Why do....

[Converted1]

many Christians feel it would have been so easy for early Christians to verify the story of Jesus? The books of the New Testament were written over a thousand miles from the events they record. A thousand miles from where the Good News was being preached. Christianity flourished among the poor early on. The liklihood of many early Christians taking a journey of that magnitude, leaving family and work for a very long period of time to check the story is very unrealistic.
So my question is why do you use this as a way of validating Christianity?

My apologies for my earlier response to a post. I have since read the rules.

 

[Nadiine]

I would just quickly offer that there is more than 1 way to get to the authenticy of Biblical writings to check into their reliability.

Many books have been written on the subject.

 

[MikeMcK]

many Christians feel it would have been so easy for early Christians to verify the story of Jesus? The books of the New Testament were written over a thousand miles from the events they record.

Shelby Foote has written a great deal about the battle of Gettysburg, all while sitting in his office is Oxford, Mississippi, more than 1,000 miles (and 100 years) from Gettysburg and yet, he's considered one of the greatest historians of the 20th century.

 

[Adoniram]

many Christians feel it would have been so easy for early Christians to verify the story of Jesus? The books of the New Testament were written over a thousand miles from the events they record. A thousand miles from where the Good News was being preached. Christianity flourished among the poor early on. The liklihood of many early Christians taking a journey of that magnitude, leaving family and work for a very long period of time to check the story is very unrealistic.
So my question is why do you use this as a way of validating Christianity?

My apologies for my earlier response to a post. I have since read the rules.

I don't know where you get the idea that the books of the NT were written a thousand miles from where the events took place. Maybe you're thinking of transcriptions and translations. But some of them were written by personal friends of Jesus, who walked and talked with him on a daily basis. Others were written by men who were students of others who actually knew Jesus. A lot were written right in or around Jerusalem, but some from as far away as Rome.

At first, the stories of Jesus were told in person by these men who were at or close to the source. Then these guys decided that they had better put it in writing so the record could be passed on and kept straight.

We can be sure that they knew what they were talking about.

 

[HypnoToad]

The "where" of the writing is hardly significant compared to the "who".

Matthew - disciple of Jesus
Mark - disciple of Peter
Luke - companion of Paul (Paul was personally taught by Jesus)
John - disciple of Jesus
Acts - written by Luke
Romans-Philemon - written by Paul
Hebrews - not known for sure, Paul is a good candidate, though
James - Jesus' brother
I-II Peter - disciple of Jesus
I-III John - disciple of Jesus
Jude - Jesus' brother
Revelation - written by John

All people who would have had excellent knowledge of what they were writing.

 

[Angel4Truth]

many Christians feel it would have been so easy for early Christians to verify the story of Jesus? The books of the New Testament were written over a thousand miles from the events they record. A thousand miles from where the Good News was being preached. Christianity flourished among the poor early on. The liklihood of many early Christians taking a journey of that magnitude, leaving family and work for a very long period of time to check the story is very unrealistic.
So my question is why do you use this as a way of validating Christianity?

My apologies for my earlier response to a post. I have since read the rules.

1 Corinthians 15
1. Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
2. by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you unless you believed in vain.
3. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4. and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5. and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
9. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12. Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13. But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
14. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain.
15. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up if in fact the dead do not rise.
16. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.
17. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

There were enough witnesses to the events still alive that could have easily discreditted them for their testimony.

 

[ebia]

many Christians feel it would have been so easy for early Christians to verify the story of Jesus? The books of the New Testament were written over a thousand miles from the events they record. A thousand miles from where the Good News was being preached. Christianity flourished among the poor early on. The liklihood of many early Christians taking a journey of that magnitude, leaving family and work for a very long period of time to check the story is very unrealistic.
So my question is why do you use this as a way of validating Christianity?

My apologies for my earlier response to a post. I have since read the rules.

Its more likely that people were going the other way. Not only are their the various missionary Christians, but a whole load of Jews dispersing and moving around the empire. It seems Paul thought the Corinithians could check up on it. Certainly those in the Jerusalem church and those churches close to Jerusalem (eg Antioch and Damascus) could check up on it. These books were very rapidly dispersed around the churches.

 

[salida]

Converted1--

The bible is a fact with overwhelming evidence that supports it. Yes, its more genuine than any book that exists period. Todays, bible, for example, the King James Version matches up with the ancient manuscripts very accurately. This alone shows the quality control is very accurate. Thus, only a God could have written it. Plus, it has hundreds of detailed prophesies in it that has already come true and more to be fulfilled.

First, I strongly suggest you read The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (its how biblical evidence would stand up in a court of law). And Examine the Evidence by Muncaster (a former athiest).

The christians you talked to? Ha, not many christians in the united states even know what their bible says let alone have the ability to make an historical comment about it.

Biblical Evidence – This is a very small amount of information
out of large amounts of information out there.

Internal Evidences-Prophesies that are confirmed with Bible;

mentioning only a few – but there are hundreds.

Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen. 49:10, Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Luke’s time period is 60-70 AD)

Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5, Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60-70 AD)

Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14/Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(60-70 AD)

Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 – four kingdoms are described in the interpretation
of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek – Daniel 8:21, 10:20/ and a fourth great kingdom to follow which was part iron and clay – which is the
Roman Empire – during this empire, Christ came and the church was established – Daniel 2:44.

Historical Accuracy

The Bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events of hundreds of years ago, yet
none of them has been proven to be incorrect.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents)
New Testament – starts at 25 years – between the original and surviving copies
Homer- starts at 500 years/Demosthenes – at 1400 years/Plato – at 1200 years/
Caesar – at 1000 years

Number of Manuscript Copies

New Testament – 5,686/Homer – 643/Demosthenes – 200/Plato – 7/Caesar – 10

Consistency – Written by 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years, and has no
Internal inconsistencies.



Claim of Inspiration- It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Tim 3:16-17). No other religious book makes such claims.


External Evidences

(Prophesies Outside the Bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never to be built again- and they haven’t.
Niveveh – Nahum 1:10, 3:7, 15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon – Isaiah 13:1-22
Tyre -Ezekiel 26:1-28

Bible before Science

He hangs the earth on nothing – Job 26:7
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago – some scholars think it could have been even 3000
years ago)
Note: Man only knew the above for 350 years.
Earth is a sphere – Isaiah 40:22/Air has weight – Job 28:25/
Gravity – Job 26:7, Job 38: 31-33/Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6

Documents that Prove Bible is True

Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles

Archealogical Evidence (Still adding to this list today- it hasn’t stopped)
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

 

[vespasia]

Luke appears to have made a great deal of effort to contact 'eyewitness accounts' and set them in order.
1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
The Gospels and epistles were written between 40AD and 150AD during the time of the Roman Empire. Travel was very possible in the mediterrianian and letters and news travelled around the transport network. The idea that people would not travel is unrealistic, the majority may have been limited but I doubt that scholars (such as Apollos of Acts) , merchants (Paul was a tentmaker by professed trade) woul have ben static and ideas were certainly not.
When one studies the content of scripture it becomes clear that the good news was never intended soley for the region of Isreal, it was to be preached first to Isreal and then taken to all peoples.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

many Christians feel it would have been so easy for early Christians to verify the story of Jesus? The books of the New Testament were written over a thousand miles from the events they record. A thousand miles from where the Good News was being preached. Christianity flourished among the poor early on. The liklihood of many early Christians taking a journey of that magnitude, leaving family and work for a very long period of time to check the story is very unrealistic.
So my question is why do you use this as a way of validating Christianity?

My apologies for my earlier response to a post. I have since read the rules.

Where is the information to back up the assertion that the "books of the New Testament were written over a thousand miles from the events they record"?

Always another question,

OldChurchGuy

 

[ebia]

Where is the information to back up the assertion that the "books of the New Testament were written over a thousand miles from the events they record"?

Always another question,

OldChurchGuy

Well, if traditional authorship is correct, Mark was written from Peter's stories in Rome, which is over 1000 miles from Galilee even as the crow flies, let alone by any possible travel route. But it seems highly unlikely that Luke or John were written that far away.

 

[The Virginian]

many Christians feel it would have been so easy for early Christians to verify the story of Jesus? The books of the New Testament were written over a thousand miles from the events they record. A thousand miles from where the Good News was being preached. Christianity flourished among the poor early on. The liklihood of many early Christians taking a journey of that magnitude, leaving family and work for a very long period of time to check the story is very unrealistic.
So my question is why do you use this as a way of validating Christianity?

My apologies for my earlier response to a post. I have since read the rules.

In the realm of the religious movie genre, is one about Bernadette of Lourds, starring Vincent Price. Near, or at the end of the movie they flashed the statement: "To those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice. To those who believe, no explanation is necessary."


the sinful and unworthy servant

 

[Stinker]

The first believers were given miraculous power to perform miracles in order to verify the story of Jesus. (Lk.24:49) (Acts 2:17-18, 43, etc., etc., etc.)