Analysis of Christian theology

Christianity is the largest religion at this moment in the world. It is centered around Jesus and the core belief of Christianity is the trinitarian belief which was established during the counsel of Nicea and was decided by the leaders after a long debate that this shall be the central creed of the Christians.

This analysis will just be my personal reading as to what I feel about Christianity. Keeping in mind I am not claiming to be an expert, I am simply writing about what I know so far through some research.

The Trinitarian concept

The trinitarian concept is not a concept that is easy to grasp. In fact, theologians for decades have wrestled with how to reconcile with the trinitarian concept of Jesus, The father and the holy spirit, being 3 persons but One God. Jesus being the son of God while simultaneously being God, and likewise with the holy spirit being God. holy spirit, Jesus, and the Father are all persons of one God. This makes all three, divine, and in fact, God. May seem oversimplified, but this from my understanding, is what trinity is in common terms.

Philosophical issues with the trinity

The issue is that our philosophical understanding which we use to prove to atheists the existence of God, is as follows: God is someone than which nothing greater can be thought of, a necessary existing being whose existence is not contingent upon anything else.

The above definition of God is something that resonates with basic human reasoning. It resonates with human reasoning so much that when we speak to atheists or agnostics, we use the famous cosmological argument to prove the existence of God. We define God in this manner because through logical deduction, such a God makes sense.

The question that comes to mind is if “God” (as defined above) did not exist, would Jesus have existed? The logical answer is no. In fact, without God nothing could exist, that includes Jesus. This entails that Jesus’ existence is contingent upon the existence of “God”. This contradicts the definition of God as we stated above, which is the primary definition of God that scholars of philosophy such as Anselm, Aristotle, Al Ghazali, Al Farabi, and even William Lane Craig who is a more contemporary Christian scholar who debates atheists, use. The very nature of Jesus’ existence being contingent upon the existence of “God” proves that Jesus being God could not have been the case since his nature goes against the foundational definition of God.

The other issue we can point towards is that Jesus has the capability of being “generated”. Which means, Jesus began to exist at a point in time. We have to realize that God by definition does not begin to exist at a certain point in time neither does God exist in “a point in time”. The issue is that Jesus does not fulfill the basic definition of “God” as we defined above.

The concept of forgiveness of sin

The issue with God sending and sacrificing his son for the sin of mankind is also something that assumes that it is possible that God can be at a “loss”. To explain this, sacrifice by definition means to willingly be at a loss by giving up something. The issue is, that an omniscient, powerful God by definition is too great to be in a position of ever being at a “loss”. So the sacrifice itself ends up being not really a “sacrifice” but really it just ends up being symbolic since it is not possible for a God to be “at a loss”. God is simply to great to ever be at a loss of anything.

There is also the issue of did Jesus pay for all sins? or did he only pay for the sins of those who believe in him? After all, disbelieving in Jesus and God in itself is a sin, so if all sins are paid for, surely all sins would include the sin of not believing in Jesus. Ultimately meaning, that we all should be saved. However, we know only those who believe in Jesus will be saved. So it would be incorrect to say Jesus paid for all sins. He paid for all sins except the sin of not believing in him. Or, he only paid for the sin of those who believe in him. Should Jesus pay for all sins for all of humanity, that would include every single person, including non believers, and every single sin, which would include the sin of not believing in Jesus.

Preservation of the bible

It is well known that the preservation of the bible is not something that is agreed upon. In fact, there isn’t much information as we don’t have original manuscripts. Many verses have been omitted and added that are not available in the original manuscripts. One of the examples of this addition is the story of Jesus and the Adulterous.

A scholar by the name of John Mill, even pointed out the thousands of variants among hundreds of different new testament bibles. The first fully finished manuscript of the new testament that we have is from 367 AD. The issue is that the original manuscripts are non existent, and the current manuscripts we have are actually copy of the manuscripts, which were copy of another manuscript preceding it, and so on. Hence why if someone was to doubt the reliability of the biblical canon of the new testament (even the old testament but that’s another topic), that doubt would be understandable.

It is worthy of noting however, that the earliest (incomplete) manuscript we have is from second century, the only issue being is that it is only a small sized parchment.

Later developments & further confusion regarding biblical canon

There are some Christian sects and scholars that hold that trinity as a concept was a later development. Adherents of Jehova’s witness as well as other sects who are reject the trinity say the same. Their argument is quite simple and that is that, the trinity concept was later developed and was made the standard creed by the counsel of Nicea. Which is understandable, since there is a lack of mention of the trinity, that is, an explicit mention of such a vital creed. The concept also cannot be found in the old testament.

Regarding the canonization, We know that different sects deem different books as part of the bible. Generally there are 66 books, but some prominent sects have different numbers (I think eastern orthodox say there are 72 books in the biblical canon). The number of books that are deemed to be “the word of God” should have no confusion as to how many books account for that sacred word of God.

It is well known that many verses such as the story of Jesus and the adulterer is non existent in manuscripts before the 12th century. Similar situation with the last 11 verses of Mark.

The earliest manuscript of the new testament we have is the 2nd century papyrus p52, which is a very small sized parchment. According to a research named “Authorship of Pauline epistles revisited” by Jacques Savoy, it is stated that “In the writings attributed to Paul, the Hebrews and the pastoral epistles1 (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus (addressed to an individual rather than a community)) are the most disputed letters” (Savoy 2019). The study also states “These results do not corroborate the hypothesis that Paul is the author of seven letters” (Savoy, 2019). The full study will be linked in the bibliography. Keeping in mind, these are just a tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems with the canonization of the bible.

The biggest issue about it is that different sects of Christianity disagree about what accounts as the word of God. The biblical canon consists generally of 66 books, but some sects within Christianity believe it to be 72. The authors of many of these biblical texts are unknown. The example of this is the song of the psalms, in which some of the authors are unknown.

Another example of this is that the book of Samuel’s authors are anonymous. While some parts of the book is attributed to some authors, it is widely disputed in terms of it’s authorship. It is stated “The author or authors of 1 and 2 Samuel are not known. These books recount the stories of Samuel, Saul, and David. Saul’s reign began between 1050–1030 B.C. and ended in 1010. David then reigned until 971. The books were probably written soon after the end of his reign.” (ESV.ORG, 2015)

The same can be said about the old testament book known as “song of the songs” which is attributed to King Solomon. It is unknown who the author is, but the book is attributed to King Solomon. It is stated in an article named “The Megillot (the scrolls)” that “The Hebrew title of the book mentions Solomon as its author, but this seems improbable, primarily because of the late vocabulary of the work. Although the poems may date from an earlier period, the present form of the book is late, perhaps as late as the 3rd century BCE, and its author remains unknown.”(Nahum M. Sarna, Emilie T. Sander, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, J. Coert Rylaarsdam, Robert M. Grant, Robert L. Faherty and others, 2008).

Why is this an issue?

The authorship of the biblical texts matters a lot because it is indirectly linked with the theological implication of bible being the God’s word. The issue is, if we do not know the authors, who they were, and their likes, how do we confirm whether what is the word of God and what Isn’t? If what is being added later on also part of the “word of God”? How can God’s words be tampered with?

Authorship is something extremely vital in every sense of any book. The biblical canon is a deep and complex topic, however there are some very obvious questions that aren’t answered properly.

Sources:

Introduction to 1–2 Samuel. (2015, April 22). Retrieved from https://www.esv.org/resources/esv-global-study-bible/introduction-to-1-2-samuel/

Savoy, Jacques. (2019). Authorship of Pauline epistles revisited. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 10.1002/asi.24176.

Bruce, F. F., & Flusser, D. (2018, October 2). The Megillot (the Scrolls). Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-Megillot-the-Scrolls#accordion-article-contributors

Swales. J (n.d) https://unsplash.com/photos/fIDIgxZpdSM