I've written about what I believe--we were challenged to do so many years ago at a church we had started attending. It was something I had never been challenged to do before, and I would encourage you to do the same. I've also written my testimony, probably more times than I can count (I grew up in a Baptist church, after all). It's been updated time and again, which should always be the case if you ask me because I should always be learning more about God and realizing what He has done for me (which is somewhere I very much fall short).
Today, though, I realized that I've never sat down and thought about why I believe. Honestly, that's not a simple task. It seems like why is always the most complex question to answer.
My first why comes from something most of us use as a basis for belief--it's what I've been taught, and the people I learned from were/are trustworthy. As Paul wrote to Timothy: "So surely you ought to stick to what you know is certain. All you have learned comes from people you know and trust because since childhood you have known the holy Scriptures, which enable you to be wise and lead to salvation through faith in Jesus the Anointed." (2 Timothy 3:14&15) My main teacher has been my dad because I've had the unique opportunity to have Pop as my pastor for the majority of my life. Anyone who knows Pop knows that he is true to his word, so there is every reason for me to trust his teachings. I would venture to say, though, that people of all faiths and beliefs would say that they have learned from people who are trustworthy. After all, we don't believe teachings from people we don't trust.
So, while it is useful for my own beliefs, the fact that I learned from those who are trustworthy does nothing to say that what I believe is true. There is nothing in that fact that says Christianity is the right belief.
My next why comes from a pastor I have recently found online, Voddie Baucham: "The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eye-witnesses during the lifetime of other eye-witnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin." His explanation of that statement is definitely better than what I can write, so I would encourage you to watch him here. I'll share my take, though.
My training is in science. That means that I've spent years being taught that we shouldn't just blindly believe things. We should test everything--dig into things, study them, pick them apart. If things can't stand up to scrutiny, we have to take them with a grain of salt. I'm also married to a philosopher-historian, so I've come to see huge red flags with circular logic. Both of those things combine to make me cringe at the idea of blind faith and believing simply because I'm told to believe. If Christianity can't stand up to scrutiny, we shouldn't identify with it. If the Scriptures can't be examined and still prove trustworthy, we shouldn't believe them. That may sound harsh, but I truly believe it.
On that note, the Scriptures found in the Christian New Testament are the most reliable of ancient texts. There is an argument that since we don't have the original writings, we can't trust what we have--they are just copies of copies, so they can't say the same thing as when they started. If that's the case, though, I don't know that there is a single ancient text that we can consider reliable.
You see, we have more than 6,000 copies of the manuscripts that make up the New Testament. No, we don't have the original letters written by Paul or Peter, or the original gospel accounts written by the apostles. What we do have, though, are copies that date back to 100-120 AD, written within approximately 2 decades of when they were written. For contrast, Aristotle's Poetics is thought to have been written circa 335 BC. Our earliest accepted manuscript is from the mid 11th century AD. Homer's Illiad was likely written some time around 850 BC, approximately 400 years after the events it describes. The earliest full manuscript we have? It's from the 10th century AD. For another example, there's not a single original manuscript from Shakespeare...
Historical documents must be examined before they are used as sources. A quick search online gives some basic guidelines for evaluating primary sources, but here's a summary:
1. Is the creator an eye-witness?
2. How close to the event was it written?
3. What was their reason for writing?
4. Who were they writing for?
If you evaluate the New Testament from that perspective, it's reliability can't really be doubted. That's leaving out the archaeological evidence that has been found to back up the Scriptures, or the other historical writers who corroborate the people and the stories of the New Testament.
Another aspect of Dr. Baucham's statement is the fulfillment of prophecy. I can't tell you exactly how many prophecies the life and death of Yeshua (Jesus) fulfilled because, to be honest, I haven't ever tried to dive into it and figure it out. I can, however, tell you that the odds of a single man being able to fulfill that many prophecies by chance are astronomical. The only logical explanation for that was that His words and actions were fully intentional...and that has spectacular connotations in itself (check out "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?"). From the perspective of those writing, there would be very little benefit in make such unimaginable claims if they couldn't back them up because it would have invalidated their entire argument. If you want to look into some of those prophecies, read Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22 (the Psalm Jesus quoted while He hung on the cross). Though they'll give you a start, they barely scratch the surface.
I'm not a scholar of either history or Scriptures, so I can't dive deep enough into this subject. I do, however, feel like we have a duty to search out the truth behind our beliefs. As a follower of Christ, I believe I'm called to do so in the very Scriptures I claim to trust:
Today, though, I realized that I've never sat down and thought about why I believe. Honestly, that's not a simple task. It seems like why is always the most complex question to answer.
My first why comes from something most of us use as a basis for belief--it's what I've been taught, and the people I learned from were/are trustworthy. As Paul wrote to Timothy: "So surely you ought to stick to what you know is certain. All you have learned comes from people you know and trust because since childhood you have known the holy Scriptures, which enable you to be wise and lead to salvation through faith in Jesus the Anointed." (2 Timothy 3:14&15) My main teacher has been my dad because I've had the unique opportunity to have Pop as my pastor for the majority of my life. Anyone who knows Pop knows that he is true to his word, so there is every reason for me to trust his teachings. I would venture to say, though, that people of all faiths and beliefs would say that they have learned from people who are trustworthy. After all, we don't believe teachings from people we don't trust.
So, while it is useful for my own beliefs, the fact that I learned from those who are trustworthy does nothing to say that what I believe is true. There is nothing in that fact that says Christianity is the right belief.
My next why comes from a pastor I have recently found online, Voddie Baucham: "The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eye-witnesses during the lifetime of other eye-witnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin." His explanation of that statement is definitely better than what I can write, so I would encourage you to watch him here. I'll share my take, though.
My training is in science. That means that I've spent years being taught that we shouldn't just blindly believe things. We should test everything--dig into things, study them, pick them apart. If things can't stand up to scrutiny, we have to take them with a grain of salt. I'm also married to a philosopher-historian, so I've come to see huge red flags with circular logic. Both of those things combine to make me cringe at the idea of blind faith and believing simply because I'm told to believe. If Christianity can't stand up to scrutiny, we shouldn't identify with it. If the Scriptures can't be examined and still prove trustworthy, we shouldn't believe them. That may sound harsh, but I truly believe it.
On that note, the Scriptures found in the Christian New Testament are the most reliable of ancient texts. There is an argument that since we don't have the original writings, we can't trust what we have--they are just copies of copies, so they can't say the same thing as when they started. If that's the case, though, I don't know that there is a single ancient text that we can consider reliable.
You see, we have more than 6,000 copies of the manuscripts that make up the New Testament. No, we don't have the original letters written by Paul or Peter, or the original gospel accounts written by the apostles. What we do have, though, are copies that date back to 100-120 AD, written within approximately 2 decades of when they were written. For contrast, Aristotle's Poetics is thought to have been written circa 335 BC. Our earliest accepted manuscript is from the mid 11th century AD. Homer's Illiad was likely written some time around 850 BC, approximately 400 years after the events it describes. The earliest full manuscript we have? It's from the 10th century AD. For another example, there's not a single original manuscript from Shakespeare...
Historical documents must be examined before they are used as sources. A quick search online gives some basic guidelines for evaluating primary sources, but here's a summary:
1. Is the creator an eye-witness?
2. How close to the event was it written?
3. What was their reason for writing?
4. Who were they writing for?
If you evaluate the New Testament from that perspective, it's reliability can't really be doubted. That's leaving out the archaeological evidence that has been found to back up the Scriptures, or the other historical writers who corroborate the people and the stories of the New Testament.
Another aspect of Dr. Baucham's statement is the fulfillment of prophecy. I can't tell you exactly how many prophecies the life and death of Yeshua (Jesus) fulfilled because, to be honest, I haven't ever tried to dive into it and figure it out. I can, however, tell you that the odds of a single man being able to fulfill that many prophecies by chance are astronomical. The only logical explanation for that was that His words and actions were fully intentional...and that has spectacular connotations in itself (check out "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?"). From the perspective of those writing, there would be very little benefit in make such unimaginable claims if they couldn't back them up because it would have invalidated their entire argument. If you want to look into some of those prophecies, read Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22 (the Psalm Jesus quoted while He hung on the cross). Though they'll give you a start, they barely scratch the surface.
I'm not a scholar of either history or Scriptures, so I can't dive deep enough into this subject. I do, however, feel like we have a duty to search out the truth behind our beliefs. As a follower of Christ, I believe I'm called to do so in the very Scriptures I claim to trust:
"Take a close look at everything, test it, then cling to what is good."
1 Thessalonians 5:21
"Always be ready to offer a defense, humbly and respectfully,
when someone asks why you live in hope."
1 Peter 3:15
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thoughts? I would love to hear them!
~Mandy