"Christian sources reporting on the life of Christ cannot be trusted because they were written later and merely attributed to authors of the 1st century."
The authenticity of the Gospels and other books of the New Testament is proven by the fact that other ancient monuments of Christian literature frequently quote them. These include, for example, the following documents: seven epistles of St. Ignatius own-bearer (107 AD), the epistle of St. Polycarp of Smyrna (155 AD), the First Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians (95 AD), the Didache, or the Teaching of the 12 Apostles (end of the 1st century), the Epistle of Barnabas, and so on. It is perfectly clear that if the Gospels were a later forgery, quotes from them could not be found in these monuments of the earliest Christian literature. Furthermore, the very nature of the events described gives us every reason to consider the authors of the narrative truthful people; otherwise, they would not have often depicted themselves in an unflattering light. They would hardly have mentioned Peter's denial, the flight of all the apostles when Christ was taken into custody, the sleep that overcame the chief apostles during Jesus' prayer, their disputes over places in the future kingdom of heaven, and so on.
In general, the criticism of the authenticity of the Gospels underwent a peculiar evolution over several decades. Since work on the critical study of text was still very underdeveloped in the middle of the 19th century, critics could allow themselves the boldest assertions, presenting them as the only scientific theories and denying the authenticity of almost all New Testament writings. But the more serious study of this issue caused by polemics, both from defenders and opponents of the authenticity of the books of Holy Scripture, changed the matter fundamentally. As a result, the critics themselves were forced to recognize the authenticity of these books.
The great scholar A. Harnack (1930), one of the most prominent critical researchers of early Christian literature, was forced himself to honestly admit the unquestionable authenticity of the specified books. Subsequently, scholarly research found more and more confirmations of the authenticity of the Gospels and other books of the New Testament, so that when some critics attempted in later years to dispute the reliability of the four most certain Epistles of St. Apostle Paul, serious criticism unanimously distanced itself from such opinions.
Opponents of the authenticity of the Gospels tried hardest to deny it regarding the Gospel of John, claiming that it was written in the middle of the 2nd century.
Although both the style and language of this Gospel speak in favor of its authenticity, for a long time there were no exact proofs for this, namely proofs of an external nature. Meanwhile, in the 30s of the 20th century, a papyrus from the 20s of the 2nd century AD was found in Egypt containing an excerpt from the eighteenth chapter of the Gospel of John. This destroyed the last argument of the deniers: if this Gospel was already known in Egypt in the 20s of the 2nd century, then it is clear that it must have been written 20-25 years earlier, which completely coincides with Christian tradition.
Opponents of Christianity made another attempt regarding the historicity of the gospel narratives: they tried to refute it on the grounds that in the Epistles of St. Apostle Paul, Christ is spoken of only as some unearthly being and not as a historical person. But anyone who has read the Epistles of Apostle Paul carefully knows that this is not so: God sent His Son (the Only Begotten), Who was born of a woman, subject to the law (Gal. 4:4). About His Son, Who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3). Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). Christ humbled Himself, being obedient even unto death, and death on a cross (Phil. 2:8).
All this refers, of course, to Christ as a historical person. What then remains at all of the "scientific" refutation of the gospel narratives? Perhaps only a series of minor nitpicks, as we shall now see.
"Holy Scripture (the Bible) is not a divinely inspired book, as there are contradictions between the narratives of various books, errors of a geographical or historical nature. This means these books were written by different people, and not at all by the Holy Spirit, as Christians think."
Here, first of all, it should be established what Christians understand by the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture.
Atheists believe that, in the opinion of believing Christians, the divine inspiration of the Bible consists in the fact that the personality of the chronicler is as if abolished and the Holy Spirit dictates every letter to him. In this case, all books of the Bible would be written in a completely identical style and phrasing, and their titles: from Luke, from Mark, from John, Epistles of St. Apostle Paul or the Pentateuch of Moses - would be completely unjustified. In reality, according to Christian teaching, the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture consists in the fact that the Holy Spirit suggests thoughts to the author of a particular book of the Bible, which the latter sets down in writing. The Holy Spirit protects him from errors; therefore, there are no errors in the entire Bible. Of course, this applies only to what the divinely inspired chronicler himself said, and not to the persons he describes. Otherwise, one would have to claim that the Bible teaches that God does not exist, since it contains the words: The fool has said in his heart, There is no God (Ps. 52:1).
Incidentally, let us note that here it is clear who spoke and what was spoken, but sometimes the Bible does not give us such clarity. For example, speaking about the structure of the world, the classification of animals and their various properties, the biblical narrators did not at all have as their goal to record and establish the incorrect cosmographic or natural-historical views that existed then. In these cases, they simply used expressions that were understandable to everyone at the time, leaving them unchanged, since this in no way hindered the communication in the Bible of those religious knowledge which needed to be passed on to people. This is an important point for the correct understanding of the Bible.
Imagine what would have happened if, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, exact knowledge about the actual structure and origin of the world, about all properties of plants and animals had begun to be used in the books. If at that time they had started talking about atoms and molecules, protons and electrons, about the structure of the universe and myriads of suns, many times exceeding our sun in size, about a whole world of microscopic animals which no one could see for millennia. What would their contemporaries, as well as entire generations of their descendants, have understood from the narrative of the Bible?
"The Bible cannot be considered a Holy book, as it tells too much about deceits, violations of marital own-fidelity, even about incest and murders, and the Bible does not always condemn such actions."
The Bible is a Holy book not because all its heroes were saints from the point of view of modern Christian requirements. The Bible, as a truthful book, depicts its heroes with all their inherent flaws. Its language is sometimes harsh, almost crude, for such was the life of the people it describes. The Bible always condemned sin, and many of its pages are full of exhortations to stop a sinful life, not to offend God with sins. Speaking of David's grave sin, the Bible through the mouth of the prophet Nathan condemns his action as deserving of death.
Of course, in the Old Testament, the concept of sin was not yet as clear as in the New Testament - one cannot punish a minor and an adult equally strictly for the same offense. Even Abraham, the father of the chosen people, who came from among the unbelievers, could not fully cast off their concepts and ideas. These concepts are not immediately rooted out by God. Divine Providence slowly and patiently educates man, rather than forcing him immediately; therefore, violations of marital fidelity in those times could not be condemned as strictly as later. Likewise, relations between relatives were not considered a great sin, since in the very beginning all humanity was a group of blood relatives.
The Bible contributed to the strengthening of moral concepts, Christianity sanctified and elevated them, and ultimately, even non-believers are indebted to Christianity for the establishment of moral laws. Subconsciously they recognize their value, drawn from the Bible.
Now about pagans. God in any religion is something higher, perfect. Even in Buddhism, where gods are by no means immortal, nevertheless deities represent the basis from which an example should be taken. In paganism there are always many gods and all of them are perfect. Isn't that a lot of perfections?:) Moreover, they differ practically in nothing from people - except for strength and immortality. They marry, divorce, kill each other (despite their immortality?:D ), weave intrigues, cheat, are jealous, take revenge. How can a crowd of children who completely cannot get along with one another maintain balance in the world? With such gods, I think, the end of the world would have come long ago.:)
Андрей
