Need some help this Argument. . .

[Guest]

This pertains not only to discussions with unbelievers but it would also help to satisfy some nagging doubts in my own mind. Conversation goes something like this:

Unbeliever: Why do you believe the gospel accounts?
Me: They are eyewitness testimony from people who were there.

Unbeliever: How do you know they didn't make up or add to what happened?
Me: Lack of motive since they all sealed this testimony with their blood and I don't know anyone, including myself, who would do that for a lie.

Unbeliever: How do you know they died for their testimony?
Me: We have church tradition and the early writings of the church fathers that tell us such details.

Unbeliever: So everything we know about these early apostles comes down to human tradition?
Me: Yes. But if the gospels had not been accurate accounts of what took place in the early part of the 1st century, then something else has to explain the sudden increase in converts to a persecuted movement.

This is essentially how I argue my point to unbelievers but I'm wondering if there are stronger arguments available to answer these questions. Again, my goal is not really to win an argument (unbelievers don't care if they lose an argument) but to satisfy my own mind. Thanks again, brothers and sisters.

[Guest]

I think your argument is a great one and quite sufficient to demonstrate a case for faith.

The only thing I would add is that the gospels were written early enough to be thoroughly refuted by other eye-witnesses that opposed the church at that time. If there were a significant movement today to start a church of JFK based on the idea that he rose from the dead, there would certainly be those that would refute it publicly and prove it to be a farse. Nobody can deny the significance of the church in the 1st century. Since there is no credible evidence to the contrary, there is no logical reason to assume the gospels are mere fabrications.

[Guest]

Hi, The gospels are pretty compelling but they don't stand on their own. There are many prophecies that point to Jesus in the OT. If you have'nt read Isaiah 53 for example check it out for it is amazingly specific. There is also evidence outside of the bible about the spread of Christianity. Around 115AD there are letters from Pliny the Younger and Tacitus who were Roman officials and non christians complaining about the rapid growth of christianity and their worship of the Christos as God. There are others including Josephus a jewish historian who refers to Jesus and the tribe of Christians. A really good book about this is "Is the NT Reliable" by Paul Barnett.

[Guest]

JCDV,

I think your case is a good one also. One thing I would point out is to remember that there is a difference between church tradition and early writings.

Unbeliever: How do you know they died for their testimony?
Me: We have church tradition and the early writings of the church fathers that tell us such details.

Unbeliever: So everything we know about these early apostles comes down to human tradition?
Me: Yes. But if the gospels had not been accurate accounts of what took place in the early part of the 1st century, then something else has to explain the sudden increase in converts to a persecuted movement.

Tradition is something thats been done or said alot which can have strong implications but is not always based on hard evidence. When talking about human tradition it can become a "he said"/ "she said" conversation. On the other hand, just as Christopher & Steve7150 stated, there are early writings of manuscripts by people (sometimes not even christians) that can be scrutinized, tested and tracked to the original source of which I think falls into the hard evidence category.
Thats all I got,
God Bless

[Guest]

Thanks for all the comments, some good insight has been offered here. The main sticking point I have is demonstrating that the Christian movement began early and spread rapidly in the first century. I've read Suetonius (an early Roman historian with access to the Caesar's archives) and he mentions a group of dubious Christians and how they were persucuted. Pliny and Tacitus both make references to the movement, as does Josephus. Are there any other external sources?

Also, which of the early church writers gives us the apostolic tradition? In Acts we learn of James and Stephen being killed. It seems almost certain that Paul died under Nero but where does that info come from? Peter's death is alluded to in the last chapter of John's gospel so the tradition seems to fit there. This information would be greatly helpful since the strongest argument for the early disciples is that people don't die for that which they know to be untrue. Paul's writings clearly show that he was an intellectual and rational man so it seems unlikely that he was not in his right mind. This is compeling evidence IMO as long as we can establish that he (along with the many others) historically died for the faith.

A new criticism I'm finding is that of gospel authorship. John's gospel gives us some clues in the text and we know that whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts because the author tells us plainly. But Matthew and Mark seem to be completely annonymous. Since the criteria for the New Testament canon was based on genuine apostolic authorship, I'd like to ask how it is we know the true authorship?

Thanks again and I appreciate the well thought-out answers.

[Guest]

Steve7150, I have studied that chapter of Isaiah and it's compelling because the entire book of Isaiah, dating from 100 B.C., was found amoung the dead sea scrolls. The critic, however, would say that obviously Isaiah was written before Christ, but the gospel writers simply sculpted their stories to make it look like fulfilled prophecy. This criticism is given for every fulfilled prophecy I bring to light, especially that of Daniel 9. How would you respond to this?

[Guest]

Hi Guest, I would think it's a fair statement to say the gospel writers were God fearing jews plus Luke who was a God fearing gentile. To think that all four made up their stories around the same time to make Jesus appear to fulfill prophecy is not credible. However if someone is determined to disbelieve they will always find a reason and so Jesus told us to dust our feet and move on. Re Isaiah 53 it was written around 750BC and keep in mind the jews did'nt look at that passage as a picture of their Messiah but they saw the suffering servant as Israel being persecuted by the gentiles so what would give jewish gospel authors the idea to use this as a Messianic passage? The answer is nothing would ,therefore they just wrote about what happened.
I wrote in another post that Mark may have written his gospel by 37AD because he mentions "the high priest" 5 times without using Caiaphas's name which may mean he wrote contemporaneously plus in Acts it says Peter stayed with Mark at that time. Peter is probably the real source of Mark and Peter may have written the ending himself since it's his writing style and he was there.

[Guest]

Those who have a propensity to not want to believe will always find reasons not to accept the truth. The person who doesn’t want to believe can easily separate his intellect from his emotional needs, therefore, looking for better arguments (apologetics) to “prove” the case for Christianity will most often be fruitless. You need to build a trusting relationship with the person so that God can show you where his emotional needs are. There is a spiritual void someplace in his life. Allowing God to ministering to that need (and not his intellect) through you is the door to his heart and intellect.

I’m not suggesting that there is no place for apologetics. I love apologetics.

The issue in my mind is not whether apologetics advances the kingdom, but whether apologetics without love can advance the kingdom.

A gentleman by the name of Bob Robinson recently wrote: “To merely have ‘better arguments’ reduces the situation to bantering and who has better debating skills. But to have a life that projects ‘this is the real Christ – compassion and love and a resurrection life filled with hope’ gives credence to our reasoned statements that simply cannot be argued with.”

[Guest]

Great point Blind Beggar!

[_Steve]

In answer to some of the historical questions:

1. How do we know who wrote the gospels?

Our earliest information about this comes from the writings of Papias (end of the first century) as preserved in fragments in the history of Eusebius (AD 325). This can be found in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, chapter 39. Papias based his information upon interviews with men who knew the apostles, and Irenaeus claims that Papias was "John's hearer" (that is, he sat under John's teaching), though Papias' own words seem to deny this and to suggest only his acquaintance with those who knew the apostles.

A very good reason to believe the traditional authorship of the synoptic gospels is that none of them is attributed to a very prominent person. If Mark didn't write the second gospel, and Luke didn't write the third, there would be no motivation for the church to misattribute them to these authors, when they could as easily have falsely attributed them to more important individuals.


2. How do we know that the apostles were martyred?

This information comes piecemeal from various early writers. That the apostle James died as a martyr is attested by Luke (Acts 12). The martyrdoms of other apostles is alluded to in other early writers. We should remember that this information, though called "tradition," is really every bit as verifiable history as are most other ancient events that we know of from early witnesses, or from those who had access to early writings that have since perished.

It is unthinkable that men as famous as the apostles would die publicly and then the circumstances of their deaths be forgotten by their admirers within a few decades afterward. John F. Kennedy died over 40 years ago. Does anyone have any questions about how he died? How about a century or two from now? There may be various theories about who and how many had a part in the shooting, but the fact of Kennedy's being shot in Dallas is universally remembered.

How long would it take for some alternative account of Kennedy's death—say, that he died in a sky-diving mishap—to establish itself as the credible replacement of the real story? To suggest that the apostles could have died a certain way, but that some false alternative legends concerning their deaths would come to be believed by the second century Christians is to ask us to believe irrational postulates. I am a reasonable man; therefore I believe reasonable suggestions, and doubt absurd ones.

Also, there would be little reason to claim that the apostles had died as martyrs, if they had not. There is no requirement that a man, in order to be a truthful witness, must die for his beliefs. Though I have no doubts about the traditional accounts of the apostles' martyrdoms, and while I consider their dying for their beliefs a significant testimony to their sincerity, even if they had not died as martyrs, I have ample other evidences of their sincerity.

All of the disciples left homes and profitable labor to risk life and limb as preachers—a trade that none of them had previous experience with, which they had little reason to believe themselves good at, and which, to all appearances, did not pay well. Even if they had not died as martyrs themselves, they accepted the dangerous posts of leadership in a movement which was officially persecuted by the synagogue and the state, whose founder had been crucified, whose members often were imprisoned and killed, and whose leaders were hunted. The persecution of Christians under Nero, for example, and nine other emperors, is well-documented in the secular histories of the Romans.

My faith in the historical accounts of the evangelists doesn't depend upon my being able to prove their martyrdom—nor does it even require that they were martyred. It only requires that they told the truth. Neither I nor any informed person can provide good reasons for my doubting that they did so.