Christianity is the Right Religion Part 2

Going by the definition below I am unified with several body parts. My limbs are unified. My brain is unified with my heart. Maybe you didn't read, But I was talking about other books compared with Scripture, Not your body. Your body wasn't put together in 400 years and carry the same message. Let us talk about Reliability and Internal Evidence of the Bible. Twelve Points That Show Christianity is True The evidence for the unity of the Bible is so powerful that a firm foundation of faith can be firmly planted on it. Some people, However, Will need more and understandably so. Happily, There is additional, Substantial evidence that the Bible is historically reliable and was not forged by clever men through the ages. There is also plenty of external evidence-non-Christian-sources substantiating the existence of Jesus and archaeological evidence corroborating historical events recorded in the Bible. When compared to any other ancient document or book, By any fair measure, The Bible acquits itself objectively as more historically reliable. As we point to the Bible as evidence for the truth of Christianity- in its prophecies, Its unity, The miracles, And in Jesus' assertion of his deity-we need to assure ourselves that the Bible itself is reliable. Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Frank Turek build their twelve point case for the truth of Christianity first by demonstrating that truth actually exists and that anything that is contradictory to truth is false. You would think that would be obvious, But in this so-called postmodern age, The very idea of truth is under attack. Next, Geisler and Turek offer proofs for the existence of a theistic God and for the possibility of miracles, And then they demonstrate that miracles performed in connection with a truth claim confirm the truth of God, Through a messenger of God. Having established these matters, Geisler and Turek show that New Testament documents are reliable, Which I intend to demonstrate in this debate and the next. That is crucial because from there, They make the case that Jesus claimed to be God-both Old Testament and New Testament-which I showed in a debate with you, The Bible is in fact the Word of God. Finally, If the Bible is the word of God, Argue Giesler and Turek, Anything that is opposed to any biblical truth is false. Anticipating a challenge from critics, Geisler and Turek demonstrate that their apologetic proofs are not a form of circular reasoning-sometimes called "begging the question. " They assert, "It is not begging the question to use the Bible to prove the Bible when you prove that the Bible is a historically reliable document. " So we will examine the historical reliability of the Bible, We'll confirm that the New Testament credibly records that Jesus lived a sinless and miraculous life, That he performs miracles- including the greatest miracle of all, His resurrection from the dead, Which He predicted and which is the lynchpin of Christianity truth claims-and that the miracles he performed were not random demonstrations of His divine power, But an outworking of His message and purpose. We will also document His affirmation that the Bible is the Word of God. The Quest for the Historical Jesus Before examining the evidence itself, We must look at some developments in our culture concerning the quest for the historical Jesus and attacks on the New Testament, As well as modern trends in critical scholarship, All of which tend to undermine the public's confidence in the historical reliability of the Bible. There has been renewed interest of late in studying the historical Jesus. Was He real? If so, What was He like? Various theories have been popularized to suggest that Jesus isn't who the Bible claims He is and that the gospels are inaccurate, Unreliable, Religiously biased, And largely mythological accounts. "Some scholars think that the Gospels are poor records, Dominated not by historical concerns, But written as religious propaganda for the purpose of communicating a particular message, " notes scholar Gary Habermas. "Many such critical surveys have sought to reinterpret the story of Jesus in manners that emphasized non-traditional roles, Viewing him as a political revolutionary, Or as a Jewish prophet, Or even as a magician. " Many of these modern inquiries are not simply challenging the traditional view of who Jesus was, But are advancing the idea of a completely new Jesus. Perhaps the most notorious example is Dan Brown's book and the subsequent movie The DaVinci Code, Which depicts Christianity as having been founded on myths and legends. One of the book's characters, For instance, Explains, "What I mean, Is that almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false. " The DaVinci Code did have the effect, Intended or not, Of spreading doubts about the New Testament's authenticity and reliability. I witnessed it firsthand among friends and acquaintances. According to apologetics professor Dr. R. B. Rudge, "The idea that the canonical Gospels are historically unreliable is a common theme that runs throughout The DaVinci Code. " The book asserts that more than 80 gospels were considered for inclusion in the New Testament, Says Rudge, And only a few made it. It portrays early Christianity as a power struggle-a time when competing Christianities were vying for prominence, And the one that prevailed at the Council of Nicea (321 AD) is the one we have today. The book suggests that until that council, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet, Not as divine. The DaVinci Code implication, Rudge explains, Is that "when we read the canonical Gospels, We are not reading the best material on Jesus rather we are merely reading the perspective of the 'winners' of the 4th century A. D. Theological battle. " The evidence tells a different story. Christians did affirmed Jesus' deity prior to the Council of Nicea, Argues Rudge, Citing the gospels, The Pauline Epistles, The early Church fathers, And even a non-Christian source-Pliny the Younger, Who served as governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In a letter to Emperor Trajan about how to deal with Christians within his jurisdiction, Pliny wrote, "They, The Christians, Were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, When they sang in alternative versus a hymn to Christ, As to a god. " Indeed, We've already examined the scriptural evidence for Christ's deity, And it's hard to deny that the Bible, Written in the first century AD, Some 250 years prior to the Council of Nicea, Portrays Him as divine. There Weren't Multiple Christianities Along these lines, Lee Strobel asks New Testament historian Craig Evans, "Is it true that the earliest Christianity was a fluid melting pot of different perspectives about Jesus? " Evans replies, "It's not true at all. This is a product of a modern agenda-a politically correct, Multicultural agenda motivated by sympathy for marginalized groups. The question is: What really did happen in the first century? What are the facts? " The facts are, Says Evans, That the early Christians did have disagreements, But they weren't Christianities. There wasn't one Christianity that thought Jesus was the Messiah and another Christianity that didn't; another Christianity that thought he was divine and another Christianity that disagreed; and another Christianity that thought he died on the cross as a payment for sin and another Christianity that scoffed at that. This is nonsense. " Evans explains that the disagreements in early Christianity concerned issues such as circumcision and whether Christians could eat meat sacrificed to idols. But these critical scholars are claiming something altogether different, He says. "They're trying to smuggle into the first century a mystical, Gnostic understanding of God and the Christian life, Even though first century Christians had never heard of these things. " Evans emphatically states that Christianity's core message, "That Jesus is the Messiah, He's God's Son, He fulfills the Scriptures, He died on the cross and thereby saved humanity, He rose from the dead-those core issues were not open for discussion. " Evidence shows that theories that the gospels are historically unreliable are themselves fictitious. Evans agrees: "There's every reason to conclude that the Gospels have fairly and accurately reported the essential elements of Jesus' teachings, Life, Death, And resurrection. They're early enough, They're rooted into the right streams that go back to Jesus and the original people, There's continuity, There's proximity, There's a verification of certain distinct points with archaeology and other documents, And there's the inner logic. That's what pulls it all together. To be con't. . .