All debate over Christian religion is inherently legal-historical.
The Bible makes claims; it asserts a feudal claim on all human existence. It further asserts an even stronger claim over all that exists as a matter of legal right and privilege. A certain august sovereign demands his feudal due as legitimate owner and master of all things. The claims are brought to our attention clothed in a historical record. While it is possible to abstract those claims, it is not possible to discuss them without engaging the historical record.
That the claims are presented in a context entirely foreign to our modern intellectual, social and cultural settings is a separate issue. However, we must note in passing that this separate issue is a significant element in confusion over those claims. The claims are couched in Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) feudal law, cast in terms of ANE intellectual, social and cultural settings. Many who claim to represent that august sovereign do not, or at least do a bad job of presenting those claims. In essence, virtually the entire existing body of Christian religious organizations operate from a modern context, though expressions do connect to any number of historical reference points.
Many are Post-Enlightenment American in nature; some are European. Some are based on a period called The Reformation, and a great many Christians adhere to the more ancient Western feudal style of religious authority. All of these notably different from the context of the Bible.
That we can trace the historical record of how those representatives got lost is a salient point in the whole discussion. In any legal-historical debate, all things are cast as a reaction to prior claims. A person who rejects the claims of an august sovereign of the Bible must justify rejecting that prior claim. It is the current individual disputant who must justify a change from previous common expectations.
The valid question is not, “Why do you believe in Christ?” The only valid question is, “Why do you reject His claims?”
It is possible to reject the message of mainstream Christianity because we can easily go back to a prior claim. It is relatively easy to show how virtually all modern organized has departed from the precedents set in the New Testament. It is no small job convincing folks of the evidence because they have a large bundle of a priori rejections to overcome. Still, in the realm of legal-historical debate, if they dared, modern Christians would lose. Folks need not justify rejecting the claims of modern Christian religion of any flavor, but rejecting the claims of that august ANE feudal sovereign is a different matter.
That’s because said sovereign’s claims predate humanity itself. More pertinent in the minds of most is that a the majority of humanity has always been religious, and it is not at all difficult to step back into a legal-historical context where the absence of any sort of religious belief constitutes a self-invalidating assertion. The whole intellectual climate presupposed a priori the existence of a Spirit Realm that predates all current reality. In terms of legal-historical logic, you start from a religious belief and are logically required to justify having none.
You and I are under no obligation whatsoever to defend our faith.
We have very little quarrel with people who embrace other deities based on other scriptures. But all that we know of Jesus is from the Bible. The record there shows Jesus makes much of Scripture and it’s necessity to understand the divine claims on us. It should be obvious to anyone you cannot claim to follow Christ without using some version of the Bible as your central source. His entire message takes place in the context of the Bible, so without fully understanding that context, you have no clue about Christ.
Final point: Our faith is not a philosophical position subject to purely logical debate. It is a moral position with philosophical implications.
