How do we know that noone altered the copies that we have?
On page 4, it talked about the 27 books of the NT. It is very unique how these books were written, but I am curious. Why are there less books in the NT then in the OT? I mean, Jesus and His followers existed in a period where writing existed. I would assume that there would be more books.
The second chapter talks a lot about Paul’s writings, which got me thinking about how the things that he wrote from prison were distributed. If he was imprisoned for the spreading of the message God had given him, then how was it possible for his letters that carried the same message to be spread around in a way that seems rather free?
How can man be a Christian if he doesn’t believe Christ ever lived? So you can basically be a Christian by just believing the teachings ascribed to Him as opposed to that AND the fact that he lived and breathed? Isn’t there independent value in the two things separated…Christ and his teachings? Just like there’s independent value in Confucianism and the story of his life. And Plato and his merits. I may be understanding it wrong; the wording just confused me.
Why did Matthew, Mark and Luke wait until the Jerusalem tear down to write the books? Wouldn’t they have forgotten some of the details?
There is clearly historical proof for the accounts of Jesus Christ and the events of the time period written about in the New Testament, but does that mean that we should take everything in the New Testament to be true? Yes, we have facts proving there was a man named Jesus, that he did miraculous things, died on a cross, and lots of people followed him. We cannot, however, prove that the other writings in the New Testament are actually true. What about the words that Jesus spoke, or the things that were revealed by God? The people that wrote the bible were obviously advocates for Christ, so who’s to say they didn’t fudge or exaggerate on some of the stories and teachings a little bit? Just because we have copies and manuscripts to prove the writings actually existed, and the copies we have today are what was originally written, doesn’t mean that it’s all true, does it? How can we prove that every single thing in the New Testament is true?
On pages 1-2, he talks about how some people argue that the teacher doesn’t matter so much as the message or teaching he is giving. FFB says that argument works with some religions, but not with Christianity. He went on to explain that the real essence of Christianity is about the good news. I kind of understand that, but I was kind of confused about his explanation of how that argument was different. If it’s the good news that we should be paying attention to, why does it matter who is telling us?
Do people question the validity of other religious texts such as the koran as much as they question the validity of the NT as a historical text?
On page 8 it says, “The dates of the thirteen Pauline Epistles can be fixed partly by internal and partly by external evidence.” What would you say to someone who tries to “rebute?” your arguments against the internal evidence?
why is it that theologians seem to have the harder time believing the validity of the new testament then historians do?
On page 8, Why do some scholars reject Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus saying the words from these books we have from Paul today are not the original words from Paul? How is ok to change his words?
When people ask the question “How do you believe the NT is trustworthy when there are any number of people who could’ve changed it in translation” how should one respond to that question?
How would people justify the thought that it does not matter whether the NT documents are reliable or not? I don’t understand how Christians can believe what the Bible says if they don’t care to know whether or not it is reliable.
When dealing with a professor that discredits the accounts of the scriptures entirely, what is the best way to engage him in conversation or what is the best resource to refer him to in order to ensure he sees the reliability of the scriptures?
Why is there so much controversy over the validity of the Biblical New Testament while other holy texts are not debated as much? How can the truthfulness of the New Testament be tested while there is abundant evidence it is unaltered? Is it a simple rejection of the truth or a vehement hatred of Christianity? Is Satan being used as a tool to blind opponents of the validity New Testament?
How do we know that noone altered the copies that we have?
On page 4, it talked about the 27 books of the NT. It is very unique how these books were written, but I am curious. Why are there less books in the NT then in the OT? I mean, Jesus and His followers existed in a period where writing existed. I would assume that there would be more books.
The second chapter talks a lot about Paul’s writings, which got me thinking about how the things that he wrote from prison were distributed. If he was imprisoned for the spreading of the message God had given him, then how was it possible for his letters that carried the same message to be spread around in a way that seems rather free?
How can man be a Christian if he doesn’t believe Christ ever lived? So you can basically be a Christian by just believing the teachings ascribed to Him as opposed to that AND the fact that he lived and breathed? Isn’t there independent value in the two things separated…Christ and his teachings? Just like there’s independent value in Confucianism and the story of his life. And Plato and his merits. I may be understanding it wrong; the wording just confused me.
Why did Matthew, Mark and Luke wait until the Jerusalem tear down to write the books? Wouldn’t they have forgotten some of the details?
There is clearly historical proof for the accounts of Jesus Christ and the events of the time period written about in the New Testament, but does that mean that we should take everything in the New Testament to be true? Yes, we have facts proving there was a man named Jesus, that he did miraculous things, died on a cross, and lots of people followed him. We cannot, however, prove that the other writings in the New Testament are actually true. What about the words that Jesus spoke, or the things that were revealed by God? The people that wrote the bible were obviously advocates for Christ, so who’s to say they didn’t fudge or exaggerate on some of the stories and teachings a little bit? Just because we have copies and manuscripts to prove the writings actually existed, and the copies we have today are what was originally written, doesn’t mean that it’s all true, does it? How can we prove that every single thing in the New Testament is true?
On pages 1-2, he talks about how some people argue that the teacher doesn’t matter so much as the message or teaching he is giving. FFB says that argument works with some religions, but not with Christianity. He went on to explain that the real essence of Christianity is about the good news. I kind of understand that, but I was kind of confused about his explanation of how that argument was different. If it’s the good news that we should be paying attention to, why does it matter who is telling us?
Do people question the validity of other religious texts such as the koran as much as they question the validity of the NT as a historical text?
On page 8 it says, “The dates of the thirteen Pauline Epistles can be fixed partly by internal and partly by external evidence.” What would you say to someone who tries to “rebute?” your arguments against the internal evidence?
why is it that theologians seem to have the harder time believing the validity of the new testament then historians do?
On page 8, Why do some scholars reject Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus saying the words from these books we have from Paul today are not the original words from Paul? How is ok to change his words?
When people ask the question “How do you believe the NT is trustworthy when there are any number of people who could’ve changed it in translation” how should one respond to that question?
How would people justify the thought that it does not matter whether the NT documents are reliable or not? I don’t understand how Christians can believe what the Bible says if they don’t care to know whether or not it is reliable.
When dealing with a professor that discredits the accounts of the scriptures entirely, what is the best way to engage him in conversation or what is the best resource to refer him to in order to ensure he sees the reliability of the scriptures?
Why is there so much controversy over the validity of the Biblical New Testament while other holy texts are not debated as much? How can the truthfulness of the New Testament be tested while there is abundant evidence it is unaltered? Is it a simple rejection of the truth or a vehement hatred of Christianity? Is Satan being used as a tool to blind opponents of the validity New Testament?