[jcapologetics]

There was no central authority over all these regions where Christianity spread in the first 2 centuries — not even Rome. Therefore there was no way that the Scriptured had been manipulated.

By the late 2nd century, the Gospel texts were:

In circulation across 3 continents

Quoted independently in various regions

Translated into different languages (Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac)

And treated as sacred, not to be tampered with.

Writers like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr quote Gospel passages — and their quotes match what we find in manuscripts from different regions. If someone tried to “change” the text, other communities would have noticed.

Copies from Egypt, Asia Minor, and Western Europe show minor textual variants — but the core content is remarkably stable.

There was no technology for mass editing – everything was copied by hand. You can’t change all manuscripts across thousands of miles without people noticing or resisting it.

[jcapologetics]

By the late 2nd century, almost all of the NT books were widely used and cited — long before the Church had centralized power - what's the evidence for this?

By AD 180–200, most of the NT books were:

Known,

Quoted, and

Treated as Scripture by influential theologians across Rome, North Africa, Asia Minor, and Gaul.

This all happened before Constantine, before the Council of Nicaea, and before any centralized Church power.

The Muratorian Fragment (c. AD 170–200)

Oldest known canonical list of New Testament books (discovered in Italy).

Includes: 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline letters, Jude, 1–2 John, Revelation.

Shows that a core NT canon was already recognized, though not finalized.

It even rejects some spurious writings, showing discernment.

Irenaeus of Lyon (c. AD 180–200)

Wrote Against Heresies, citing all four Gospels by name, plus Acts, Pauline letters, Revelation, and others.

Argued there are only four Gospels, like four corners of the earth — strongly opposing Gnostic variations.

He quotes directly or alludes to around 21 of the 27 NT books.

Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215)

Quotes extensively from Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation.

Shows intertextual awareness and treats these books as Scripture.

Tertullian (c. AD 160–220)

A North African writer who clearly affirms the authority of the NT writings.

Recognizes most of the canon, argues against heresies using Scripture.

[jcapologetics]

In secular or naturalist view, some argue that moral facts exist as part of the universe’s structure.

Just like mathematical truths (e.g., 2+2=4) or physical laws exist regardless of belief. They’re not “created” but discovered — just like gravity wasn’t invented, just revealed.

Some argue we evolved moral intuitions because they’re adaptive, but those intuitions track real moral facts, the way our eyes evolved to track light. Morality isn’t arbitrary, but it’s also not supernatural.

Philosophers like Kant argued that rational beings can discover moral laws (like the Categorical Imperative) through reason alone — no divine authority required.

But—

If you believe in objective morality, you have to explain where it comes from, and why it binds us.

Atheists say that moral facts might just be part of the fabric of reality — like math or physics. That on its own makes no sense.

If someone says moral truths "just exist," like “Murder is wrong,” you can ask: Why? What makes it wrong?

In physics, gravity has measurable effects and a mechanism. But with morality, if there's no God, then saying “torture is wrong” is just a floating truth with no cause, no enforcer, and no explanation.

Even if moral truths exist, why should they apply to me?

Without a mind behind morality — like God — there’s no authority to hold us accountable. It’s like having traffic laws with no government or enforcement — suggestions, not obligations.

Evolution doesn't prove morality, just explains feelings.

If our sense of morality evolved to help us survive, that just means we feel things are right or wrong. But evolution doesn’t care about truth, just survival.

So how do you get from “we evolved to cooperate” to “cooperation is objectively good”?You can’t. That’s jumping from “is” to “ought”.

Abstract moral values = metaphysical weirdness

Saying moral values just exist somewhere — like Platonic objects — is kind of like believing in invisible unicorns. Why should we believe in a realm of objective moral facts that we can’t see, measure, or test?

Ironically, God is a simpler explanation — one eternal moral mind, rather than an unexplained realm of floating moral truths.

So yeah — if someone rejects God but wants to keep objective morality, they’re standing on thin ice unless they can explain:

Where moral truths come from?

Why they apply to us?

Why we should obey them?

[jcapologetics]

When atheists are asked where morality comes from, they often point to evolution or brain chemistry. For example:

Evolution explains why we develop empathy or cooperation — it helps us survive.

Brain chemistry explains why we feel guilt or love — certain neural patterns are triggered in social contexts.

But here’s the key point: these explanations describe how moral feelings arise, not whether the things we feel are actually true.

Just because evolution made us feel that murder is wrong doesn’t mean murder is objectively wrong. It just means that, in our evolutionary environment, cooperation and not killing our tribe members increased survival chances.

That’s why the moral argument insists that objective morality requires a source beyond human biology or social consensus — something fixed, unchanging, and authoritative. And the only kind of thing that fits that description is a moral lawgiver — i.e., God.

So in short: evolution and chemistry can explain moral feelings, but they can’t justify why anything is actually right or wrong, only why we think so.

So if evolution had favored a different kind of survival (say, through dominance or infanticide), we might feel those things were okay. That’s the danger: if morality is just a product of evolution or brain chemistry, then it’s flexible, arbitrary, and ultimately meaningless.

[jcapologetics]

What you're saying is you believe in moral intuition.

What about psychopaths, for one instance?

Moral intuition requires morality to be objective in the first place (because it assumes there's a "right answer") and we know that in order for morality to be objective there must be a source outside of human feeling or social agreement. Atheism fails to provide a convincing enough argument against the "moral argument" - brain chemistry or evolution - because those can only explain how we feel about morality, but not why anything is truly right or wrong.

[jcapologetics]