Conservative Christianity and Social Issues

[sanantone]

Thank you for such a thoughtful response and for keeping the conversation respectful. I think we've come full circle.
Perhaps this is why so many of us spend years studying, earning degrees, reading history, philosophy, science, and theology. At the end of the day, I think we're all trying to answer the same questions: What is the meaning of life? How should we live? Is there something greater than ourselves?

I honestly expected a much harsher exchange, and I almost deleted my comments before posting them. I'm glad I didn't.

One thing I would say is that things people have done in the name of Christianity are not necessarily Christianity itself. Throughout history, many people who identified as Christians committed terrible acts such as slavery, racism, conquest, persecution, and violence. Those things happened, and they should not be ignored. But when I read the Gospels, I do not see Jesus commanding His followers to do those things. Christian doctrine calls believers to love God and love their neighbor, even their enemies.

Regarding the spread of Christianity, it is worth remembering that it began as a Jewish movement. Jesus was Jewish. His earliest followers were Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. The first Christians believed Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures and, according to Christian theology, God incarnate. Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire largely through Jewish communities scattered across the Mediterranean before it expanded more broadly among Gentiles.

As for Black Americans converting to Islam, I do not find that surprising at all. Given the history of slavery, segregation, and racism committed by people who identified as Christians, it is understandable that some would reject the religion they associate with those experiences and seek an identity elsewhere. If I had grown up hearing that God looked like a blond-haired, blue-eyed European while enduring that history, I can understand why Islam, or another faith, might seem more compelling. Again, I see that as a failure of people claiming Christ, not a reflection of Christ Himself.

One thing I find fascinating is how Jesus is regarded across many different religions.

• Buddhists often regard Jesus as an enlightened teacher.
  
• Many Hindus view Jesus as a holy man, guru, or in some traditions an incarnation (avatar) of God.
  
• The Hare Krishna movement (Gaudiya Vaishnavism) generally respects Jesus as a pure devotee of God or a divine representative, although beliefs vary and not all followers would describe Him as an avatar.
  
• Muslims believe Jesus (Isa) was born of the Virgin Mary, performed miracles by God's permission, is the Messiah, and will return before the Day of Judgment. While Muslims do not believe Jesus is God or the Son of God, the Qur'an refers to Him as the Messiah (al-Masih) and a Word from God (Kalimatullah), titles that make Him unique among the prophets in Islam.
  

It seems that almost everyone has something to say about Jesus.

As for Judaism, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism eventually developed along different paths after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. Rabbinic Judaism places significant emphasis on the Oral Torah, which it holds was given alongside the Written Torah to Moses and was later preserved in the Mishnah and expanded in the Gemara, together forming the Talmud. The Midrash is another body of rabbinic interpretation and commentary on Scripture.

Christians and Rabbinic Jews interpret many of the same Old Testament passages differently. Christians see those passages as pointing to Jesus as the Messiah, while Rabbinic Judaism interprets them within a different theological framework and does not accept Jesus as the promised Messiah. Those differences are among the central reasons the two traditions developed separately.

It's become quite evident, at least to me, that we human beings are not purely fact-based creatures. We are deeply influenced by our emotions, our experiences, our upbringing, and the communities around us. Because of that, it can be difficult for any of us to accept evidence that challenges what we already believe.

From my own experiences in life, I have come to believe that truth is eternal. Truth itself does not change, but our understanding of it does. I also believe we have to genuinely want to seek the truth before we are able to recognize it, even if that truth challenges our own assumptions. That is why I think humility is just as important as knowledge. The willingness to say, "I might be wrong," is often the first step toward discovering what is right.

One verse that has stayed with me throughout my life is when Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32) Whether someone believes those words came from the Son of God or simply from a remarkable historical teacher, I think there is profound wisdom in them. If we sincerely seek truth with humility and an open heart, I believe we stand the best chance of recognizing it when we find it.

At the end of the day, I do not expect a single online conversation to change anyone's mind. I simply enjoy thoughtful discussions with people who have studied these topics deeply. We may not agree on everything, but I appreciate respectful conversations where people can disagree without insulting one another. Those kinds of conversations are becoming far too rare, and I am grateful this was one of them.

While the New Testament may not endorse everything that's been done by Christians, the Bible does endorse the subjugation of women, genocide, slavery, and even a version of chattel slavery. The Bible has some good teachings, as do most religions, but it's also a reflection of the flawed humans who invented the religion. 

There are more reasons why some Black Americans have converted to Islam. 

1. It's an even higher demand religion. People seek more structure during hard times. 

2. People in West Africa chose to convert to Islam. In comparison, West Africans were mostly coerced into converting to Christianity via colonization and threats from slave traders.

3. The Quran explicitly denounces racism.

You are correct in that not everyone is open to new information. Most Christians know little about their religion to begin with, especially in comparison to Jews, Mormons, and Muslims. The most devout Christians, when shown overwhelming evidence that Judaism evolved out of other mythologies in the region, will do mental gymnastics to discredit the evidence. Jews view the Hebrew Bible differently because most of them have accepted that the Tanakh aka Old Testament is mostly myth and that it should be used as a guide, not a history or science textbook.

[PearsonOTHMQualifi7654]

While the New Testament may not endorse everything that's been done by Christians, the Bible does endorse the subjugation of women, genocide, slavery, and even a version of chattel slavery. The Bible has some good teachings, as do most religions, but it's also a reflection of the flawed humans who invented the religion. 

There are more reasons why some Black Americans have converted to Islam. 

1. It's an even higher demand religion. People seek more structure during hard times. 

2. People in West Africa chose to convert to Islam. In comparison, West Africans were mostly coerced into converting to Christianity via colonization and threats from slave traders.

3. The Quran explicitly denounces racism.

You are correct in that not everyone is open to new information. Most Christians know little about their religion to begin with, especially in comparison to Jews, Mormons, and Muslims. The most devout Christians, when shown overwhelming evidence that Judaism evolved out of other mythologies in the region, will do mental gymnastics to discredit the evidence. Jews view the Hebrew Bible differently because most of them have accepted that the Tanakh aka Old Testament is mostly myth and that it should be used as a guide, not a history or science textbook.

Thank you again for the thoughtful discussion.
I agree that many terrible things have been done by people claiming to be Christians. I simply distinguish between the teachings of Jesus and the actions of people who failed to follow them.

For example, when I read the Gospels, I see Jesus consistently elevating the dignity of women. He taught women publicly when many rabbis would not. Women were among His followers, and they financially supported His ministry (Luke 8:1–3). He spoke with the Samaritan woman despite significant social barriers (John 4). He defended the woman caught in adultery from being stoned (John 8). Most remarkably, according to the Gospels, the first witnesses to His resurrection were women, despite women's testimony carrying little legal weight in that culture. That strikes me as a remarkable detail.

I also think Paul is often misunderstood. While some of his writings are debated, he worked alongside numerous women in ministry. He commended Phoebe as a deacon, referred to Junia as outstanding among the apostles, recognized Priscilla as a teacher, praised Euodia and Syntyche as fellow workers in the gospel, and declared that in Christ there is "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Whatever one's interpretation of the pastoral epistles, it is difficult to argue that Paul viewed women as having no meaningful role in the early Church.

Likewise, slavery was a tragic institution that existed across much of the ancient world, long before Christianity or Islam. Christians have both defended and opposed slavery throughout history. At the same time, many of the leading abolitionists, including William Wilberforce, John Newton, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and many Quakers and evangelical Christians, grounded their opposition to slavery in Christian convictions. History is complex, and I do not think it is fair to attribute either slavery or abolition exclusively to one religion.

Regarding Islam, I agree that many Muslims are kind, sincere, and deeply devoted people. My questions are more about the historical sources than about Muslims themselves. For example, I have been interested in studying the history of the Qur'an, the Hadith, early Islamic manuscripts, and the development of the different qirā'āt (canonical readings). Likewise, I enjoy studying the textual history of the Bible. I think every religion should be open to historical and textual examination.

I also think it is easy to assume that people who disagree with us simply have not studied enough. In my experience, there are thoughtful scholars and sincere believers, skeptics, atheists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists who have spent decades studying these questions and still reach different conclusions. I try not to assume someone's level of knowledge simply because they arrive at a different conclusion than I do.

Finally, I'd genuinely be interested to learn more about which parts of the Tanakh you believe derive from earlier Near Eastern myths. I have read about comparisons with texts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Enuma Elish, and Ugaritic literature, and I find those discussions fascinating, even though I do not necessarily draw the same conclusions. If you're ever interested in continuing the conversation privately, I'd be happy to learn more from your perspective.

[sanantone]

Thank you again for the thoughtful discussion.
I agree that many terrible things have been done by people claiming to be Christians. I simply distinguish between the teachings of Jesus and the actions of people who failed to follow them.

For example, when I read the Gospels, I see Jesus consistently elevating the dignity of women. He taught women publicly when many rabbis would not. Women were among His followers, and they financially supported His ministry (Luke 8:1–3). He spoke with the Samaritan woman despite significant social barriers (John 4). He defended the woman caught in adultery from being stoned (John 8). Most remarkably, according to the Gospels, the first witnesses to His resurrection were women, despite women's testimony carrying little legal weight in that culture. That strikes me as a remarkable detail.

I also think Paul is often misunderstood. While some of his writings are debated, he worked alongside numerous women in ministry. He commended Phoebe as a deacon, referred to Junia as outstanding among the apostles, recognized Priscilla as a teacher, praised Euodia and Syntyche as fellow workers in the gospel, and declared that in Christ there is "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Whatever one's interpretation of the pastoral epistles, it is difficult to argue that Paul viewed women as having no meaningful role in the early Church.

Likewise, slavery was a tragic institution that existed across much of the ancient world, long before Christianity or Islam. Christians have both defended and opposed slavery throughout history. At the same time, many of the leading abolitionists, including William Wilberforce, John Newton, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and many Quakers and evangelical Christians, grounded their opposition to slavery in Christian convictions. History is complex, and I do not think it is fair to attribute either slavery or abolition exclusively to one religion.

Regarding Islam, I agree that many Muslims are kind, sincere, and deeply devoted people. My questions are more about the historical sources than about Muslims themselves. For example, I have been interested in studying the history of the Qur'an, the Hadith, early Islamic manuscripts, and the development of the different qirā'āt (canonical readings). Likewise, I enjoy studying the textual history of the Bible. I think every religion should be open to historical and textual examination.

I also think it is easy to assume that people who disagree with us simply have not studied enough. In my experience, there are thoughtful scholars and sincere believers, skeptics, atheists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists who have spent decades studying these questions and still reach different conclusions. I try not to assume someone's level of knowledge simply because they arrive at a different conclusion than I do.

Finally, I'd genuinely be interested to learn more about which parts of the Tanakh you believe derive from earlier Near Eastern myths. I have read about comparisons with texts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Enuma Elish, and Ugaritic literature, and I find those discussions fascinating, even though I do not necessarily draw the same conclusions. If you're ever interested in continuing the conversation privately, I'd be happy to learn more from your perspective.

Jesus did not write the New Testament. Much of the New Testament was written by Paul and people pretending to be Paul. Paul is the true foundation for Christianity. The belief that women are below men comes from Ephesians. Christians are simply following what's in their holy book.

I did not state whether Muslims are kind or sincere. I stated what is in the Quran, how West Africans converted to Islam, and that Muslims enslaved and killed millions of Africans in the trans-Saharan slave trade. I encourage you to do some reflection on how your personal biases caused you to skip over extensive criticisms of Islam and see praises of Islam that were not there. 

I'm not sure how you're making the connection between my disagreement and belief that Christians are uneducated on their religion. Obviously, I don't believe what Jews, Mormons, and Muslims believe either. I'm just acknowledging that they generally receive more instruction on their holy books and are more likely to have read their holy books. Because of Christianity's history, reading the Bible in its entirety is not a central part of Christian culture. Remember that Catholicism was dominant, and they used to conduct their services in Latin knowing that their parishioners didn't understand Latin.

"However, other interesting statistics concern who has attempted to read the Bible. Overall, 9 in 10 Americans “have read at least some” of Scripture, with just 22% reporting having finished the book once."

https://cbn.com/news/world/heres-percent...ible-daily

Muslims are also encouraged to learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. Jews are also encouraged to learn Hebrew. Christian laity are not encouraged to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In some denominations, however, Christians are told to only read the King James version of the Bible, which is written in Early Modern English. Your average English speaker of today struggles to comprehend Early Modern English. Just think of Shakespeare.

The Israelites were primarily influenced by the Canaanite pantheon because they were Canaanites.

[PearsonOTHMQualifi7654]

Jesus did not write the New Testament. Much of the New Testament was written by Paul and people pretending to be Paul. Paul is the true foundation for Christianity. The belief that women are below men comes from Ephesians. Christians are simply following what's in their holy book.

I did not state whether Muslims are kind or sincere. I stated what is in the Quran, how West Africans converted to Islam, and that Muslims enslaved and killed millions of Africans in the trans-Saharan slave trade. I encourage you to do some reflection on how your personal biases caused you to skip over extensive criticisms of Islam and see praises of Islam that were not there. 

I'm not sure how you're making the connection between my disagreement and belief that Christians are uneducated on their religion. Obviously, I don't believe what Jews, Mormons, and Muslims believe either. I'm just acknowledging that they generally receive more instruction on their holy books and are more likely to have read their holy books. Because of Christianity's history, reading the Bible in its entirety is not a central part of Christian culture. Remember that Catholicism was dominant, and they used to conduct their services in Latin knowing that their parishioners didn't understand Latin.

"However, other interesting statistics concern who has attempted to read the Bible. Overall, 9 in 10 Americans “have read at least some” of Scripture, with just 22% reporting having finished the book once."

https://cbn.com/news/world/heres-percent...ible-daily

Muslims are also encouraged to learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. Jews are also encouraged to learn Hebrew. Christian laity are not encouraged to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In some denominations, however, Christians are told to only read the King James version of the Bible, which is written in Early Modern English. Your average English speaker of today struggles to comprehend Early Modern English. Just think of Shakespeare.

The Israelites were primarily influenced by the Canaanite pantheon because they were Canaanites.

I do not consider the fact that Jesus personally wrote no New Testament book to be a serious objection. Historical knowledge normally comes through testimony, not exclusively through writings authored by the central figure himself. The New Testament arose within the first-century apostolic community: some texts claim eyewitness testimony, others report traditions received from eyewitnesses, and Paul personally knew leading members of the Jerusalem church. Although the authorship of several Pauline letters is debated, seven are accepted as authentic by an overwhelming range of scholarship, and Ephesians remains disputed rather than conclusively exposed as a forgery.

I would also distinguish religious instruction from the truth of a religion. Jews, Muslims and Mormons may often receive more systematic instruction in their traditions, but familiarity with a text does not establish that the text is divinely authoritative. Mormon education does not prove Joseph Smith’s revelation claims, just as Christian biblical illiteracy would not disprove Christianity.  

Regarding Judaism, the Hebrew Scriptures predate Christianity, but the institutional and interpretive system now called Rabbinic Judaism developed substantially after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Mishnah, Gemara and Talmud preserve older traditions but also represent centuries of post-first-century development. Therefore, contemporary rabbinic interpretations cannot simply be projected backward as the only Jewish understanding existing before Christianity.

Christianity also differs from Islam in its understanding of language and revelation. The Qur’an is regarded as revelation in Arabic, with translations ordinarily treated as interpretations. Christianity never taught that the gospel belongs only to people who know Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. The biblical message was deliberately translated and carried across linguistic boundaries from the earliest centuries.

On Israelite origins, saying that Israelites emerged from Canaanite culture does not mean that a people called Israel existed before Jacob received that name. It means that archaeologists see substantial material, linguistic and cultural continuity between early Israelite settlements and the existing population of Canaan. That is compatible with a population gradually developing a distinct Israelite identity, possibly while incorporating a smaller group possessing memories of Egypt.

Finally, archaeology has not proved that absolutely no Exodus occurred. It has produced strong reasons to doubt a migration of the enormous scale suggested by a strictly literal reading of the census numbers. Yet some scholars who reject that scale still consider a smaller historical departure from Egypt plausible. Absence of evidence for millions wandering in Sinai is relevant evidence against that particular reconstruction; it is not a conclusive demonstration that Moses, an Egyptian sojourn or every historical core behind the tradition must be fictional.

[sanantone]

I do not consider the fact that Jesus personally wrote no New Testament book to be a serious objection. Historical knowledge normally comes through testimony, not exclusively through writings authored by the central figure himself. The New Testament arose within the first-century apostolic community: some texts claim eyewitness testimony, others report traditions received from eyewitnesses, and Paul personally knew leading members of the Jerusalem church. Although the authorship of several Pauline letters is debated, seven are accepted as authentic by an overwhelming range of scholarship, and Ephesians remains disputed rather than conclusively exposed as a forgery.

I would also distinguish religious instruction from the truth of a religion. Jews, Muslims and Mormons may often receive more systematic instruction in their traditions, but familiarity with a text does not establish that the text is divinely authoritative. Mormon education does not prove Joseph Smith’s revelation claims, just as Christian biblical illiteracy would not disprove Christianity.  

Regarding Judaism, the Hebrew Scriptures predate Christianity, but the institutional and interpretive system now called Rabbinic Judaism developed substantially after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Mishnah, Gemara and Talmud preserve older traditions but also represent centuries of post-first-century development. Therefore, contemporary rabbinic interpretations cannot simply be projected backward as the only Jewish understanding existing before Christianity.

Christianity also differs from Islam in its understanding of language and revelation. The Qur’an is regarded as revelation in Arabic, with translations ordinarily treated as interpretations. Christianity never taught that the gospel belongs only to people who know Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. The biblical message was deliberately translated and carried across linguistic boundaries from the earliest centuries.

On Israelite origins, saying that Israelites emerged from Canaanite culture does not mean that a people called Israel existed before Jacob received that name. It means that archaeologists see substantial material, linguistic and cultural continuity between early Israelite settlements and the existing population of Canaan. That is compatible with a population gradually developing a distinct Israelite identity, possibly while incorporating a smaller group possessing memories of Egypt.

Finally, archaeology has not proved that absolutely no Exodus occurred. It has produced strong reasons to doubt a migration of the enormous scale suggested by a strictly literal reading of the census numbers. Yet some scholars who reject that scale still consider a smaller historical departure from Egypt plausible. Absence of evidence for millions wandering in Sinai is relevant evidence against that particular reconstruction; it is not a conclusive demonstration that Moses, an Egyptian sojourn or every historical core behind the tradition must be fictional.

If one is centering the teachings of Jesus as being representative of what Christianity actually is while also defending the teachings of the New Testament, it does matter that most of the New Testament is not based on words from Jesus.

All the Abrahamic religions have the same issue; they're based on Judaism. Speaking of humility - Christians believing that they know more about the first Abrahamic religion than Jews and claiming that their religion is true while other Abrahamic religions are not is not humility.

Translations of the Bible often have issues with inaccuracy and biases; hence, there being numerous English versions of the Bible. Therefore, to really study the Bible, one should learn Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek.

There are more reasons for why even numerous practicing Christian scholars do not believe the mass exodus occurred. If the Hebrews had been enslaved by the Egyptians, their culture would have reflected that. Instead, it shows continuity with Canaanite culture. Additionally, if the dating is correct, Canaan would have been under the jurisdiction of Egypt, so it wouldn't have made sense to flee to a land that's still under Egypt's control.

[PearsonOTHMQualifi7654]

If one is centering the teachings of Jesus as being representative of what Christianity actually is while also defending the teachings of the New Testament, it does matter that most of the New Testament is not based on words from Jesus.

All the Abrahamic religions have the same issue; they're based on Judaism. Speaking of humility - Christians believing that they know more about the first Abrahamic religion than Jews and claiming that their religion is true while other Abrahamic religions are not is not humility.

Translations of the Bible often have issues with inaccuracy and biases; hence, there being numerous English versions of the Bible. Therefore, to really study the Bible, one should learn Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek.

There are more reasons for why even numerous practicing Christian scholars do not believe the mass exodus occurred. If the Hebrews had been enslaved by the Egyptians, their culture would have reflected that. Instead, it shows continuity with Canaanite culture. Additionally, if the dating is correct, Canaan would have been under the jurisdiction of Egypt, so it wouldn't have made sense to flee to a land that's still under Egypt's control.

If one wishes to study the Bible in the greatest depth, knowledge of Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek is invaluable. Every translation involves interpretive decisions, which is why there are multiple English translations. At the same time, the existence of many translations does not imply that the central message has been lost. We possess over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts and well over 20,000 additional manuscripts in Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other ancient languages. This wealth of textual evidence allows scholars to compare readings and reconstruct the original text with a very high degree of confidence.

Even Bart Ehrman, despite being an agnostic and rejecting Christianity, has repeatedly stated that the vast majority of textual variants are minor and do not affect core Christian doctrines. His disagreement with Christianity is not based primarily on textual corruption but on historical and philosophical questions, particularly whether the Resurrection actually occurred.

I also don't think Jesus personally needing to be the author of the New Testament is a persuasive objection. Ancient history is rarely written by the central figure himself. We know about Socrates primarily through Plato and Xenophon, not because Socrates wrote philosophical treatises. Likewise, Alexander the Great wrote no surviving history of his own life, yet historians reconstruct his life from later sources.

The Gospels present themselves as accounts rooted in eyewitness testimony. Luke explicitly states that he carefully investigated the testimony of eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1–4), while John's Gospel concludes by identifying its testimony with the disciple who witnessed these events (John 21:24). Whether one accepts every traditional attribution or not, the Gospels fit within the conventions of ancient Greco-Roman biography (bios), where disciples and close associates commonly preserved the words and deeds of significant figures. The important historical question is not whether Jesus held the pen himself, but whether the testimony about him is sufficiently early and reliable to be taken seriously.

Regarding Judaism, my point was not that Christians know Judaism better than Jews, nor that Christians should be arrogant. Rather, modern Rabbinic Judaism is historically distinct from the religion reflected in the Tanakh and the Second Temple period. Today's Rabbinic tradition developed primarily from the Pharisaic movement after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 through the Mishnah, Gemara, and Talmud. Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism both emerged from Second Temple Judaism but developed in different directions. Recognizing that historical development is not a claim of superiority.

I also think it's important to remember that Christianity did not begin as a separate religion but as a Jewish movement. Jesus, the apostles, and the earliest believers were Jews who believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. As the Gospel spread, Gentiles (goyim) were welcomed into the covenant without first becoming ethnic Jews, as reflected in Acts 10, Acts 15, and Paul's letters. 

Over the centuries, these Jewish and Gentile believers intermarried and formed Christian communities throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. Consequently, many people today who identify as Christians or simply as non-Jews may very well have Jewish ancestry, just as many modern Jews have ancestry from peoples who joined Israel in antiquity through conversion and intermarriage. Ethnicity and religious identity have never remained perfectly fixed over two thousand years.

As for the Exodus, I agree that many archaeologists question a literal mass migration as described in a straightforward reading of the biblical text. However, that conclusion is based on the current archaeological evidence, not on a definitive historical proof that no Exodus occurred. There are also scholars who argue for a smaller historical core underlying the biblical tradition.

Regarding Canaan, during parts of the Late Bronze Age, Canaan was indeed under Egyptian influence or administration, according to much of the archaeological evidence. That fact raises legitimate historical questions, but it does not by itself demonstrate that the Exodus tradition is necessarily fictional. It simply means that reconstructing the historical setting is more complex than either a purely literal or mythical reading.

[sanantone]

If one wishes to study the Bible in the greatest depth, knowledge of Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek is invaluable. Every translation involves interpretive decisions, which is why there are multiple English translations. At the same time, the existence of many translations does not imply that the central message has been lost. We possess over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts and well over 20,000 additional manuscripts in Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other ancient languages. This wealth of textual evidence allows scholars to compare readings and reconstruct the original text with a very high degree of confidence.

Even Bart Ehrman, despite being an agnostic and rejecting Christianity, has repeatedly stated that the vast majority of textual variants are minor and do not affect core Christian doctrines. His disagreement with Christianity is not based primarily on textual corruption but on historical and philosophical questions, particularly whether the Resurrection actually occurred.

I also don't think Jesus personally needing to be the author of the New Testament is a persuasive objection. Ancient history is rarely written by the central figure himself. We know about Socrates primarily through Plato and Xenophon, not because Socrates wrote philosophical treatises. Likewise, Alexander the Great wrote no surviving history of his own life, yet historians reconstruct his life from later sources.

The Gospels present themselves as accounts rooted in eyewitness testimony. Luke explicitly states that he carefully investigated the testimony of eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1–4), while John's Gospel concludes by identifying its testimony with the disciple who witnessed these events (John 21:24). Whether one accepts every traditional attribution or not, the Gospels fit within the conventions of ancient Greco-Roman biography (bios), where disciples and close associates commonly preserved the words and deeds of significant figures. The important historical question is not whether Jesus held the pen himself, but whether the testimony about him is sufficiently early and reliable to be taken seriously.

Regarding Judaism, my point was not that Christians know Judaism better than Jews, nor that Christians should be arrogant. Rather, modern Rabbinic Judaism is historically distinct from the religion reflected in the Tanakh and the Second Temple period. Today's Rabbinic tradition developed primarily from the Pharisaic movement after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 through the Mishnah, Gemara, and Talmud. Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism both emerged from Second Temple Judaism but developed in different directions. Recognizing that historical development is not a claim of superiority.

As for the Exodus, I agree that many archaeologists question a literal mass migration as described in a straightforward reading of the biblical text. However, that conclusion is based on the current archaeological evidence, not on a definitive historical proof that no Exodus occurred. There are also scholars who argue for a smaller historical core underlying the biblical tradition.

Regarding Canaan, during parts of the Late Bronze Age, Canaan was indeed under Egyptian influence or administration, according to much of the archaeological evidence. That fact raises legitimate historical questions, but it does not by itself demonstrate that the Exodus tradition is necessarily fictional. It simply means that reconstructing the historical setting is more complex than either a purely literal or mythical reading.

You can't claim that Christian beliefs are primarily based on the teachings of Jesus when much of the New Testament was based on the beliefs and practices of its writers rather than direct words from Jesus. If you believe that the New Testament does reflect Jesus' beliefs, then you also have to attribute all the bad positions in the New Testament to him, including slavery and the subjugation of women. All but one of the Gospels are believed to be copies of one account with minor variations thrown in. If they had truly been originally written by different people, there wouldn't be so much word-for-word overlap.

To your last paragraph, that falls in line with the Bible being filled with legends - a mix of myth and history that should not be interpreted literally.

[PearsonOTHMQualifi7654]

Does Jesus need to be the author of the eyewitness testimony about Him? That conclusion doesn't follow.
Many scholars believe Matthew and Luke share a common source (often called Q), and it's obvious there is overlap between the Gospels. If multiple witnesses are describing the same events, some overlap is exactly what we would expect.

What would actually be suspicious is if the accounts were virtually identical from beginning to end. In legal investigations, testimony that is nearly identical is often viewed as a sign of collaboration rather than independent recollection. Instead, the Gospels contain both overlap and variation in wording, details, emphasis, and chronology. That's consistent with how independent human testimony typically works.

The Gospels are not intended to be Jesus' autobiography. They are eyewitness testimony about Jesus. In Christian theology, Jesus is God incarnate. God does not "believe" propositions in the way human beings do; He knows them. The Gospel writers were documenting what they witnessed, not attempting to write a first-person account on His behalf.

Likewise, the claims regarding the "subjugation of women" and other alleged "bad positions" of the New Testament depend heavily on how those passages are interpreted and understood in their historical and literary context. Those are matters of substantial theological and scholarly debate, not settled conclusions.

As for the assertion that the Bible is "filled with legends," I'd be interested in discussing specific examples and the reasons they should be classified as legends.
Ultimately, I don't think the conclusions being drawn here follow from the evidence presented.

[sanantone]

Does Jesus need to be the author of the eyewitness testimony about Him? That conclusion doesn't follow.
Many scholars believe Matthew and Luke share a common source (often called Q), and it's obvious there is overlap between the Gospels. If multiple witnesses are describing the same events, some overlap is exactly what we would expect.

What would actually be suspicious is if the accounts were virtually identical from beginning to end. In legal investigations, testimony that is nearly identical is often viewed as a sign of collaboration rather than independent recollection. Instead, the Gospels contain both overlap and variation in wording, details, emphasis, and chronology. That's consistent with how independent human testimony typically works.

The Gospels are not intended to be Jesus' autobiography. They are eyewitness testimony about Jesus. In Christian theology, Jesus is God incarnate. God does not "believe" propositions in the way human beings do; He knows them. The Gospel writers were documenting what they witnessed, not attempting to write a first-person account on His behalf.

Likewise, the claims regarding the "subjugation of women" and other alleged "bad positions" of the New Testament depend heavily on how those passages are interpreted and understood in their historical and literary context. Those are matters of substantial theological and scholarly debate, not settled conclusions.

As for the assertion that the Bible is "filled with legends," I'd be interested in discussing specific examples and the reasons they should be classified as legends.
Ultimately, I don't think the conclusions being drawn here follow from the evidence presented.

Jesus didn't need to handwrite the New Testament, but a biography is a biography. He didn't dictate the New Testament; the New Testament is filled with other people's opinions. 

You are right that virtually identical testimonies are suspicious, which is why the Gospels are viewed with suspicion. 

So, you believe all the supernatural stuff, and the supernatural stuff suddenly stopped when people stopped writing books for the Bible? The evidence is that the Earth and Homo sapiens are much older than the Bible suggests. The evidence is that we have remains of other human species that preceded us. Was there some bush that was burning because of supernatural reasons, or is there just a bush that is naturally flammable?

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/you-as...rning-bush

If you believe in talking donkeys and serpents or that every species can fit on a ship, then there's nothing I can say to convince you that the Bible is a book of legends. But the evidence does not support that this supernatural stuff occurred, and there has been no evidence presented here.

[PearsonOTHMQualifi7654]

Does Jesus need to be the author of the eyewitness testimony about Him? That conclusion doesn't follow.
Many scholars believe Matthew and Luke share a common source (often called Q), and it's obvious there is overlap between the Gospels. If multiple witnesses are describing the same events, some overlap is exactly what we would expect.

What would actually be suspicious is if the accounts were virtually identical from beginning to end. In legal investigations, testimony that is nearly identical is often viewed as a sign of collaboration rather than independent recollection. Instead, the Gospels contain both overlap and variation in wording, details, emphasis, and chronology. That's consistent with how independent human testimony typically works.

The Gospels are not intended to be Jesus' autobiography. They are eyewitness testimony about Jesus. In Christian theology, Jesus is God incarnate. God does not "believe" propositions in the way human beings do; He knows them. The Gospel writers were documenting what they witnessed, not attempting to write a first-person account on His behalf.

Likewise, the claims regarding the "subjugation of women" and other alleged "bad positions" of the New Testament depend heavily on how those passages are interpreted and understood in their historical and literary context. Those are matters of substantial theological and scholarly debate, not settled conclusions.

As for the assertion that the Bible is "filled with legends," I'd be interested in discussing specific examples and the reasons they should be classified as legends.
Ultimately, I don't think the conclusions being drawn here follow from the evidence presented.

Jesus didn't need to handwrite the New Testament, but a biography is a biography. He didn't dictate the New Testament; the New Testament is filled with other people's opinions. 

You are right that virtually identical testimonies are suspicious, which is why the Gospels are viewed with suspicion. 

So, you believe all the supernatural stuff, and the supernatural stuff suddenly stopped when people stopped writing books for the Bible? The evidence is that the Earth and Homo sapiens are much older than the Bible suggests. The evidence is that we have remains of other human species that preceded us. Was there some bush that was burning because of supernatural reasons, or is there just a bush that is naturally flammable?

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/you-as...rning-bush

If you believe in talking donkeys and serpents or that every species can fit on a ship, then there's nothing I can say to convince you that the Bible is a book of legends. But the evidence does not support that this supernatural stuff occurred, and there has been no evidence presented here.

Thank you for your reply.

I think we've reached the point where we simply have different starting assumptions, and that's perfectly okay.

Regarding the Gospels, I think there is a misunderstanding. The Gospels are not virtually identical. In fact, they contain many obvious differences in wording, emphasis, chronology, and the details each author chooses to include. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each present the life of Jesus from different perspectives and for different audiences.

What they consistently agree on are the central events: Jesus' ministry, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, while differing in how those events are described and which details are emphasized. That is much closer to what we normally expect from independent human testimony than four accounts that read word-for-word the same.

If four witnesses described a car accident using exactly the same language, in exactly the same order, including every detail, most investigators would suspect collaboration. If, however, they agreed on the essential facts while remembering different details and emphasizing different aspects of what they experienced, that is much more consistent with how real eyewitness testimony works.

So I don't see the differences in the Gospels as undermining their credibility. Quite the opposite, they are one of the reasons scholars find them more credible than if they had been four identical copies of the same account. Whether one believes the Gospels were written directly by eyewitnesses or preserve eyewitness testimony through the apostolic tradition, the accounts themselves are clearly not identical. Their similarities are expected because they describe the same historical events, while their differences are consistent with independent human testimony rather than four carbon copies of a single story.

As for the supernatural, I understand that many people in the world don't believe miracles occurred and that they view the biblical accounts as legends or mythology. I respect that this is the conclusion for many people. Christians, on the other hand, begin with the possibility that God exists and therefore that miracles are possible. Those different starting assumptions naturally lead us to different conclusions about the same texts.

My intention wasn't to convince you that Christianity is true or to argue every point. I simply wanted to offer some balance by explaining how many Christians understand these issues, since several statements earlier in the discussion were presented as though they were settled facts when, in reality, many of them are actively debated by historians, biblical scholars, philosophers, and theologians.

Regarding the supernatural, I don't think that's really the point I was making. My comments were specifically about the Gospels as historical documents describing the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Whether one ultimately accepts the supernatural claims is a separate philosophical question. My point is simply that the Gospel accounts themselves are not four identical copies of the same story. They agree on the central events while differing in wording, emphasis, chronology, and the details each author chooses to include. That is much closer to what we would expect from independent human testimony than from four accounts that were copied verbatim.

If we were evaluating testimony in a court of law, we would not expect four witnesses to describe an event in exactly the same way. We would expect agreement on the essential facts alongside natural differences in recollection and perspective. That is one of the reasons Christians find the Gospel accounts compelling as historical evidence.

As for topics like Noah's Ark, the age of the Earth, or the extent of the Flood, Christians themselves hold a variety of interpretations. Those are interesting discussions, but they aren't really what I was responding to here.

I think we've both explained our perspectives, so I'm happy to leave it there. If you'd ever like to continue the discussion privately, you're welcome to send me a message. Otherwise, I wish you all the best.