September 13, 2009
This has been one of my biggest questions because I honestly do not remember the history of the Bible being discussed in class in detail. Or if it was tackled, I must have been daydreaming. But no, I don't think so. Religious education had always been one of my favorite subjects. Although I was not in favor of the grading system, I truly learned a lot of valuable stuff from my teachers. But as for the reliability of the Bible, it was only very recently that I was enlightened.Thanks to the new magazine published by ST PAULS: Know Your Faith (In Defense of the Catholic Truth), I don't have to feel awkward from now on when debating with atheists. I know it's pointless to argue about religious beliefs, but sometimes you really can't help the evangelizer in you. Their common argument is, "Why do you talk about God? Not everyone believes in your God."
Oh well, my dear agnostic friends, looks like before we get to the next topic, we first have to settle your issue with the existence of God. Hmm... Where do I start?
I honestly don't know where! But at least I already know why such kind of blah-blah is only futile. Hahaha.
Anyway, let's now talk about the reliability of the Bible. I'll share with you the most convincing part of the explanation I've read from the mag:
"Many historians readily accept the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and Caesar.
Plato wrote between 427-347 BC, with our earliest copies of his works dating from the 900s (1,200-year span), of which seven copies have survived.
Aristotle wrote between 384-322 BC, and his earliest works are dated from the 1100s (1,400-year span), with 49 surviving copies.
Thucydides wrote around 460-400 BC; our copies of his works are from the 900s (1,300-year span), with eight copies in existence.
Caesar's life was chronicled from 100-44 BC. Our earliest copies of the chronicles of Julius Caesar date from the 900s (1,000 years later) and we have ten surviving copies.
How come historians accept their data as historical? Why then question so much the gospels?
The New Testament, on the other hand, was written between 40-100 AD and our earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the 130s and we have 5,000 Greek copies, 10,000 Latin copies, and 9,300 copies in other languages. Don't we have then more reasons to accept the gospels as historical?"
That's for the historical acceptability of the gospels. As for the content, I don't think any writer can just invent some imaginary inspiration for such a great work. And if they were indeed only making stories, why would they submit themselves to torture and lay down their lives in defense of those manuscripts?
Only a phenomenal inspiration and some Source of great courage would have made that possible.
Maybe if we lived during Jesus' time and we happened to be some of the 500 thousand witnesses of his Resurrection who got to touch His wounds as Thomas did, we would have easily believed.
"Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." -Jesus
John 20:29
