The Bible as Truth
Even if we agree that there is a God (which of course we don't), the questions "Who is God?" and "What does he want?" immediately arise. The most popular answer on the planet (supported by roughly 1/3 of the world's population) is given by The Bible. So, is the Bible "The Truth"? Is it the holy, unerring Word of God? Is it superior to other religious texts? It is infallible? These are all big questions that get raised, and that not even Christians themselves agree upon. However, all Christians do agree that the Bible contains primarily Truth and that it is in the inspired Word of God at the very least. So, is this true?
Affirmative opinion, written by balcerman:
Introduction
Who is the main recipient?
The main topic of the text below is the examination of Jesus ressurection circumstances.
The text is intended for the people who claims that christianity leans on pure faith without any evidences on it, or who claims that the Bible is not reliable source of information, is faked or its authors are liars / phantasts. Also it may be interesting to the people who are simply interested on the Jesus ressurection evidence.
Since main ressurection evidences can be found in the New Testament, especially the Gospels, it is clear that it has to be proven that these historical sources are reliable, and you will find that reasoning as well.
You don't need to have any historical knowledge to start reading. You will find the introduction to history in the beginning of the text.
It is recommended for you to read at least one Gospel before reading this text. It is hard to consider the source which you don't know. The shortest one is the Gospel of Mark.
Why this text is so long??
Because it contains the historical research. Historical reasoning requres many steps, comparisons and a lot of reasoning.
More, is contains complete path, assuming that the recipient has no knowledge about history and its methods and starts with explanation of this issue.
And it is not long - it is very short. I squeezed hundreds of pages of many books to short text and making it readable and understandable. I had to resign from sources other than the New Testament, like apocrypha or jewish and roman writings that describe Jesus and events from His life, to keep it shorter. I can imagine that after reading this text probably you will end up having more questions than you have now. I believe that it is a good overview.
Why should I believe in what you have written?
I strongly recommend you to not believe me and check these informations for yourself. Try visiting some libraries, possibly at the nearest university. You will find many information in the internet but keep in mind that probably you will find 30% "I think...", 30% of emotions, 30% trash data and maybe 10% of true and reliable sources. There is a centuries-long, deadly ideologic war around the person of Jesus since His teaching is radical, revolutionary, and life-changing. Keep books over the internet, evidence over opinion and keep yourself away from ideological discussions.
Remember that this is a history investigation, not building the ideology. You don't have to take it personally or to change your life in any way.
Some sources
To create this text I used few books and scripts. I took the main construction from the book "The Credible Book of Ressurection" of Josh McDowell (part three).
You'll find more detailed informations about some of the New Testament copies here:
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html
Lots of New Testament critics texts are on the main site:
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/
Sorry for the language errors - I'm not native english speaker.
Why history?
You may wonder why I picked up the history to show you the reliability of some past events. The reason is that I believe that science and humanities are
so far the best tools to explore the areas they are created for (and are getting better constantly).
In other words:
- the best tool to explore the characteristics and changes of matter and energy is the physics
- the best tool to explore and criticise the texts is the literary theory
- the best tool to explore the changes of the mixed substances is the chemistry
- the best tool to explore the past of the mankind is the history
- the best tool to explore the life organisms and their origin is biology
etc.
You may disagree with that. I don't claim that these are the best tools ever in these areas. But if you disagree, tell me about better solution, and explain why do you think it is better.
Contents:
1. Very Short Introduction To History
2. New Testament - Do We Have The Original Text?
3. Isn't New Testament a Set of Myths or Legends?
4. New Testament Auhtors - Were they liars?
5. New Testament Auhtors - Could They Know About What They Described?
6. Gospels - Four Stories that Actually Aren't Identical...
7. What Are the Facts?
8. What could happen there?
1. Very Short Introduction To History
The purpose of the history is to explore the past of the mankind.
"And how they are suppose to do that? The past is gone, right?"
Yes, and it is obvious that historicians don't have the time machine to go to the past and explore it directly. But they can explore the artifacts that remain from the part - books, scripts, buildings, monuments etc. We call these artifacts as
historical sources. Needles to say, most of the historical knowledge comes from the writings.
This is why it is crucial to remember that
what we know and say about historical events is what we found in the historical sources. If you say anything about historical event, you must document it with historical sources and give an explanation on why do you consider the authors of these sources as credible.
The method of history are very similar to the method used in crime investigation. This is why they are often bound together and called
historical-judicatory method (I might translated it wrongly, correct me if so).
As in the crime investigation where the suspect is innocent until the guilt is proven, historians assume the "limited credibility" of the authors of analysed text. We are supposed to read the document and listen to what the authors said and not assume the falsification or a lie, at least until the authors will disqualify themselves by giving contradictory or inconsistent informations (J. W. Montgomery).
In the history there is also an assumption that the reasons behind what people do are rational. Example: if a whole nation has migrated from one place to another, we assume that there was an important issue behind that, like more food, danger etc. instead of i.e. fun or lust of harder life.
It is important to remember that history, as most of the sciences and humanities, is about the probability, not the certainty.
I will try to show you that
the historical source named New Testament is credible enough to at least explore the Jesus resurrection. To do so, I will have to explain why I consider its authors as credible.
2. New Testament - Do We Have The Original Text?
You may ask the question "How can I read the New Testament if I don't even know if it wasn't changed during the time? There might be that some middle-age pope added something to it or removed something..." . If you wonder about that, this part is for you.
It is very important to remember that
in this part I am not saying a single word about what is written in the New Testament. Here I only want to know if the book I hold today in my hands is the same book written almost 2000 years ago.
In this world nothing lasts forever. Everything turns to the ashes in some time. The same goes with the rolls which ancient people used to write on. This is why we don't have any original ancient document. Some of them turned into asked, others were burnt or drowned. If we want to estimate the credibility of the document, we must investigate its copies we have today. We must think about two things:
1. How many copies of the document do we have today?
2. How much time has passed from the creation of the original document and the creation of it's copy?
Needless to say, we want to have as much copies as possible, written in the shortest possible time after the original was written.
How does it look like for the ancient books?
Most of them we have in few copies and are made 1000 or more years after the original was made, which is enough for the historicians and for us to accept the ancient history they describe and to believe that these are the original texts of their creators. Here are some of them:
- "History" of Thukydides - 8 copies, the oldest one is made 1300 years after the original
- "Poetry" of Aristoteles - 5 copies, the oldest one is from 1400 years after the original
- "History of Gallic Wars" of Caesar - 10 copies from 1000 years after the original
etc...
Quite nicely proved are Demosthenes writings, documented with 200 copies, 1400 years far from the original.
The second best ancient book is "The Iliad" of Homer. It is far more well documented than most of other documents. We have 643 copies, and the youngest is from 400 years after the original.
The first one is the Tew Testament with immense number of 24,970 copies, and the youngests are made 50-300 years after the original.
Comparing the New Testament with all others ancient books, tell me: if the New Testament is not credible, then what is? Has anyone completely dropped the history of Ancient Rome so far?
Even comparing the New Testament with the documents written much later, it still wins quite often. Are you sure that Napoleone existed? How do you know? From the documents you say?... :)
Basing on the fact that we can be historically sure that the New Testament text is the same as was written originally, we will analyse its text now.
3. Isn't New Testament a Set of Myths or Legends?
"It doesn't make it any better. You mentioned the Iliad of Homer as second best documented ancient book. Even if we can be sure that the text is the same, we still know it's only a myth. Isn't the New Testament the same thing?"
We may answer to that question thanks to the literary theory. There are some characteristics for every literary genre. Exploration of New Testament text reveals that it is far from myths or legends. As for the Gospels there are fragments of poetry as well as parables, but such forms were used to describe the teachings of Jesus (what He said), not the events that happen (what He did). As a whole the closest genre Gospels may be compared to is the ancient Roman-Greek biography. They are also sometimes compared to the reportage.
What does it mean?
It means that the Iliad of Homer is written as myth. It's purpose it not describing the real events but rather explaining the surrounding world as people could do it in the past (like why people live and die, what is good and bad, why there are seasons in the year etc.).
The Gospels and New Testament authors wrote their texts not as a myths but rather as they would want to describe some events that really happened, sometimes amazing, but still real. The purpose of the Gospels is the description of the real events that are placed in specific time and place. There are also text fragments where authors openly say that they don't write myths. Ever seen the myth that says openly it's not a myth?
You can see the difference with your own eyes. The Iliad and the Gospels are widely accessible. Personally it was surprising to me to see a report which partially is so raw instead of drama I expected before reading the Gospels.
4. New Testament Auhtors - Were they liars?
"Even if I can be historically sure that I have the original text of the New Testament, how am I supposed to trust to its authors? They wrote their texts as it would be description of real events but maybe they lied to make some kind of profit?"
The key fact to remember is that the New Testament wasn't written to us but rather to the people who lived in the first century, who actually often knew the events described in Gospels, Acts and Epistles. While authors were writing their texts, they referred the knowledge of their readers, like "You know what we are talking about and you know it's true, because you've seen it yourself".
More, there were surrounded by many great enemies. They couldn't lie because these enemies would surely use their lies against them. Paradoxically our biggest enemies are always our best authentication. Do you know why I believe that Americans were really walking on the Moon? Because if it would a fake, Russians, who were their biggest enemies during the Cold War, would surely and easily point that out.
Jesus and His followers claimed that Jesus is a God. Such statement made them many enemies. The two most powerful enemies of Jesus and early christians were:
1.
The Roman Empire, with their Caesar worshipped as god; every inhabitant of Roman Empire was obligated to worship Caesar. This is why the faith in any other god or gods was the natural foe of the Empire, and the Israel was a part of the Empire these days.
2.
Jews themselves, since they believed that the Jehovah is the only God, and they didn't identify Him with Jesus. For them it was a blasphemy to say that Jesus is a God Himself. Such statements were punished with a death.
The authors of the New Testament lived in the Roman Empire, in the Israel district. What is considered as the biggest argument for the truthfulness of them is that most of them were actually killed by these enemies. As for the apostles, 10 of 11 were killed:
1. Peter - crucified
2. Andrew - crucified
3. Matthew - killed by a sword
4. James, son of Alphaeus - crucified
5. Philip - crucified
6. Simon - crucified
7. Thaddeus - shot by a bow
8. James, son of Zebedee - killed by a sword
9. Thomas - killed by a spear
10. Bartholomew - crucified
The last one, John, wasn't killed. He was banished from his home land and his friends, and condemned to life imprisonment on the island Patmos. Congratulations. Lucky guy.
Many people lie. But I haven't hear about a single person who died for his/her own lies. The solution was simple - to say that there was no such thing as the ressurection of Jesus. And not a single one of them said that? They have to had a really good reason to stand on the ressurection side.
5. New Testament Auhtors - Could They Know About What They Described?
Another question that definitely should be asked here is: "Maybe the authors didn't write the myths but did they knew about what they described? Maybe they didn't really know the events they described? Maybe they describe something they've only heard from others who heard it from others and so on? Or they described the events from 200 years before they were even borned?"
This is definitely the important factor, and it is also used in the historical investigation.
There are two main issues in this factor. Below you will find the description of them.
1. How much time has passed between creation of the original document and the events it describes?
It's quite obvious that the less time has passed, the bigger chance that the document is credible.
How is it with the New Testament, and especially the four Gospels, in which the description of the resurrection is placed?
There were many discussions about that factor. There was a time in the past that historians believed that the New Testament was written even in the end of the 2nd century (year 200). But the discoveries of early copies of New Testament in the end of the 19th century have falsified these beliefs.
How Gospels are dated today? Keep in mind that the resurrection event had place around 30 AD
- Matthew: years between 40-60 AD
- Mark: years between 45-60 AD
- Luke: years between 50-60 AD
- John: years between 40-90 AD
It means that first fragments of Gospels were written even 7-10 years after the events they describe. Even today history books sometimes don't describe the events so fast..
How does it look if we will compare to the other ancient documents?
- Two authors of texts about Alexander the Great, Plutarchos ho Chaironeus and Flavius Arrianus, wrote their documents 400 years after the death of Alexander in 323 BC. Their texts are widely accepted by historians and by us as credible.
2. How close were the authors to the events they describe?
Have they participated in these events? Have they seen the event? Or maybe they only heard about it? Or they read about it in another document?
Needless to say, the closer authors were to the events they describe, the more credible their writings are.
The Gospels were written by the people who were eyewitnesses to the events or by people who based on the reports of the eyewithesses. They were inside the describing events or they've heard the reports of those who were inside the events. Nothing much to say here. We will dig deeper into their reports below.
6. Gospels - Four Stories that Actually Aren't Identical...
"Right... maybe Gospels authors are trustworthy since they died for what they was saying. But there are some differences between the Gospels which makes it confusing.. Shouldn't Gospels say exactly the same story to be reliable?"
The answer is: no, they shouldn't be identical.
Ask the detectives or policemen. It is natural that different people describe the same event in different ways. When the investigation is pending, and you have several witnesses to interrogate, there are 3 possibilities:
1. The testimonies are totally inconsistent with each other,
2. The testimonies differ in some ways but they are consistent in main points,
3. The testimonies are consistent including almost all details.
Out of these three possibilities, the most credible is number 2, as confirming the most natural shape of memories of different people. Number 1 means that probably one or more of the witnesses lie. Number 3 means that probably there is a witness conspiracy.
7. What Are the Facts?
"If we have the original text and authors are trustworthy, what actually they say about the circumstances of the Jesus ressurection?"
Facts about Jesus crucifixion:
- Jesus was judged six times: high priest Annas judgement, high priest Caiaphas judgement, Sanhedrin (jewish high council) judgement, Pontius Pilatus judgement, Herod judgement, and second Pontius Pilatus judgement. Three jewish judgements and three roman judgements.
- He was flogged with roman whip called flagrum
- He had to carry the horizontal cross timber called patibulum (weight 35-45 kg) and He couldn't do it, falling few times and finally was replaced with another man
- He was nailed to the cross
- He hang on the cross for six hours
- After 6 hours on the cross, the roman soldier pierced his side with a spear, and the blood and water came out which is a medical proof of death
Facts about Jesus burial:
- Jesus body was wrapped in linen clothes together with and 35-45 kg of myrrh and aloes mixture from the top of the head to the bottom of foots; after that the body was like in a cocoon
- the body was laid in the stone tomb
- the entrance to the tomb was closed with a huge round stone (at least 1500-2000 kg). It was rolled into the shallow pit in front of the tomb entrance.
- the roman guards was keeping a duty at the Jesus tomb; it was set because Jesus enemies were afraid that Jesus friends might want to steal the body because of His prophecy of ressurection
- the tomb entrance was sealed with a Roman Empire seal
Facts about what happened 3 days later:
- the Roman Seal was broken
- the huge stone was moved away
- the tomb was empty
- the roman guards run away
- the linen clothes were still laid inside the tomb, without a body but keeping its shape
- people had seen Jesus alive. A lot of them. More than 500. Including His closest friends. Including people who didn't believe in His the ressurection as you wouldn't believe in mine. Including His enemies who didn't want to see Him alive again.
8. What could happen there?
"So... He ressurected.. right. Isn't there any other possible explanation of what happened? Ressurection is quite a miracle?.. We can't explain things with miracles."
There are many theories that try to explain what really happened if it wasn't the ressurection. But
when these theories are confronted with the facts mentioned above, it comes out that such explanations would have to be bigger miracles that the ressurection itself. I'm not likely to believe in miracles and this forces me to believe in the ressurection.
Below you will find some explanations other than the ressurection and why are they considered as not sufficient:
A Myth Theory
There is a theory which says that the Jesus ressurection was made up basing on the others deities ressurection (i.e. Osiris, Adonis or Isis). In the popular video Zeitgeist the Jesus ressurection criticism is based on such theory.
There are 5 general arguments against it:
1. Many claims about similarities between Jesus ressurection and dying and reborned deities is a big exaggeration. Scholars often describe pagan rituals with the language taken from the christianity. Such words like baptism or ressurection are used to describe the deeds of deities even if it doesn't have to do much with christianity.
2.Chronology does not confirm dependencies of early christianity from these religions. Available sources about pagan deities that contains any mentions of anything that reminds ressurection come from 2., 3. and 4. century. They were made after the New Testament canon was set.
3. It is highly improbable that the Paul with his rigoristic monoteism and jewish descent had borrow anything from the pagan religions. He rather warned other christians many times to not do that.
4. Death and ressurection of Jesus Christ was placed in the history, in historically described time and place. Other religions in that point were rather ahistorical. They rather reflected the repeatable cycle of the nature, not the linear time with dated events which really happened.
5. Many real similarities which remain after consideration of exaggerated statements may rather reflect the influence of the christianity on the pagan religions, not inversely.
Unknown Tomb Theory
This theory claims that the real tomb of Jesus remained unknown. Most of the followers of this theory says that the Jesus body was dropped in some common tomb with other crucified people bodies.
This theory completely underestimates the direct relations contained in the gospels, which is: it doesn't take all historical facts about the Jesus burial.
Wrong Tomb Theory
This is similar to the previous one. It assumes that the women who went to the Jesus tomb and saw it empty, chose the wrong tomb.
This theory is more a miracle than the ressurection. One mistake is probable. But we know that except for women also Peter and John went to the tomb, as well as other Jews, and then Romans and Sanhedrin. Everybody made the same mistake and accidentally went to the wrong, empty tomb?
The Legend
"Jesus ressurection was a legend - this is what this theory is above."
It was impossible since eyewitnesses spreaded this informations. More, they referenced to what their recipients saw and experienced.
The Hallucinations
"The ressurection had no place, and the people who have seen Jesus alive after His death simply had hallucinations."
To counter this theory some knowledge about the hallucination is needed. Short story long: people who have seen Jesus had various professions, educations, moods, age etc. More that 500 people saw Jesus at once. Jesus not only was seen but also ate the meal, showed His wounds, encouraged people in checking Him by touch. Hallucination won't eat supper with you. Such ideal hallucinations which does all these things would be a bigger miracle than the ressurection itself.
The Thievery of the Body by Apostles
"Apostles thieved the Jesus body so they can tell that He ressurected."
...and they 'reasonably' lied everyone around until they were killed, when they could simply admit that they lied to save their lifes.... Many people would tell a lie to save their live but to lose it?
The Thievery of the Body by Authorities
"The authorities had moved the Jesus body to another, more secure tomb"
The authorities wanted people to believe that Jesus was actually dead and didn't ressurect. Why would they do something that caused them with such problems later? Why didn't they publicly show the Jesus body when the news about ressurection started to spread?
Jesus Didn't Die on the Cross, He Only Fainted
"People only thought that He died, but He only fainted and then waked up"
So... He went through 6 judgements, was beaten to bloody pieces with roman flagrum, was so weak that He couldn't carry the patibulum to the place of crucifixion, His hands and feets was nailed to the cross, was bleeding and choking for 6 hours, His side was pierced with a spear, breathed through a cocoon made of LOTS of spices and linen clothes, then He disentangled from these clothes, moved off the huge stone with His bare hands with nail holes, defeat the roman guards or sheaked through them, walked on His highly wounded feet through the whole town in the heat time and showed Himself to the apostles in a great shape, since they saw a Lord of life in Him.
Sorry, I don't believe in James Bond. It's not that simply that His hit points went from 1000/1000 to 1/1000 and He regained them slowly in a tomb.
The Ressurection
The ressurection takes all facts under consideration. It doesn't bend the facts. It comes out of the facts. So far it's the simplest and only theory that gets all facts together.
Your Own Theory
You can create your own theory.
There are two general rules if you want to think about alternative explanation:
1. you must take ALL facts under consideration
2. you cannot bend the facts to the theory but rather let the facts speak for themselves
Negative Opinion, not yet written:
Relevant Forum Links:
God, The Bible, and Religion: A Kong Search for Truth
YOUR Religion (I included this because it seemed relevant, though not directly on-topic)
