Hey!
To those that think that the Bible is infallible, could you please let us know why? Clearly it's a minority position, even among Christians. If you could give your theological reasons and maybe psychological reasons, that would be grand. I know about the Timothy reference, but we know that's circular, so there's no point mentioning it. I'm more interested in actual theological reasoning.
I love it!!!!!!!!!!! A direct question requiring a direct answer.
Personally I do not yield the fact that it is a minority opinion among Christians, but we'd have to define what a Christian really is. (Another time perhaps) Also I'd have to say that this question has been answered in many of the discussions and arguments put forth throughout this thread. I'll give you my answer, but it will not be a short one.
First, it has to be recgonized that it is, in part, a matter of faith. Which for an individual means it is a choice to accept it as truth. Everyone has to make that choice for themselves, no one makes it for you. It is a function of our souls (mind will and emotions) to do that. So, no matter what the evidences and proofs that are presented it still comes down to a personal choice.
This-BTW is part of the answer to your free will question.
Part of the answer that it is possible to prove the existance of a thing without actually seeing it. This is done by observing its effects, and concluding its properities by those effects. This is an established scientific method. The easiest example is of course gravity. But another one is black holes in outer space. No one has seen them, but they were "discovered" by looking at the patterns of light in space, and because of those effects, making a deduction and conclusion and calling what caused those effects "black holes" We all accept the reality of these black holes, because others have told us that they are there. None of us has actually seen or experienced one.
Before anyone starts typing a reply about my reasoning, I am going somewhere with this, so hang in there.
My point is that there has never been any archaeological discoveries and research that has disproven any stated historical fact in the Bible. In fact quite the opposite is true. Sir William Ramsey a very noted archaeologist and not a Christian, wrote in "The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of The New testament" That Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Book of Acts, "is a historian of the first rank, and should be placed along with the very greatest of historians"
This is but one of many references that I have. I will save time and space by not going into all of them. (A big collective sigh of relief across the internet)
I will say that the New Testament has been dated to within 40-80 years after the facts they wrote about. Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University wrote
" Arguments that Christianity hatched its Easter myth over a lenghty period ot time , or that the sources were written many years after the event are simply not factual"
In short, what the New Testament says, and what has been passed down to us, is essentially exactly the same as originally written.
There are 3 basic tests of historiography, the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.
The bibliographical test examines how reliable the copies of the original documents are that have reached us. For instance Julius Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 58 BC. It's manuscript authority rests upon 9 or 10 manuscripts written 1000 years after his death.
There are indeed 20,000 copies of NT manuscripts in existence today. The interval between the original writings and the manuscripts they have today have been called " ...so small as to be considered negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us essentially as written has now been removed"
The internal evidence test examines the credibility of what was written. Aristotle once wrote "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself". The Bible was written by eyewitnesses, or by those who knew those eyewitnesses. Read Luke 1: 1-3 and 2nd Peter 1:16 The writers claim they are writing the truth, as it happended, and as they experienced it. Also John 19 :35 and
1st John 1:3. When faced with critics the disciples often turned it back on them saying, you know these things you saw them too. It is very plain that the disciples were under very close scrunity for everything they were saying. (look at what some on this forum have said about infallibilty and their expectations of it) They could not afford to slip up, because there were a great many people just waiting for them to get it wrong. News people today refer that to a "gottcha question"
None of the testimonies of these eyewitnesses were ever completly disregarded, and that in itself speaks to their reliability.
The external evidence test: Does any outside evidence confirm or deny the internal evidence? This is probably the decisive bit of evidence. This is too extensive to write all out, but here are some names: the historian Eusebius preserved the writings of Papias who wrote in AD 130, and was a follower of John.
Irenaesus was who was a student of Polycarp, another disciple of John also confirmed the accounts.
And as noted above many, many archaeologists and their discoveries have confirmed the historical record of the Bible.
What does all of this mean? Simply this. Christianity at that time stood soley upon the accounts of eyewitnesses. All it would have taken to end the entire thing was to simply prove that those eyewitness accounts were not true, or that the speaker/writer were intentionally telling lies, and the entire thing would have collasped. I am not talking about philosphical arguments, or theological discussions, but actual historical facts.
If one wishes to discard the Bible than they must also discard all the writings of antiquity.
Dr. Clark Pinnock of Regent College stated that "Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias"
This is only part of it.
Then we come to the man Jesus himself. Since we can now conclude that the writings about him are accurate, what about Him?
Well by His own words, and and actions we are faced with only 3 ways to look at Him. He is either Lord, liar, or lunatic. He gave us no other choice about it. He either spoke the truth or He did not. And if he did not then He was insane, or He as pulling off the greatest hoax and con game in all of history.
He claimed to be God, was He telling the truth? He was not just a great moral teacher, His claims to Divinity make that impossible.
This is the crux of the matter, and the one thing that will bring on the most debate. I ask everyone to be honest with at least themselves here. Many of you will not be able to make that statement. Because in so doing, you will have to admit that Christianity is the truth, and that God does exist. So even if it does make sense to you, you will reject it, so you will not have to face up to it. And accepting this is the step of faith that is essential to being a Christian.
I will not be going into more discussion about the three choices, that is for another thread, or topic. If you have not guessed it, I am strongly on the side of "Lord" in the matter
Jesus quoted from the Old Testamant often. He referred to it as truth. If He is Lord, then it stands to reason that He knew what He was talking about. His claims about himself, and His acceptance of the Bible are intertwined. If you accept one, you have to accept the other. Enough said on that.
There is a diference between scientific and legal-historical proof.
Scientific proof is basically conclusions and assumptions brought about by using the scientific method. The scientific method is based upon expermination and/or repeated observation. It requires a controlled enviroment. If this is the only way to prove things then you could not prove you had breakfast this morning.
And lawyers would quickly be put out of business. (Hmmmm).
The statement "Was Jesus Christ raised from the dead?" cannot be scientifically proven or disproven, it hs to be looked at in the context of legal-historical proof, The same holds for the question of Bibical authority as the Word of God. I have already touched upon several historical proofs, and my fingers are getting tired, so I keep mistyping things.
The Ressurection is the central point of Christianity, without it there is no church. And either it happened or it did not. No other way to look at it. As I said above you can prove or at least make solid conclusions by looking at the effects of the thing you are examining. It stands to reason then that Jesus would know and understand how important His rising from the dead would be to His mission, and His followers. This is an innescapable conclusion. He told them He would rise again. They were waiting around in Jerusalem for it to happen. Now, when it actually did, of course they were surprised, learning about deep sea fishing and then going out and doing it are two different experiences. And this was a bit more unusual than going fishing.
In context, the night Jeses was arrested and tried, the disciples scattered and ran for their lives. Peter, who Jesus had singled out to be their leader, was so frightened that he let a servant girl intimidate him into denying Jesus while He was standing nearby.
This was a confused, demoralized, frightened group of people who had suddenly lost their leader, due to treachery. They were not in their home towns, and they only knew to huddle together and wait.
3 days later they are a completly changed and engerized group , full of hope, joy, strength,and confidence. This was the effect, what caused it? They claimed that Jesus had risen. Were they telling the truth?
If not, then what did happen? Did they steal the body? Did someone else? Was it still there?
Clearly it was not still there, all anyone had to do was go back and produce it, and the entire caper is blown. Simple, easy, done deal. Remember all of Christianity depends upon this fact, and no one, ever, ever could produce the body.
Could the 11 have done it? Well, since it was known that Jesus claimed publically that He would rise, the Priests put a Temple Guard over it. They wanted the Romans to do it, but Pilate had had enough of this affair by now, and dismissed them.
Is it propable that 11 frightened, and demorialized men could have overcome an armed Guard who were waiting for them, and trained in warfare? Not hardly. Go try it some time. Get 10 of your friends, announce you are going to break into a locked store and take whatever you want. Wait until the police arrive, and unarmed, have at it. Make sure you video it, I want to see.
The Christian faith is not one of blind obedience that is one great misconception. Another is that it is a faith made for a group of people. Christianity is an intelligent faith, and we are encouraged to use our reason and intellect. Asking questions is not a sin. Jesus asked many questions of His disciples. Paul was a lawyer, Luke a doctor, Matthew, a scribe, Peter a owner of a fishing business. These were not illiterate, ignorant men.
And all of Christianity is set up so to be a personal relationship with the entire Trinity. It is an individual choice, and it is not mass hypnosis. God deals with each of us as we are.
So beyond the evidence and proven facts, and the testimony of eyewitnesses, I fall back upon what I have seen and heard in my life that completly confirms what I have examined for myself. And it is very instructive, and in going back over the centuries, thousands of men and women have expressed exactly or nearly so, the same experiences in the same words. Now I have read all of your arguments about popularity, and other related arguments, so do not take this out of context. This in itself does not constitute proof, because anyone can say anything. (and many do)
But for me personally, dealing with a personal God and Saviour, it affirms and reinforces-for me, my beliefs.
This, taken as a whole, is part of the reasoning I take the Bible as the authoritive Word of God. Yes some parts are meant to be taken figuratively, but like many others I follow this way of interpetation: I take it literally, unless that makes no sense at all, then I take it figuratively. I am sure that those of you smarter than I am can go through and pick out something here or there. But this is an entire package, and takiing things out of context does not work with me.
I said it would be a very long answer, and I left out some parts, but this give you a good idea for what you have asked.
