Dylan

The other day my Christian friend made the following argument:

"Even though the texts that make up the Bible were selected by the Church in a way that eliminated other historical accounts of Jesus, do you think that God would allow the millions of Christians to follow an incorrect account of his son?"



Besides the whole there-is-no-god issue (which isn't really a feasible argument at this point with him), how do I argue this point?

It seems that I need to find an argument along the lines of "Well, God seemed to allow [insert something here that the majority of the Christians in the world did at one time in history]."

I could also make the argument that you're assigning human personality traits to God, and it is quite possible that God is allowing the majority of Christians to base their beliefs off inaccurate texts and that "he has a reason" (or "everything is part of God's plan").

But I'm having trouble getting a strong argument put together.

Thoughts?

doubtingthomas

Point out some of the more obvious errors in the bible. Something like Matthew 24:34, Jesus' last words, or the death of Judas would be good. I'm assuming though, that you would be trying to prove the bible is not correct in it's present condition in order to undermine argument.

Also, your friend is using a bit of circular reasoning to prove his point. He claims that God would not allow the bible to be faulty or inaccurate, but that point starts with the presumption that everthing about God in the bible is true.

SLD

Uhhh, well . . . He's allowing billions of muslims, hindus, buddhists and others to follow an incorrect account of him/son/spook. Why should Christians be any different?

Infidelettante

From the outset there where disagreements as to who or what Jesus was and what kind of message he preached. No small amount of this found its way into the New Testament. See Acts chapter fifteen. That the early church expressed differing views of the ministry of Jesus is clear evidence of his failure to provide an unambiguous message capable of uniting all factions of his followers.

It is undeniable that some early Christians held incorrect views of Jesus and his mission, his nature, his relationship to the Jewish religion, and what converts had to do to become his disciples. Ask your friend to explain the dissension in the early church found in the New Testament.

JT

SLD

A very good point; in particular you could point out Marcion's heretical church that rivalled the "true" catholic church for centuries. Marcion wasn't even Gnostic - which is still another example of heresies in the early church. Also, is your friend Catholic? If not, then God let his followers be deceived for over 1500 years before he revealed the truth. If he is Catholic, then God has let millions of followers be deceived by Martin Luther and the protestants.

If the Bible were indeed the inerrant word of God, Christians would all agree on what it means, right? Otherwise, God is deceiving us somehow by failing to clear up those ambiguities.

SLD

JoyJuice

Which Bible the Protestant or the Catholic? Or did God mean for there to be two options?

EssEff

How's this:

God allowed all humans to possess free will, including scribes, translators, storytellers, priests, popes, and publishers. They were just as fallible when it came to deducing the will of god with nothing but prayer and meditation to guide them as Christians are today.

dado

it's a process: start by asking them to produce one - just one - complete original language manuscript of any of the currently canonical gospels. if they have half a brain, they'll say the originals aren't important (yeah, i know) because G-d guided editors and translators in their work to ensure the integrity of the Good Word. the question then is how to determine which translators have That Magic Touch.

here, the argument will fork. from my experience, a significant number of combatants will refer to the "original" KJV as the being the only "real" English language bible - at which point you then ask them why the original few editions of the KJV contain - gasp! - apocrypha. you will probably get a dumbfounded stare and a claim that KJV does not contain Apocrypha, so explain that you are talking about the Original KJV, not the heavily revised version they have at home. if they don't outright smack you, they will no doubt claim vociferously you are wrong, at which point you pull up a browser, head for google, and search on "1611 apocrypha".

if the person on the other end isn't a KJV-only idolator, the situation gets sticky as they may have the mental wherewithall to form an argument based on unprovable assumptions, at which point all you can really do is agree to disagree.

hope that helps!