Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Reliable #1

In scripture I'm doing introductory apologetics this term. Tomorrow we look at the six supposed reasons that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

I'll blog on them at Easter... it only seems fitting.

Last week we wondered if the Bible is reliable, so I'll run you through those points over the week.

I think the Bible is reliable as a historical document (if nothing else!) because of how it was put together and what was omitted.

No, Da Vinci Code fans, the church didn't gather together in a council and manipulate what was included in the Bible. Instead, they met together to agree on what was already agreed upon by the wider body of believers. As heresies arose, they needed to work out what was actually the truth and what was not.

The New Testament books had been set in place as authoritative within the middle of the first century.

But, not all books made the grade.

Why, what tests did they use?

Apostolic Authorship
Acceptance with the rest of the Bible – God cannot lie
Acceptanced Christian Belief
Accepted Use

If any "gospel" wasn't authored or connected to an eye-witness, or contradicted another part of scripture, or contained dodgy theology, or was selectively used in an isolated community then it was put in question.

Actually, a few of the New Testament books were touch-and-go (eg Hebrews, 3 John, Revelation) and some quality early church letters were not included.

No comments: