Dear pastor,
This is the heart of a lot of my problems with Christianity. Christians, especially the “born-again” types, are always quoting the Bible to back up their beliefs. They justify their beliefs as absolute truths because “the Bible tells me so.” All I can say is, by whose authority is the Bible granted this lofty position? They say that God loves us, and then quote the Bible! And I don’t blame them because that’s the only place you could ever find out anything about Jesus. But it just doesn’t mean anything me because I don’t accept the Bible in the first place. I don’t see any good reason to take the blind leap of faith to accept lock, stock, and barrel the truthfulness of the Gospels your entire faith is based on. Without the bible, Christianity has nothing to stand on and I don’t believe the bible is the word of God.
Sincerely, anti-bible
I. Truth
A. Do you need the bible to be a believer?
Chicken or the egg? Was the N.T. written when Paul was converted? He wrote most of the New Testament.
B. The Gospels are historical documents.
There difference between reading a document as “God’s Word” and reading it as “history”.
We do not ask people to accept them on blind faith.
Apply to them the same criteria historians apply to other ancient documents when they research history.
When the Gospels are treated in this critical-historical way, they fare very well and can be trusted to tell us a good deal about the person of Jesus Christ, enough, in fact, to know that God was present in Him and working through Him in a most significant way.
What are the criteria which historians apply to ancient documents in order to ascertain their historical value? Most of this criteria are just common sense applied to historical documents.
II. Truth criteria of the Gospels
A. 2 groups of Criteria
1. Internal Criteria
Criteria which apply inside the document under question
2. External Criteria
Criteria which apply outside the document under consideration
B. These two groups are expressed by a series of questions historians typically ask of ancient documents
INTERNAL CRITERIA
1. Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about?
Does the text claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on an eyewitness account? Or is it based on hearsay?
2. Does the document in question contain specific, and especially irrelevant, material?
Firsthand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which isn’t central to the story, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalized.
3. Does the document contain self-damaging material?
If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the “heroes” of the story, or especially on the truthfulness of the story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.
4. Is the document reasonably self-consistent?
There is a coherence to the truth which fabrications usually lack.
5. Is there evidence of legendary accretion in the document?
Fish stories tend to be exaggerated over time. The presence of “larger-than-life” features in a document suggest a later time of writing, and proportionally diminish the document’s historical trustworthiness.
EXTERNAL CRITERIA
1. Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?
If a motive can be established for the author fabricating an account, the trustworthiness of the document is diminished.
2. Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and/or which substantiate the genuineness of the document?
If a document’s account can be, to any extent, confirmed by sources outside the document itself. And if the authorship of a document can be, to any extent, attested by outside sources, this enhances the document’s credibility.
3. Does archaeology support or go against material in the document?
If archaeological findings can substantiate any material found in a document, the document’s trustworthiness is increased.
4. Could contemporaries of the document falsify the document’s account, and would they have a motive for doing so?
If there existed persons who could have exposed the document’s account as a fabrication, and had a motive for doing so, but nevertheless did not this increases the trustworthiness of the document.
Now the question, how well do the Gospels fare when examined in the light of these criteria?
C. How does the Gospels stack up to this criterion?
Internal #1
Luke, who is not an eyewitness, tells us that he is using eyewitness sources and that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of the things he records (Luke 1:1–4).
John tells us he is an eyewitness, and the other two gospels, Mark and Matthew, are both written from the perspective of an eyewitness, though they don’t come out and explicitly claim this; they just assume it.
Other sources in the early second century confirm that the authors of the Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (This is external criteria #2.)
Internal #2
The Gospels are full of the sort of irrelevant detail which typically accompanies eyewitness accounts. Let me give you one example (which is all the more significant because it deals with the resurrection).
Internal #3
The Gospels are also full of self-damaging detail. For example, in the resurrection account you just read, a woman is said to be the first one to discover that the tomb was empty.
But this could only damage the testimony of the early Christians, as women in first-century Jewish culture were regarded as incurable “talebearers.” They couldn’t even testify in court.
The disciples are consistently portrayed in a bad light. And even aspects of Jesus’ life are included which, if the story were being fabricated to convince people of His messiahship, would have been excluded.
Internal #4
The Gospels present a consistent portrait of who Jesus is and what He did, as well as of the events which surrounded His life.
If the four accounts were individually fabricated, where did this consistency come from? But there are also significant differences in each account, showing the relative differences of their perspectives.
· If they were all fabricated together, the consistency would be greater than we find.
Internal #5
C. S. Lewis was a professor at Oxford and an expert on ancient mythology. He once said, “As a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.”
The Gospels do include supernatural acts, but the accounts which we find in the Gospels don’t have any of the features of ancient mythology.
External #1
What possible motive would the early disciples have had for fabricating stories about Jesus?
They claimed to believe in Jesus because of His miracles and His resurrection, combined with the kind of life He lived and teachings He gave.
And far from gaining anything from this, they suffered great persecution for it. Why would they lie?
External #2
The authorship of these Gospels is attested to by numerous sources in the second century, and they were in a better position to know than anyone is today.
10 ancient non-Christian sources including historians: We can also ascertain some things about Jesus and the early disciples, things which fit in well with the Gospels, Tacitus (ca. 55–120), Suetonius (early second century), Josephus (ca. 37–97), Thallus (mid first century), Pliny (early second century),
Government officials: Pliny the younger, emperor Trajan and emperor Hadrian.
Ancient Jewish writings written against the Christians (the Talmud). And Greek writer Lucian.
External #3
While there have always been archaeologists who claim that their findings are in tension with some aspect of the biblical account of things, time and time again these findings have been reversed in favor of the biblical account.
Over 84 places and islands mention in Luke’s work and they were all correct.
I know of no conclusive archaeological findings which refutes conclusively any biblical account, but I do know of many conclusive archaeological finding which substantiate the biblical account.
Archeology begins with the bible. The O.T and the N.T. are so trusted to be accurate that we have found many ancient sites just by reading the bible and going where it said it was. Jericho, Sodom, and so on.
External #4
Christianity was born in a very hostile environment. There were contemporaries who would have refuted the Gospel portrait of Jesus—if they could have.
The leaders of Judaism in the first century tended to view Christianity as a pernicious cult and would have loved to see it stamped out. And this would have been easy to do—if the “cult” had been based on fabrications. Why, just bringing forth the body of the slain Jesus would have been sufficient to extinguish Christianity once and for all.
In spite of this, however, Christianity exploded (in a positive sense). The disciples preached their gospel to people who had been eyewitnesses of the things they claimed Jesus said and did. How could they have fabricated it?
Heading 3
We don’t try and present the Bible as the word of God to those who don’t believe. We present the bible as true and credible historical accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. For 2000 years every generation has tried to discredit the bible. Can we find something. Just one thing that would discredit it once and for all. Not once has that happened.
III. Moving from Historical Documents to the Word of God
A. Once we see the veracity Of God’s word, we see our faith Grow.
When you truly and objectively investigate the Bible, you realize something miraculous happened 2000 years ago.
Those things continue to change lives all around the world even today.
Romans 10:17 ESV So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Our faith begins to grow as we Study it and it begins to change us. It always does.
B. It begins to change us
2 Timothy 3:16–17 CSB All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Scripture is valuable because it corrects false teaching while building up believers to live godly lives.
Teaching = Teaches believers to live godly lives.
Rebuking = Exposes and corrects false teaching while admonishing those who believe it.
Correcting = Helps believers see their sin and points them towards repentance.
Training in righteousness = Strengthen and builds believers up to live right-ly.
C. It changes the world
Isaiah 55:11 CSB so my word that comes from my mouth will not return to me empty, but it will accomplish what I please and will prosper in what I send it to do.”
This is the confidence we have in God’s Word — it never returns voids.
Hebrews 4:12–13 CSB For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. No creature is hidden from him, but all things are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give an account.
The world is desperate and longing to hear the Word of God. It is the thing—the only thing—that penetrates and cuts to our core.
It alone is capable of judging the thoughts and intentions of the human heart.
It’s the truth of God’s Word that reveals our depravity and need for a Savior.
And it’s the reality of the Gospel that reveals the way home for sinners — like you and me.
This word, even though many disregard it, will stand forever.
1Peter 1:23-25 because you have been born again—not of perishable seed but of imperishable—through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like a flower of the grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord endures forever. And this word is the gospel that was proclaimed to you.
Summary: the word is the gospel that was proclaimed to you. And that gospel is that God came down and became a man for us. Sacrificed his life on a cruel cross. Then on the third day he rose again to give us victory over sin and a relationship with Him. You can trust his word to be everything you need.