Evidence that Demands a Mistrial

One book I recall as being influential during my Christian years was "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.

I was drawn to apologetics at the time, because these Christians at least put some thought into what they believed. While the average parishoner couldn't have cared less, these guys would hammer away at the 1001 rational reasons why the claims of Christianity had to be true.

It seemed somewhat impressive at the time, but once I expanded my information in-basket to take in a much broader perspective, I was appalled at how ingrown and circular apologetics reasoning was.

These guys spend their lives within a Christian culture. Seminary training reinforces the circular reasoning approach until it becomes 2nd nature. By this time they have lost the ability to discern reality from an unbiased perspective. Any new information that conflicts with "faith" is automatically quarentined to a place where it never will receive consideration.

McDowell is still at it after all these years. I grabbed the following excerpt from his website to illustrate "circular reasoning" with a classic example:

Two important verses speak to the heart of the matter: 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. The former reads, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." The word inspired is a translation of the Greek word theopneustos, meaning God -breathed. Thus the origin of Scripture is God, not man; it is God-breathed.

The second verse, 2 Peter 1:21, says, "For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." This also confirms that the writers were moved by God to record that which God desired. Mechanical dictation was not employed as some claim. Rather, God used each individual writer and his personality to accomplish a divinely authoritative work.

The process of inspiration extended to every word ("all Scripture"), refuting the idea of myth and error. Since God is behind the writings, and since He is perfect, the result must be infallible. If it were not infallible, we could be left with God -inspired error. It is important to understand this concept, for the entire Christian faith is based upon the premise that "God is there and He is not silent," as the late theologian Francis Schaeffer so often said.

There you have it, folks. The words of Paul and Peter are somehow construed to refer to "all scripture" as in "all scripture that orthodox Christianity recognizes" otherwise known as the Bible. The fact that these documents make internal claim to be inspired by God proves nothing. Anyone could make such claim in their writings!

Never mind the fact that neither of these Biblical authors could have been aware of which documents would get cobbled together hundreds of years later into "The Bible". In fact, there is some evidence that there were documents highly revered during Paul's time that were rejected by the Nicene Canon makers. One example is The Book of Enoch. Nice try Josh, but no dice!

Apologetics gurus like to point out how many extant copies of "original scriptural texts" exist compared to classic works such as Homer's Iliad. Overlooked is the obvious difference that Homer does not claim to speak on behalf of God or make sweeping theological statements. How many copies exist of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and does this prove anything?

Another little incongruity which doesn't get discussed is why the original Gospel manuscripts are not written in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jews in 1st century Palestine. Besides, any Messiah trying to start a new religion would have published his thoughts extensively, wouldn't you think? But we have no books penned by Jesus, and the only Biblical texts about Jesus were written in Turkey, Greece or Rome a generation later. Where is the chain-of-custody?

Let's pursue McDowell's point a little further, as to how many extant copies of the original teachings of Jesus exist: The real answer is none! The Gospels were written decades later by people who simply compiled stories about Jesus. These authors did not know Jesus personally and were not eyewitness to any of the events. By that time, the Romans had wiped out the Jewish culture in Jerusalem and obliterated whatever records might have existed. To call these "original manuscripts" makes as much sense as if I were to attempt to write a history of WWII based on stories I have heard about it.

One point I wish Christians would consider, is in whom they are really putting their trust in when insisting that the Bible is "God's Word": Everything they believe has been filtered through the very narrow sieve of 3rd & 4th century political wrangling that resulted in the forging of the Church as we know it. If you want to trust those guys, go ahead, but don't try to tell me God had anything to do with it.

Don't expect the questions I am raising to get any treatment by McDowell or the others. Any facts that conflict with "faith" are discarded, and they circle the wagons and the discussion ends.