Is the New Testament Reliable?

Last week's series of posts left off at a crucial point: is the Bible reliable?  Specifically, I would like to deal with the New Testament.  As I have studied and read and contemplated many philosophical/theological/scientific points and arguments, I believe the lynch pin in the whole ordeal is Jesus.

If Jesus really was raised from the dead, then that historical phenomenon changes everything.  If Jesus was who He claimed He was, well, that adds another dimension.  There are those who scoff at Jesus and the claims of the resurrection.  Rightfully so.  We are even told by St. Paul in scripture that the idea of the resurrection was foolishness and a stumbling block to many even in the ancient world.  Dead men don't just come back to life--especially those who had been crucified by the Romans.  You see, the Romans had a 100% success rate of death by crucifixion.  Once you were nailed to a cross, you were a goner.  Plain and simple.

But one can even doubt the historical veracity of the crucifixion or the historical veracity of Jesus Himself by simply saying the Bible stories about Jesus were simply made up--lies--inventions of various communities or people who were starting a new religion.  These things are actually floating around, and some have gained quite a bit of steam.  Richard Dawkins even casts doubt on Jesus as a historical figure in his book The God Delusion.

Yet, there are really no serious ancient historians who doubt the existence of Jesus.  None.  Nearly all regard Him as a historical figure.  Why?  Frankly speaking, we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for folks like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. 

There have been several lectures I have watched on YouTube from many experts in the field.  Below are several videos.  Nearly all of them are over an hour long.  If you are truly interested in the evidence, I invite you to watch them and judge for yourself:

These four videos are thorough with their presentation of the evidence regarding Jesus.  They also make a strong case for the reliability of the New Testament especially the Gospels.  A very detailed approach to the reliability of the Gospels comes from Richard Bauckham in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.   Bauckham is thorough--very, very thorough.

Mind you, none of these folks gives absolute proof that the New Testament is 100% accurate, but they are saying, quite frankly, that by the tools of ancient history, the Gospels are reliable.  They can be defined as ancient biography based upon the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events surrounding the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Eyewitness testimony is not without its faults.  It does not capture every detail of an event, and our brains tend to remember only certain points.  However, there is something quite interesting about eyewitness testimony--it begs to be accepted as long as the witness is deemed credible.  (The credibility of the eyewitnesses is dealt with very strongly, I think, by the videos.)  I mean, as I have pointed out in a sermon illustration before--if you are on a date with your significant other, and she outlines her day for you.  If you respond, "That sounds great, honey, but do you have any corroborating evidence to back up your assertions?", then your night is going to go downhill very, very fast. 

If indeed the New Testament is reliable and we can get a sense of Jesus through those writings, then we must deal with two important claims: Jesus was raised from the dead, and Jesus claimed to be God.

Time demands me to stop today.  Tomorrow is another day.

The "Something" Out There is Personal

Michio Kaku offers an interesting take on transcendence and whether or not God exists.

Interestingly enough, this famous physicist ends up basically where I left this blog yesterday.  There is a transcendent reality, but it isn't personal.

I would like to argue that this transcendent reality is indeed a personal reality, and I would like to start with a common parable--one which I have used in my sermons a couple of times--the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

This parable is about a group of blind men who stumble upon an elephant in their path.  They strive to see the elephant.  Each touches a different part of the elephant, and then they argue about the nature of that elephant.  One argues the elephant is like a spear--he touched the tusk.  One argues the elephant is like a hose--he touched the trunk.  One argues the elephant is like a wall--he touched the torso.  One argues the elephant is like a rope--he touched the tail.  One argues the elephant is like a tree trunk--he touched the leg.  And so on and so forth.  Each believed his piece of the elephant constituted the entire reality of the elephant, but they were all wrong.  In one way, they were all right, but in another, they were all wrong.

Folks like to use this analogy/parable and apply it to religions.  Most religions worship a transcendent reality, but how does one know what that reality is like?  The parable suggests no one really knows for sure--all are blind and only "see" one part.  None has the big picture.

This might be an interesting argument to talk about the nature of religions except for one small problem--the parable doesn't work unless someone knows what the whole elephant looks like to begin with.  Only an outsider who knows what the whole elephant looks like can say, "All the guys were right, and all the guys were wrong."  Therefore, if you want to use this parable to talk about religion--and how religion views God, then you either have to admit you are blind (and only have a limited knowledge of God yourself) or that you somehow see the entire elephant.  At this point, you've actually backed yourself into the proverbial corner.

Unless there is someone who has actually seen the nature of God.  Unless there is someone who has encountered the transcendence and become immanent.

Christianity is the only religion which professes such a thing to have happened.  Christianity is the only religion which claims the transcendent reality of God took on flesh and lived among us.  Christianity is the only religion which claims we don't have to work our way up to God, but God worked His way down to us.

If we as humankind are striving to work our way up to a transcendent reality, we will never make it. We will never know what kind of transcendence is out there.  It is an impossibility.  But, if that transcendent reality has made itself known...that changes everything.

Christianity claims Jesus came to reveal the true nature of God--being fully God and fully human, and this claim grounds itself in the writings of Scripture.  Jesus claimed to be God and to know God.

The claim was radical--absolutely radical--especially given the Jewish culture to which Jesus entered into. It would have done more than raise eyebrows.  It would have been cause to see Jesus as insane, dangerous, blasphemous, even evil.  We see hints of this throughout the gospel stories.

Which brings me to the crux of the argument--if the transcendent indeed became immanent in Jesus, then the stories about Jesus must be reliable.  Are they?

Another blog topic.