If I can state one specific idea of human life that is believed to be essential to living, it would be the notion that if I truly want to do good for myself, I must work for it. I’ve heard numerous times that in order to advance in life, I need to work hard, and it seems to be true. In order for most people to advance at their jobs, relationships, hobbies, sports, and anything else in life for that matter, they must work. Students slave over term papers and study continuously for higher grades, parents struggle to raise good, productive children in the world, and it’s even apparent in recreation how important it is to work hard. It seems that we have found the ancient secret to success: work hard and prosper.
But if this is true, why is it not taken into account for Christian faith? It seem that many Christians will claim their faith but will not take defining steps toward a dedicated following of Christ. Maybe it’s because of verses such as Ephesians 2:8. Many feel that since works do not save, there is no reason to labor for faith. I must admit that I somewhat believed this at one point in my life. I felt that since I am already saved, I don’t need to work for my faith; it is given by God, and I cannot earn it, so why exert so much effort?
This is a misleading notion when it comes to scriptural nourishment. Earlier in my life, I did follow Jesus, but I didn’t follow the best that I could. I didn’t read his Word often or pray much. I somehow abandoned the idea of “no work, no food” and was tremendously weak in my faith while not knowing it at the time. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Paul speaks of this idea of working. The rule Paul gives those in the church is that a man must work or not eat. This is where the social thought of working for gain springs into play. The problem is that there is an implausible chasm between the idea that is applied to most peoples’ lives and what Paul actually means. It’s not for gain that we work, for Christ has gained all for his followers; it’s for nourishment.
This idea of “no work, no food” is on a spiritual plain. We all must understand that God’s hand is stretched out, reaching for us to take hold where he will support our lives to the fullest. Imagine setting at a dinner table. You take the food and place it into your mouth, chew it, and ultimately swallow it. No one stands behind you holding your jaws open forcing the food into your mouth regardless if you want it or not. God’s Word works in the same regards. It is there for our nourishment and benefit, but we must make the step to take it. Otherwise, we are idle at the table waiting for the food to casually float to our mouths and abruptly shove itself in. This is force feeding, and Christ doesn’t force himself on to us. Consider the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:15. As the feast is prepared, many guests were “invited.” The man doesn’t send out a search party for specific detainees and take them into custody. In the same sense, God reveals himself to us, giving us the power and opportunity to turn to him. We are not forced.
Simply waiting for the food to nourish our bodies as it sets on the plate is as if waiting for God to inspire us without us wanting the inspiration. This is sheer idleness. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul’s main focus is on idleness of the spirit. He’s not concerned for the physical but the spiritual actions of his Christian brethren. This should call for a self-evaluation of every Christian. The Lord desires for us to work and live in him. If we do not, we are idle in our faith which leads to unfruitfulness. How can anyone notice our joy and the love of Christ through our idleness?
Not only does it keep us from spreading Christ greatness to the world, this idleness weakens us in devastating ways. In some aspects, it is like a learned skill. The more we use the skill, the better we become with it. The less used, the weaker it turns out to be. If we concentrate on our faith and nourish it with prayer, reading the scripture, and life application, we will not be weakened but strengthened in Christ’s grace. If we neglect God’s tools for spiritual betterment, we will become brittle, frail Christians not living to our fullest.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Are the Gospels Reliable?
For the next few weeks, the Path will focus on some essential Apologetics. Apologetics is the defense of the faith. While most people think that Christianity is a religion of unsustainable fairy tales, it’s actually a historically based religion that reveals the truth unlike any other. 1 Peter 3:15 states that all Christians must be prepared to give the reason as to why we have the hope we do. Consider how Paul and the Apostles preached after Christ’s ascension. They argued and discussed with others the proof they had to show that Christ was who he said he was. God has given us these tools to use for his Kingdom; we must embrace them and use them to help others know the truth.
This first installment will focus on the reliability of the Gospels and the New Testament. I will approach the situation with questions of a skeptic and answer each one in brief detail, so we can all be prepared for these types of questions when thrown at us. Books have been written on this subject, but I will do my best to keep it as brief as it can be while maintaining for it the attention it demands.
Who really are the authors?
It is agreed upon by biblical scholars that the names that are attributed to the biographies are who they say they are. With the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew was one of Christ’s apostles and former tax collector. Mark is essentially “anonymous,” but there is good evidence to believe that it was written by a close companion of Peter named Mark. No other competing claims carry any weight. Luke was written by Luke, one of Paul’s traveling companions. There is no reason to dispute this either. With the Gospel of John, it is clear that it was written by the Apostle John as he refers to himself throughout the book. He is “the one Jesus loved.” While some try to dispute these points, there is no good reason to doubt these traditional beliefs, not to mention the good proof that each provide.
Why do the Gospels skip parts of Jesus’ life?
A major error that people make when approaching the Bible is that they look into the book with twenty-first century eyes. The authors and literary styles were doing different things than what we would expect in a piece of contemporary writing. Ancients would only look at the important points in a biography and give attention to that. They would not give equal importance to all parts of Jesus’ life such as him growing as a young boy or late teenager. They looked to tell lessons to be learned; therefore, they focused on the important points in Jesus’ life.
Are they based on hearsay or actual eyewitness accounts?
Eyewitness accounts are what the Gospels are based on. One only needs to look at the authors to see this. Matthew and John were with Jesus during these events. Mark and Luke were close to the Apostles, so they were close to primary sources. It is also mentioned in the Gospels that others such as James brother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and 500 others all witnessed Jesus on multiple occasions. There were many actual accounts of this. What many do not realize is that the Gospels were written as historical biographies. For instance, Luke did exhaustive research on this, and the purpose was to give an accurate account of what happened.
Were the Gospels recorded accurately between the time the events happened and written?
While the dates of the Gospels were written no earlier than approximately twenty years after Christ’s Resurrection, they were still written within the time span of the eyewitnesses; therefore, many people who knew the truth would contest the Gospels if they were false, but this never happened except for the Jews who tried to deceitfully cover up the truth, but even they could not argue specific facts. Matthew was written around 70-90 A.D., Mark in the late 50’s, Luke about 62, and John in the 90’s.
This seems like a long time to us but to ancient text standards, this is a very short time. A good example that is given is the historical accounts of Alexander the Great. His biographies are considered historically viable, but they were written more than 400 years after his death, and they are still considered accurate.
Hasn’t legend and myth developed over time?
No, there was not enough time between the events and the writings to promote legend, especially since there were eyewitnesses still alive during these times. Alexander the Great did develop legend, but this did not happen until centuries after the writers of his biographies died. There was simply not enough time for this to happen with the Gospels. Also, the points that are made that tell of Christ’s divinity are mentioned previously to the Gospels. It is agreed upon by biblical scholars that Paul recites in his epistles early church creeds that he learned after his conversion only a few years after Christ’s ascension. These verses include Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20, and 1 Corinthians 15.
Were the Gospels and New Testament preserved accurately throughout the centuries?
Yes, we have over five thousand Greek copied manuscripts. This does not count other languages. That would bring the total to 24,000 in all. This is more than any other ancient manuscript available. The only other competing text is Homer’s Iliad which only has a little over 2000 copies in original language. Homer’s copies have approximately five hundred to a one thousand year gap between copies, also. With so many copies to compare, the idea that they were not preserved accurately has virtually disappeared.
But there are inaccuracies and copying errors. This means they are unreliable, right?
This is the best ammunition for a skeptic. Many try to say that since there are variants, the New Testament must be wrong. They are mistaken by what is meant by “variants.” There are variations among the manuscripts, but it’s all very small variations that do not jeopardize any doctrine. Most are small spelling variants and sentence structure changes that do not matter in Greek like it does in English. While there are some, none are detrimental.
All of these points made are all researchable and can be checked. If anyone wishes for a list of sources, please let me know. Hopefully the next time we are caught up in a discussion about the bible with a skeptic, these points can help give us the ability to speak boldly about the hope that we have in Christ.
This first installment will focus on the reliability of the Gospels and the New Testament. I will approach the situation with questions of a skeptic and answer each one in brief detail, so we can all be prepared for these types of questions when thrown at us. Books have been written on this subject, but I will do my best to keep it as brief as it can be while maintaining for it the attention it demands.
Who really are the authors?
It is agreed upon by biblical scholars that the names that are attributed to the biographies are who they say they are. With the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew was one of Christ’s apostles and former tax collector. Mark is essentially “anonymous,” but there is good evidence to believe that it was written by a close companion of Peter named Mark. No other competing claims carry any weight. Luke was written by Luke, one of Paul’s traveling companions. There is no reason to dispute this either. With the Gospel of John, it is clear that it was written by the Apostle John as he refers to himself throughout the book. He is “the one Jesus loved.” While some try to dispute these points, there is no good reason to doubt these traditional beliefs, not to mention the good proof that each provide.
Why do the Gospels skip parts of Jesus’ life?
A major error that people make when approaching the Bible is that they look into the book with twenty-first century eyes. The authors and literary styles were doing different things than what we would expect in a piece of contemporary writing. Ancients would only look at the important points in a biography and give attention to that. They would not give equal importance to all parts of Jesus’ life such as him growing as a young boy or late teenager. They looked to tell lessons to be learned; therefore, they focused on the important points in Jesus’ life.
Are they based on hearsay or actual eyewitness accounts?
Eyewitness accounts are what the Gospels are based on. One only needs to look at the authors to see this. Matthew and John were with Jesus during these events. Mark and Luke were close to the Apostles, so they were close to primary sources. It is also mentioned in the Gospels that others such as James brother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and 500 others all witnessed Jesus on multiple occasions. There were many actual accounts of this. What many do not realize is that the Gospels were written as historical biographies. For instance, Luke did exhaustive research on this, and the purpose was to give an accurate account of what happened.
Were the Gospels recorded accurately between the time the events happened and written?
While the dates of the Gospels were written no earlier than approximately twenty years after Christ’s Resurrection, they were still written within the time span of the eyewitnesses; therefore, many people who knew the truth would contest the Gospels if they were false, but this never happened except for the Jews who tried to deceitfully cover up the truth, but even they could not argue specific facts. Matthew was written around 70-90 A.D., Mark in the late 50’s, Luke about 62, and John in the 90’s.
This seems like a long time to us but to ancient text standards, this is a very short time. A good example that is given is the historical accounts of Alexander the Great. His biographies are considered historically viable, but they were written more than 400 years after his death, and they are still considered accurate.
Hasn’t legend and myth developed over time?
No, there was not enough time between the events and the writings to promote legend, especially since there were eyewitnesses still alive during these times. Alexander the Great did develop legend, but this did not happen until centuries after the writers of his biographies died. There was simply not enough time for this to happen with the Gospels. Also, the points that are made that tell of Christ’s divinity are mentioned previously to the Gospels. It is agreed upon by biblical scholars that Paul recites in his epistles early church creeds that he learned after his conversion only a few years after Christ’s ascension. These verses include Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20, and 1 Corinthians 15.
Were the Gospels and New Testament preserved accurately throughout the centuries?
Yes, we have over five thousand Greek copied manuscripts. This does not count other languages. That would bring the total to 24,000 in all. This is more than any other ancient manuscript available. The only other competing text is Homer’s Iliad which only has a little over 2000 copies in original language. Homer’s copies have approximately five hundred to a one thousand year gap between copies, also. With so many copies to compare, the idea that they were not preserved accurately has virtually disappeared.
But there are inaccuracies and copying errors. This means they are unreliable, right?
This is the best ammunition for a skeptic. Many try to say that since there are variants, the New Testament must be wrong. They are mistaken by what is meant by “variants.” There are variations among the manuscripts, but it’s all very small variations that do not jeopardize any doctrine. Most are small spelling variants and sentence structure changes that do not matter in Greek like it does in English. While there are some, none are detrimental.
All of these points made are all researchable and can be checked. If anyone wishes for a list of sources, please let me know. Hopefully the next time we are caught up in a discussion about the bible with a skeptic, these points can help give us the ability to speak boldly about the hope that we have in Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)