1. Internal Evidence: The New
Testament claims to be truthful and factual (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John
1).
2. External Evidence: Archaeology
affirms the New Testament. There is ample evidence to corroborate the
credibility of the New Testament. A recent discovery (in December 2021) of a
2000-year-old second synagogue that may have been visited by the Lord Jesus is
a classic case in point.1
3. Confirmation by Eyewitnesses:
Another instance is that of Apostle Paul’s affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection,
“...historians trust that Apostle Paul preserved an oral tradition about
Christ’s resurrection that goes back to the early Christian church or the
Jerusalem apostles, who were eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection. Paul’s
letter to the Corinthian church narrates Christ’s resurrection from the
perspective of the eyewitnesses and also as a written record of Christ’s
resurrection closer to the time of Christ’s resurrection, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that
he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he
appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more
than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom
are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James,
then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally
born.” (1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, NIV, Emphasis Mine).”2
4. Criterion of Embarrassment: “If a
report in the Gospels provides data that would have been embarrassing to the
early Christian movement, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred,
since it is unlikely that the author would have invented content likely to
detract from the cause for which he wrote. This is called the criterion of
embarrassment. For example, Mark reports that Peter rebuked Jesus and that
Jesus in turn rebuked Peter, calling him “Satan” (Mark 8:31-33). Since Peter
was a leader of the Jerusalem church, it seems unlikely that the early
Christians would have invented and preserved a tradition that casts him in such
an unfavorable manner.”3
5. Criterion of Unsympathetic Sources:
“If a source that is unsympathetic or even hostile toward the Christian faith
provides a report that agrees with the Christian reports, we can have more
confidence that the event had occurred, since the unsympathetic or hostile
source would not have the bias carried by the authors of the Christian reports.
This is called the criterion of unsympathetic sources. For example, Tacitus
referred to Christianity as an evil and mischievous superstition (Annals
15.44). This identifies him as an unsympathetic source. So, when he reports
Jesus’s execution by Pontius Pilate, a report entirely compatible with what we
find in the Gospels, historians can have more confidence that the event had
occurred.”4
“Unsympathetic
or hostile non-Christian sources have affirmed the following about Jesus Christ:
1. Christ’s miraculous birth.
2. Christ’s claim to be God and the
Messiah.
3. Christ performed the miraculous.
4. Jesus was persecuted by the
Jews.
5. Jesus’ gory death through
crucifixion.
6. The empty tomb.
7. Jesus’ resurrection, postmortem
appearances to HIS disciples, and ascension.
8. Disciples’ martyrdom.
9. Early Christians’ regular
worship.
Does the
skeptic need more proof than this to believe in the existence of Jesus Christ?
If after learning this information, if the skeptic refuses to believe in the
Historical Jesus, then it seems that the skeptic is dishonest in his search for
truth.”5
Endnotes:
1https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2022/01/five-significant-biblical.html
2https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-should-we-believe-christs.html
3https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2020/02/reasons-for-existence-of-historical.html
4Ibid.
5Ibid.
Websites last accessed on 27th February 2022.
No comments:
Post a Comment