As always, I must make mention that this is just one argument for the veracity of the Bible. A person could go about proving the Bible from many different angles, drawing from a mountain of evidence. I have chosen to take a close look at Luke's accounts, that being the books of Luke and Acts. And taking into consideration other things we know to be true, I believe there is proof, or in the very least a convincing argument, that these books are true and truly describe divine acts. But I must start by simply pointing out some facts about Luke and Acts.
The first thing anyone would notice about the Bible, if that person cared enough about their soul to actually read it, would be that this book is historical in nature. The books, particularly the Gospels, describe historical events with great detail. They do not look one bit like the product of legend or fictional pieces. They are not vague nor enigmatic nor disconnected from the time and place. The books are detailed, and include the names of many places and people. Of the New Testament books, two stand out as containing a particularly large number of historical details. Luke, the writer of Luke and Acts, is called the physician but also the historian, because his accounts contain so many historical details. We can be almost certain that his two books are truly his books; that they have the same writer. We know that because the Greek vocabulary and literary style is identical. On top of that, Luke addresses both to 'most excellent Theophilus'. Acts is really meant to be a sequel to Luke. So on with it.
Here is a sampling of the historical details in Luke's books. Luke names 13 historical figures, excluding Jesus, in the first three chapters of Luke. Herod the Great, Quirinius, Caesar Augustus, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, Philip tetrarch of Iturea, Traconitis, Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, high priests Annas and Caiaphas, and John the Baptist, son of Zechariah. Eleven of these names have been confirmed by non-Christian sources, either through archaeology or the accounts of secular historians like Josephus.
Luke identifies the time of Jesus' birth as being soon after the census decree by Caesar Augustus, while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Luke identifies the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry as the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar's reign. Luke mentions that Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptized, and thus began his ministry. So by these reference points, Luke makes it clear at what point in history his account takes place.
Acts contains an immense amount of historical details as well. The scholar and historian, Colin Hemer, did a study on the book of Acts and found 84 details in the last 16 chapters, which have been confirmed by non-Christian sources. Its far too many to list here, but I'll mention a few of them. Without the aid of modern maps, Luke identifies the proper location of: Lycaonia, the river Gangites, Amphilopis and Apollonia, Fair Havens and Lasea, and the islands Caudia and Malta. Luke also records the correct depths of the water near Malta with soundings taken in chapter 27. Luke accurately describes the character of cities like: Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth and Ephesus. And he even names correct ports, as well sea routes suitable with the wind.
So we know that Luke recorded a lot of accurate details, but how does that prove the miracles described in his account? If you take into consideration the fact that many people in the first century believed the Apostles and became disciples, you come to a remarkable conclusion. No one would believe a story about a man who did miracles, died and then one day rose back to life, if the story was claimed to take place in their own lifetime, in their own locality and didn't actually happen.
How do we know people believed the Apostles? One of the best pieces of evidence for the spread of Christianity in the first century is a letter from Pliny the Younger to emperor Trajan. The letter can be found here (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html). Pliny the Younger was the governor of Pontus in the province of Bithynia. That's on the coast of the Black Sea in north central Asia Minor, about a thousand miles from Jerusalem. The letter was written sometime between 111ad and 113ad, and in it he describes some as having been Christians 25 years ago. This is strong evidence that by the end of the first century, only 70 years after Jesus' death and resurrection, Christianity had spread throughout the Empire.
So we know, based on the times given in Luke's account, that the events of Jesus' ministry, his death and resurrection took place about 30-33ad. And we know, based on Pliny's letter and from writings of church fathers, that those events, as well as Jesus' death and resurrection, were believed by many people in the same century and location they occurred in. We know, from the sheer number of historically accurate details and overall consistency, that Luke and Acts could not have been the product of legendary development. And we now know, by use of simple logic, that his works could not have been made-up fiction.
What do I mean by that? Well, suppose I were to make up a story of extraordinary events, and then place this story at a certain time and a certain location. And suppose its location were nearby (think of any place near you), and I claimed that it took place right around 1965. On top of that, I put in many testable details. Do you think anyone would believe this made-up story? Do you think it would make any difference if it was a group of four people conspiring to do the same thing? Of course not. All legendary stories are the product of many years, at least two centuries, of legendary development. Even then, there has never been any legend to come close to being as extraordinary as the Passion of the Christ. There are 35 miracles in Acts alone, and yet, even with a testable account full of details, people believed that these things really happened. Anyone who lived in or near Jerusalem could go and see these locations. They could talk to people who either did or didn't see these miraculous events. If Jesus never existed, they would have heard plenty of people say he never existed. If the triumphal entry never happen, there would be plenty of people saying it never happened. If Jesus had not risen from the dead, the opponents of Christianity would have found his body. If the stories about him were false, then there would not have been anything for the proponents to build off of. And beyond that, there wouldn't have been any motive to. Read the letter. Christians were being killed for being Christians. Why would these people propagate a false story with the threat of being killed for it? There is simply no logical basis for saying that the New Testament books were either made-up or legends. The facts just do not support either of those hypotheses, which leaves only one other possibility.
The first thing anyone would notice about the Bible, if that person cared enough about their soul to actually read it, would be that this book is historical in nature. The books, particularly the Gospels, describe historical events with great detail. They do not look one bit like the product of legend or fictional pieces. They are not vague nor enigmatic nor disconnected from the time and place. The books are detailed, and include the names of many places and people. Of the New Testament books, two stand out as containing a particularly large number of historical details. Luke, the writer of Luke and Acts, is called the physician but also the historian, because his accounts contain so many historical details. We can be almost certain that his two books are truly his books; that they have the same writer. We know that because the Greek vocabulary and literary style is identical. On top of that, Luke addresses both to 'most excellent Theophilus'. Acts is really meant to be a sequel to Luke. So on with it.
Here is a sampling of the historical details in Luke's books. Luke names 13 historical figures, excluding Jesus, in the first three chapters of Luke. Herod the Great, Quirinius, Caesar Augustus, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, Philip tetrarch of Iturea, Traconitis, Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, high priests Annas and Caiaphas, and John the Baptist, son of Zechariah. Eleven of these names have been confirmed by non-Christian sources, either through archaeology or the accounts of secular historians like Josephus.
Luke identifies the time of Jesus' birth as being soon after the census decree by Caesar Augustus, while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Luke identifies the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry as the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar's reign. Luke mentions that Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptized, and thus began his ministry. So by these reference points, Luke makes it clear at what point in history his account takes place.
Acts contains an immense amount of historical details as well. The scholar and historian, Colin Hemer, did a study on the book of Acts and found 84 details in the last 16 chapters, which have been confirmed by non-Christian sources. Its far too many to list here, but I'll mention a few of them. Without the aid of modern maps, Luke identifies the proper location of: Lycaonia, the river Gangites, Amphilopis and Apollonia, Fair Havens and Lasea, and the islands Caudia and Malta. Luke also records the correct depths of the water near Malta with soundings taken in chapter 27. Luke accurately describes the character of cities like: Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth and Ephesus. And he even names correct ports, as well sea routes suitable with the wind.
So we know that Luke recorded a lot of accurate details, but how does that prove the miracles described in his account? If you take into consideration the fact that many people in the first century believed the Apostles and became disciples, you come to a remarkable conclusion. No one would believe a story about a man who did miracles, died and then one day rose back to life, if the story was claimed to take place in their own lifetime, in their own locality and didn't actually happen.
How do we know people believed the Apostles? One of the best pieces of evidence for the spread of Christianity in the first century is a letter from Pliny the Younger to emperor Trajan. The letter can be found here (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html). Pliny the Younger was the governor of Pontus in the province of Bithynia. That's on the coast of the Black Sea in north central Asia Minor, about a thousand miles from Jerusalem. The letter was written sometime between 111ad and 113ad, and in it he describes some as having been Christians 25 years ago. This is strong evidence that by the end of the first century, only 70 years after Jesus' death and resurrection, Christianity had spread throughout the Empire.
So we know, based on the times given in Luke's account, that the events of Jesus' ministry, his death and resurrection took place about 30-33ad. And we know, based on Pliny's letter and from writings of church fathers, that those events, as well as Jesus' death and resurrection, were believed by many people in the same century and location they occurred in. We know, from the sheer number of historically accurate details and overall consistency, that Luke and Acts could not have been the product of legendary development. And we now know, by use of simple logic, that his works could not have been made-up fiction.
What do I mean by that? Well, suppose I were to make up a story of extraordinary events, and then place this story at a certain time and a certain location. And suppose its location were nearby (think of any place near you), and I claimed that it took place right around 1965. On top of that, I put in many testable details. Do you think anyone would believe this made-up story? Do you think it would make any difference if it was a group of four people conspiring to do the same thing? Of course not. All legendary stories are the product of many years, at least two centuries, of legendary development. Even then, there has never been any legend to come close to being as extraordinary as the Passion of the Christ. There are 35 miracles in Acts alone, and yet, even with a testable account full of details, people believed that these things really happened. Anyone who lived in or near Jerusalem could go and see these locations. They could talk to people who either did or didn't see these miraculous events. If Jesus never existed, they would have heard plenty of people say he never existed. If the triumphal entry never happen, there would be plenty of people saying it never happened. If Jesus had not risen from the dead, the opponents of Christianity would have found his body. If the stories about him were false, then there would not have been anything for the proponents to build off of. And beyond that, there wouldn't have been any motive to. Read the letter. Christians were being killed for being Christians. Why would these people propagate a false story with the threat of being killed for it? There is simply no logical basis for saying that the New Testament books were either made-up or legends. The facts just do not support either of those hypotheses, which leaves only one other possibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment