This post is some notes I took during a presentation at the Perth Atheist Meetup given by Aaron Alderman. They were taken at speed (and without the overhead presentation which we were supposed to see as well) and are certain to contain errors.
I’ve edited this article since I originally posted it. Some material has been added, some expanded, but none deleted.
Introduction
Aaron introduced himself and described his background a little (raised in a secular family which became religious after an adverse life event) before jumping into eight objections to Christianity.
Which one is True?
There are roughly 30,000 denominations of Christianity which can be grouped into various categories:
- Catholicism (which may include various Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Roman Catholic church)
- Protestantism
- Anglicanism
- Pentecostalism
- Restorationism (who dropped Nicene creed and the rest of the “scholarship”)
All of these denominations have various differences, many are mutually incompatible.
How are people saved? Is it on the basis of the a person’s actions during their life (do good = go to heaven; do bad = go to hell)? Or is it based on their faith in god alone (believe in Jesus = go to heaven; don’t = go to hell)?
What is Heaven? Is it a new Earth, this time without bad things? Is it hanging out with your new best buddy god? Is it a big party in the sky?
Do we have free will? Can we actually affect our own fate? Or has god already decided which people are to be saved and which damned?
What is baptism? Just a symbol?
Is god really a homophobe?
These points and many more differentiate the various denominations, and many of them are mutually incompatible. Some denominations claim to be exclusively true. How are we supposed to determine which one actually is true?
Should we not expect a perfectly good god with limitless power to convey its will and message correctly? If the holy spirit is really guiding them and their understanding of its well, why are there so many different interpretations? Why are there so many sects, schisms, reformations, etc?
Epistemology comes into it: they seem to lack an sound epistemology. There is no epistemological basis on which to distinguish any of these particular sets of claims so it seems any and all of them have an equally valid (or perhaps that ought to be: invalid) claim to truth.
The Bible
Many books: 66 (if you’re catholic), 78 (Greek Orthodox), 81 (?).
The Old Testament comprises:
- Torah: The Law
- Nevim: ???
- Ketuvium: ???
And the New Testament includes:
The Gospels
- Matthew
- Mark
- Luke (and Acts) 80-130 CE
- John 90-120 CE
Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark as they wrote.
Pauline epistles:
- About eight.
- About four which are traditionally counted as Paul’s work, but it’s now acknowledged are not. They seem not his “style”, etc.
The Epistles:
The Apocalypse:
A good source is EarlyChristianWritings.com
Early Christianity
150 CE: We have five papyri
Nine small fragments
250 CE: 38 fragments in reasonably good quality
Various codices
Codex vaticauns: 350 CE. First complete New Testament we have. Misses Hebrews 9–
Codex ciniticus?
We don’t have complete texts until 150-200 years after the fact. Does this matter? Christians claim: no. Other ancient texts have been recovered from 1000 years after the text. But we aren’t trying to base 30,000 different religions on these other ancient texts, nor are we claiming that they are true!
We “know” that there are around 150,000 changes in the bible, based on the fragmentary documents that have been discovered. Some errors are due to scribal errors (remember that many scribes and copists were illiterate), margin creep (integrating marginalia on an original into the text of a copy), purposeful changes (supporting the idea of the trinity).
The earliest copies don’t have Mark 16:9 – :20. I.e. nothing involving the resurrection. These were clearly added decades or centuries after the fact, but they form the basis of Pentecostal theology.
Mark 1:40-:41 Jesus touched a leper and said: I’ll heal you. Some scripts have Jesus angry at the leper rather than compassionate. There is certainly motivation for this change (Jesus is supposed to be nice!), but it could also be accidental (in the Greek, the two words are quite similar.)
“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” turns out that isn’t in the earlier texts.
The early Christians were poor and working class. It’s a few hundred years before the upper class joins in. This is important because the cheaper (possibly amateur) scribes used were more likely to make mistakes. There are also comparatively few copies as relatively few people could afford to have copies made.
For most of the history of Christianity they’ve been using an apparently errant bible.
From a secular (even just rational) point of view, the idea that god has guided translation, transcription, interpretation so that it is still “religiously” correct seems to beg the question.
The Old Testament
The history of the Jews. Problem: lots of it didn’t happen. Eden, the flood, the promised land, the exodus, Canan. The conquered land and formed a united monarchy of Israel. Didn’t happen.
No Adam and eve: no original sin. Why did Jesus die if not to save us of our sins?
Canan didn’t happen? That’s pretty good. God didn’t tell us to kill women and children and donkeys.
Fourth: Where is Jesus and the Trinity in the OT?
Many Christians will suggest that the OT contains “hints” about the trinity, etc. Here’s a hint: it doesn’t.
Fifth: Jesus was not the messiah.
There are many, many prophecies regarding the messiah that Jesus did not satisfy (all the following vaguely paraphrased):
“Once he is king, nations will look to him for guidance.” They didn’t look to him for guidance.
“Knowledge of God will spread around the world.” It didn’t, for a very long time. Depending on your meaning of “knowledge”, it still hasn’t.
Christians try to use ad-hoc arguments to get around these, but it raises the question again: if this is the inerrant, inspired word of a just and powerful god, why do they need to split these hairs?
New Testament
Paul: earliest gospels. He’s more authoritative w.r.t. early Christians beliefs. There was fragmentation though.
Did Jesus rise bodily or spiritually?
Sixth: Paul didn’t believe the bodily resurrection
Paul didn’t meet Jesus. Just had hallucinations and visions.
Didn’t say much about Jesus’ life, etc. focusing mainly on the implications of his death.
Paul was all about the “spiritual body.”
Seven: The resurrection stories were embellished
Luke: attempts to write history. Tries to find eye witnesses, etc.
John: theological, 2nd C. AD.
Mark: “just a story.” Fabricated, uses plot devices like role reversals (Mary vs Mary). Many intelligent Greeks were given Homer as an example of good writing. There are many parallels with Mark. Lots of strange claims: given a royal blue robe. The tomb was covered by a rock that could be rolled away (this start to happen until circa 70 AD).
Mathew copies a lot from Mark. Tries in vain to match it to the OT prophecy. The virgin thing doesn’t appear in the Hebrew; it was a translation error into the Greek of the Septuagint. The coming into town on two asses is another translation error. The death scene is also odd: J dies, the sun darkens, the tombs open and the dead walk. Why did this not convert everyone.
Why did the author of Mark not tell us who, what, and where they were. Seems to have been plagiarised from other works with Jesus pasted in. Josephus’ war of the Jews. Claims that he saw a heifer give birth to a lamb in the middle of a Jewish temple. How is a know, reliable historian eye-witness within 10 years claiming nonsense. Why should we accept the Gospels?
But the Christians were telling the truth!
The disciples died for their beliefs: we should take them seriously. Lots of evidence that they didn’t. Even if they did, we don’t know what the believed.
The women were are the tomb. But this is just a reversal of expectations (one of the aforementioned plot devices): women were the lower classes and Jesus was a working class hero.
Christianity grew very quickly, so it must be true. But Mormonism grew more quickly, in even more adverse conditions (like overcoming Christian hegemony to convert followers).
Eight: Where is the secular evidence?
Josephus and someone else are the first non-believers to describe biblical events.
Conclusion
- Which Christianity is true?
- We don’t really know what the earliest Christians wrote?
- A lot of the “history” of the Jews didn’t happen.
- Where is Jesus and the New Testament in the Old Testament?
- Jesus was not the messiah and did not fulfil many of the prophecies.
- Paul did not believe in the bodily resurrection.
- The resurrection stories were embellished, unattributed, etc.
- There’s no secular evidence for Jesus.
Questions
Catholics believe that we have souls. Pope Pius and JP II said that they accepted evolution (but they only accepted it on the basis that Adam and Eve were the first humans). Benedict is a very good theologian but rather too conservative socially for most.
Someone mentioned: many paths to one destinations. Blah, blah.
If Jesus does rise as a zombie. Should we shoot him or run away?
What about the recent (Catholic) abolition of limbo. If the previous Popes were actually infallible then there must have been a limbo with souls in it. Where did the people that were in limbo go?
There’s an Episcopalian Bishop who says Paul was a latent homosexual based on his misogyny, homophobia, etc.