The Thoughts of Ryan-C

*For Previous Chapter Go Here*

The final chapter of part 1 is entitled You Can’t Take The Bible Literally. The three ways that people often ‘attack’ the Bible is scientifically *which was already covered*, historically and culturally. There are countless ’scholars’ out there that denying the inerrancy of the Bible through means of history. They claim that the Four Gospels are only four of scores of other gospels (Thomas, Judas, etc…) that were written at the same time and a majority of them are in contradiction to one another. People often write the Gospels off as legend, but they were written too early to be legend. According to most scholars the Gospels were written 30-40 years after the death of Christ. As they began to emerge the people who were actually alive for Christ’s crucifixion were still living, thus if false books were being written on events they were present for, there would have likely been a large opposition to the Gospels… which there was not. Also, all of Paul’s letters were written between 15-25 years after the death of Christ. His letters thoroughly covers all of the material in the four Gospels and is further proof for there inerrancy. You cannot openly publish and present ideas to the public and church that are false without a noticeable backlash. It would be like publishing a book on a Super Bowl game from 20 years ago and saying the losing team one. There is obviously going to be backlash from those who knew the real outcome. The fact that there was not a fight put up against the Gospels and letters of Paul and the time of their writing is very good evidence for their truth. On the other hand, the Gnostic gospels were written about 175 years after Christ’s death and phased out over a brief period of time.

The next case of historical proof is the counterproductive nature of the Gospels. They are chock full of things that would seemingly work against them but in all actuality they work to prove them. Why would the Gospels make-up a crucifixion when the people of the time would invariable associate a crucifixion with a criminal? Why would they include Jesus in the garden asking if he could get out of His mission? Why would they include “Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani?” All of these things could have only worked in showing a Jesus that was weak and failing. Why would they use women as the first eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection when in this time period women were not even considered credible sources? It would have been much more logical for a well known political figure to have found the empty tomb, but the only reasons that all of these counterproductive details are included because they actually happened. Do you really think the disciples would have loved to be portrayed as cowards and jealous? Obviously not, but they were and they made it known that they were, not for their own sake, but for the sake of the Gospels. I stress this point again, the only reason these details were included is because they actually happened. No one makes up lies that work against them.

The final part of historical proof is the detail found in the Gospels. If they were to be fiction, the fiction of that day did not include meticulous details as presented in the Gospels. When compared to fiction of the day details were often overlooked for broader more extreme generalizations. CS Lewis notes that he has read tons of ancient fiction and none of it even compares to that of the Gospels and that the writing style of the Gospels has only been present in the fiction of the last two-centuries *and obviously the Gospels have been around a lot longer than that*. The only explanation for this is that they were historical records rather than fiction.

A large issue that is becoming more prevalent is peoples inclination the reject the Bible due to their comparison of it to our modern culture. They argue that it is regressive and harmful to our culture. My biggest problem with this is that people fail to recognize their personal location in history and culture. By saying that the Bible is below their culture is to place our culture on the highest pedestal and to say that it is the highest culture there is. This is not only a great act of faith ridiculous in my mind but it also as narrow as the views in the Bible that people are calling offensive. “To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that upset you. Does this belief make sense?” Another thing that people need realize is that they need not worry about the small issues when considering Christianity. Ok, so maybe women shouldn’t be pastors and maybe the ‘free love’ isn’t the best idea, but do those things give evidence that Jesus didn’t raise from the dead? Are those things in contradiction with the central themes of the Bible? No. We need to focus on the core teachings and beliefs of the faith and only when have those under belts can we properly tackle these more difficult issues.

I hope most if not all of that made sense. If you have questions or need clarification, please ask.

Also I hope to review a chapter from a book or the Bible every day from on to keep my flow of knowledge up. I hope you guys enjoy the long reads that are ahead…