1. Secular scholars reject the New Testament as an "a priori" presupposition, just because it's a religious text.

A. This could use a bit of parsing.

B. Secular SCHOLARS (real experts) in New Testament Studies do NOT reject the New Testament in ALL ways.

Although they may disregard the miracles, they actually DO consider many of the books to be "generally reliable historical documents"... just like ANY OTHER HISTORICAL DOCUMENT.
Yes, the atheist experts (real scholars, not the fake ones) consider many books of the bible to be historical and reliable.... and THEY USE THESE BOOKS for normal historical research.

C. Therefore, Christians have some serious ammunition when debating atheists who DO reject the New Testament completely, as a presupposition.

- When an atheist says, "You can't use the bible in debate because it's a religious text, and that means it's just biased nonsense" you can reply with, "Secular scholars consider many books of the Bible as reliable history, and THEY use it as a reliable historical source.... so if top atheist scholars think it's reliable history, then so should you."


2. Who exactly is rejecting the New Testament as an "a priori" position?

A. The people who completely reject the New Testament as a presupposition, just because it's a religious text... these are the "fake scholars" and "self proclaimed experts" we run into.

B. Real New Testament scholars, the secular ones, DO consider many books of the bible to be reliable historical documents.

C. So the real atheist scholars consider the Bible to be made of good historical documents which can be used for study or debate.
The "fake experts" are the ones who say it's all rubbish, and we can't use it in debate.

D. Most of the people I run into are the "fake experts"... atheist idiots who read half a book by Dawkins and think they know everything.

This is what most of us will encounter in normal daily life.

They simply don't even know their own positions, or what atheist scholars even believe... they're just angry, gullible, and poorly educated on their own positions.


3. Miracles... one last point.

A. It is also an "a priori" position, a presupposition, to simply ASSUME there is NO GOD, NO SUCH THING AS MIRACLES, and NOTHING METAPHYSICAL as your starting place.

B. This is what atheists generally do, and we can simply call them out on this as a logical fallacy.

C. The argument:
- Atheist will always challenge your epistemology, they'll say "WHY do you believe what you believe." Then they'll ask for EVIDENCE of the "why."
- Well, we can do the same thing to them, and we should.
- We can say, "Why do you believe miracles have never occurred?"
- They will then give some blather about it just being impossible or something, because they've never really tried to prove their position.
- Then, when they're done, you just say, "Ok, well PROVE that. Give some proof that miracles cannot occur, and have not occurred."
- They'll have nothing to say, so they'll just get mad and say you're an idiot. But at least you shut down their argument.,
- There is NO logical reason to discount miracles as an impossibility; there is no proof for this. ANY argument they give MUST be based on presupposition... so don't let them off the hook here.

That's all I've got for now.

Take care everyone.

 

[Theophilos]

I wouldn't watch that stuff unless you feel led to. Sometimes it creates unnecessary tension on a subject and is like going looking for a fight. You know they are not believers and hearing what the enemy has to say on a subject I have found to be unwise.

It's not for idle curiosity and they aren't teachers. The info could easily be found in a book.

I certainly did it at one point but then I found I actually read my bible less and spent less time on my "walk" with the Lord.

It produced some negative fruit in me that took a while to see...Just be aware that there are pitfalls.


I do appreciate where you are coming from though.

Thanks for your response. I’m thinking the same way more and more. I’ve seen most of what the “experts” have to say and have not been impressed. My faith is firm, time to dive deep into it.

 

[Deade]

Welcome to CC!

There is certainly something wrong with sowing doubt about Jesus' historicity. People who love their sin will take such statements as evidence that Christianity is a waste of time. The serpent did essentially the same thing in the garden.

I think it's fair for a secular commentator to say, "Christians believe..." or "according to the Bible, ...." For example, if a Christian is commenting on Islam, it is reasonable to say something like, "Moslems believe..." or "According to the Qu'ran, ...." At the same time, I don't think it's reasonable to imply intentional deception in the absence of substantial supporting evidence.

Well, let us address that. Most Protestants say they do not venerate the the RCC. Let us see what some of their (the RCC) people have to say about that:

The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."

Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67.

"Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?

"Answer. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.'

Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth."

"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."

How is that for some "so called" experts mixing things up?

 

[Theophilos]

Addressing a few of the issues raised:


1. Secular scholars reject the New Testament as an "a priori" presupposition, just because it's a religious text.

A. This could use a bit of parsing.

B. Secular SCHOLARS (real experts) in New Testament Studies do NOT reject the New Testament in ALL ways.

Although they may disregard the miracles, they actually DO consider many of the books to be "generally reliable historical documents"... just like ANY OTHER HISTORICAL DOCUMENT.
Yes, the atheist experts (real scholars, not the fake ones) consider many books of the bible to be historical and reliable.... and THEY USE THESE BOOKS for normal historical research.

C. Therefore, Christians have some serious ammunition when debating atheists who DO reject the New Testament completely, as a presupposition.

- When an atheist says, "You can't use the bible in debate because it's a religious text, and that means it's just biased nonsense" you can reply with, "Secular scholars consider many books of the Bible as reliable history, and THEY use it as a reliable historical source.... so if top atheist scholars think it's reliable history, then so should you."


2. Who exactly is rejecting the New Testament as an "a priori" position?

A. The people who completely reject the New Testament as a presupposition, just because it's a religious text... these are the "fake scholars" and "self proclaimed experts" we run into.

B. Real New Testament scholars, the secular ones, DO consider many books of the bible to be reliable historical documents.

C. So the real atheist scholars consider the Bible to be made of good historical documents which can be used for study or debate.
The "fake experts" are the ones who say it's all rubbish, and we can't use it in debate.

D. Most of the people I run into are the "fake experts"... atheist idiots who read half a book by Dawkins and think they know everything.

This is what most of us will encounter in normal daily life.

They simply don't even know their own positions, or what atheist scholars even believe... they're just angry, gullible, and poorly educated on their own positions.


3. Miracles... one last point.

A. It is also an "a priori" position, a presupposition, to simply ASSUME there is NO GOD, NO SUCH THING AS MIRACLES, and NOTHING METAPHYSICAL as your starting place.

B. This is what atheists generally do, and we can simply call them out on this as a logical fallacy.

C. The argument:
- Atheist will always challenge your epistemology, they'll say "WHY do you believe what you believe." Then they'll ask for EVIDENCE of the "why."
- Well, we can do the same thing to them, and we should.
- We can say, "Why do you believe miracles have never occurred?"
- They will then give some blather about it just being impossible or something, because they've never really tried to prove their position.
- Then, when they're done, you just say, "Ok, well PROVE that. Give some proof that miracles cannot occur, and have not occurred."
- They'll have nothing to say, so they'll just get mad and say you're an idiot. But at least you shut down their argument.,
- There is NO logical reason to discount miracles as an impossibility; there is no proof for this. ANY argument they give MUST be based on presupposition... so don't let them off the hook here.

That's all I've got for now.

Take care everyone.

Thank you for this great response. I’m with you all the way and have used this approach in defense of Fatih. It always works because it is logical and reasonable. The book Historical Jesus really opened my eyes to this entire discourse.

The argument that miracles do not exist is based on the arrogant assumption that we know everything. We do not, far from it. There are many things that are concealed from us (until we are ready to know them) and sometimes pierce into the physical world. Miracles did and do happen, but most of the current scientific establishment is not interested because it doesn’t want to shake up the statues quo. It’s safer not to “go there.”

 

[Deade]

Thanks for your response. I’m thinking the same way more and more. I’ve seen most of what the “experts” have to say and have not been impressed. My faith is firm, time to dive deep into it.

BTW: Hello Theophilos, welcome to CC. I hope you'll enjoy your stay here.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So far, I have not been impressed with the scholarly work outside of the realm of church.

Even those who claim to be Christian scholars must be carefully scrutinized. Many are promoting false ideas and teachings. The cancer of theological liberalism has spread far and wide.

 

[Theophilos]

Even those who claim to be Christian scholars must be carefully scrutinized. Many are promoting false ideas and teachings. The cancer of theological liberalism has spread far and wide.

Very true. Revisionism is everywhere today. I don’t see how some modern agendas can be justified in the light of such clear scriptural teachings that state otherwise, and 2,000 year old tradition that also says otherwise. But if put the meaning in, rather than extract the meaning out, everything is possible.

 

[Absolutely]

We lost an entire generation of young people.
If you take millions of youths compass,guide,destiny,and circumcision of the mind/spirit....?

Then replace it with indoctrination of lies, and situational ethics,you loose any hope(barring a powerful revival) of keeping society as we know it.

Psssst,they are of age now to not only vote,but hold gov offices.
They know zero of the bible or that americas greatness is because of God fearing people.

 

[Nehemiah6]

At the same time, I don't think it's reasonable to imply intentional deception in the absence of substantial supporting evidence.

And this tells us that there is a lot more going on behind the scenes. No one will say that the Quran and Islam are there to intentionally deceive people. But the devil -- who is the Adversary of God and man -- makes sure that many will assert (and have been asserting) that the New Testament is intentional deception. Indeed this started in Eden when Satan said "Yea, hath God said...?" What he meant is "Really? Did God really say that or did He mean to mislead and deceive you?" That is why he also said to Christ "IF thou be the Son of God..." meaning that it was not certain that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. So now there are millions who deny His deity (including the Quran and Islam, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc).

 

[Deade]

Very true. Revisionism is everywhere today. I don’t see how some modern agendas can be justified in the light of such clear scriptural teachings that state otherwise, and 2,000 year old tradition that also says otherwise. But if put the meaning in, rather than extract the meaning out, everything is possible.

And because we have been doing somethings for 2,000 years, surely, we have been doing them right. The pagan Roman Emperor Constantine hijacked Christianity in 325, AD; and it [Christianity] has been practiced wrong ever since.

 

[Papou]

I’m watching a documentary about the life of Jesus Christ. It is astounding how little the supposed experts (secular scholars of high rank) know about the historicity of Gospels, the very books they attempt to study.

“...Words like ‘Father, why have You forsaken me’ are put in Jesus mouth by early Christians...” is what one of such experts on the show just said. Do they not realize the burden of proof for the claim that the Christians put those words in the Savior’s mouth is on them? We have four historically attested accounts of what Christ said and did, and nothing that claims otherwise. A-priori rejection because the Gospels are “religious propaganda” is not acceptable because everything that comes from antiquity is more or less religiously motivated. By that standard we should reject everything that comes from that period.

Double standards is all I hear when listening to the secular world’s criticism of the Holy Scriptures.

Don't be offended because this is how they teach theology in Universities. Their conclusions are based on the analysis of tons of historical data. This is what they called the historical Jesus. You read the gospels but they did too. However, rather than accepting everything as holy truth they used a critic mind in the pursuit of the historical truth.

 

[maxwel]

And because we have been doing somethings for 2,000 years, surely, we have been doing them right. The pagan Roman Emperor Constantine hijacked Christianity in 325, AD; and it [Christianity] has been practiced wrong ever since. View attachment 202520

"and it [Christianity] has been practiced wrong ever since."

Hey Dead,

The phrase "ever since" would include the present, and would include you.

Are you asserting that you are practicing Christianity wrong?

..