Happy Sunday! A guy I know, who in fairness to all beliefs, is kind of antagonistic against anything associated with faith, wanted to take a jab at the Bible. It was not the first time I had heard someone repeat something that they had heard somebody else repeat and thought it was clever. Kind of like on Twitter. He asked, in a way that made clear that he wasnt actually interested in an answer, how I could take the gospels accounts of Jesus life seriously, because they were, after all, written hundreds of years after the life of Christ, by men who had never seen him in person? It was intended to be a gotcha! question that exposes some preposterousness about the Bible. The thing is, the question is preposterous. To break it down, his argument for dismissing the four, parallel historical accounts of Jesus life as unreliable were because they were written some time after the event happened, and by someone who may not have been an eye witness? Its preposterous because we dont apply that standard to any other historical subject that we might all have studied, know about and talk about? How many history text books have we read throughout our education, about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, the Underground Railroad, World War II, etc? We were not told that we should automatically suspect everything written in them, because they were not written by eye-witnesses moments after the event happened. We trusted that the authors had researched their topics and vetted their information before presenting it as fact. Therefore, why wouldnt we also expect those who were setting out to chronicle what they considered to be the most important historical events in human history to be just as careful as those sources of history and truth that we take for granted?
Posted on: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:26:59 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015