Reliability of the NT when it comes to the prophecies and claims about Jesus

[SonOfMan]

You’re not even reading what is given.

HE WAS THERE IN JERUSALEM DURING JESUS MINISTRY. That makes him a contemporary. Albeit a hostile contemporary.

It doesnt make him non-partisan though. Paul was a believer.

As for your comments about the bible “alleges”… there is “no proof”… all is “hearsay”… etc etc etc, all you’re doing is rejecting, which is no answer at all.

It may seem like no answer, but we’ve been given no evidence. There really isnt much to say, the jury is deadlocked with the amount of information that we have; it isnt sufficient.

People act like there are logical reasons to believe these extraordinary claims. It isnt logical. There is no evidence, so please stop acting like there is, it hurts your arguments. I think Father Serpa has given the most honest response; there is no proof and you will never get any, you must decide based on Faith. I respect him much for his honesty and the decision is much more simplified from that point on, as a person can spend their time reflecting on that decision more than they spend time looking up facts/non-facts about the Bible.

 

[eddie_too]

the existence of the magisterium is proof of the truth of the new testament.

the existence of the saints is proof of the truth of the new testament.

the believer’s experience of Jesus and the Trinity is proof of the truth of the new testament.

the self-sacrificial love of believes is proof of the truth of the new testament.

the writings of the new testament are proof of the truth of the new testament.

the internal and external coherence of sacred tradition and sacred scripture are proof of the truth of the new testament.

prayers to Jesus, Mary and the saints being answered are proof of the truth of the new testament.

the results of applying right reason to the information available are proof of the truth of the new testament.

the writings of the Church Fathers are proof of the truth of the new testament.

proof for the truth of the new testament abounds throughout reality.

what does not exist is any evidence that the new testament is a work of fiction.

nihilism and nihilists exist. they do not exist however because there is evidence to support it or them. they exist because they do not require evidence to exist. they are mere imaginary concepts not unlike the concepts that dominate the minds of the seriously mentally ill.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I ask this as a Catholic who would like to be clarified and who is called to defend Catholic Christianity.

One of the main reasons I’m a Christian is because of the Argument of the Resurrection of Jesus, Jesus’ fullfilment of OT prophecy Jesus’ claim to be God etc.

But a non Christian (especially a Jew or an atheist) could perfectly say that the Apostles exaggerated the story about Jesus and Jesus didn’t make those claims that are in the New Testament about his Divinity for example.

One argues that Jesus was the Messiah because of the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies. But the New Testament was written after the Old Testament so what if Jesus though a real historical figure didn’t fulfil the Old Testament prophecies?

What if his apostles and the NT writers read the OT to make the prophecies fit and maybe invented stuff about him that never really happened (such as Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ garments) so that Jesus could seem more credible as a Messiah?

I am asking this so that I can have a better defence for the Christian faith. Thank you and God bless.

Start here:

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ
By. Dr. Peter Kreeft
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

 

[Bballer32]

Start here:

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ
By. Dr. Peter Kreeft
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

Nice

 

[Randy_Carson]

Saul/Paul was a believer, directly involved in the movement of Christianity. I wouldnt call that non-partisan.

Paul was not a believer at first. He actually persecuted the church, imprisoned its leaders, and approved of the stoning of Stephen. In the Book of Acts, we read:

Acts 8:1-3
And Saul approved of their killing him. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

Saul/Paul never met Jesus. He claims to have had an encounter. There is no proof that he ever was anti-Christianity and then converted, the Bible merely alleges that.

Well, yes, the Bible RECORDS the fact that Jesus appeared to Saul, and that as a result, he became a Christian.

Acts 9:1-6
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

Now, you say “allege” as if the book of Acts is pure fiction. However, what you are not taking into account is the fact that there were plenty of people in Jerusalem who knew Saul and would have been able to disprove this conversion story if it were untrue. Paul points this out in his later to the Galatians:

Galatians 1:13-24
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas** and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

So, you see, Paul was a well-known student of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, and he became the greatest missionary and theologian of the early Church.

However, because he was so “high profile”, anyone who had evidence that Paul was NOT a Christian would have been able to refute the account of his conversion in Acts.

Gee, come to think of it…Saul could have easily done that himself.

Are there any non-partisan, contemporary writings that support what the Bible alleges? It seems to be the answer still remains at zero.

It depends on exactly what you mean.

In general, the evidence from Jewish and Roman historians suggests that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This fact is beyond question.

And the archaeological evidence, the accuracy in the naming of important officials, and the local knowledge of topography, villages and customs of the period all suggest that the authors of the gospels were very reliable in their reporting.

The gospel writers were able to write reliably because they were eyewitnesses (Matthew & John) or had access to eyewitnesses (Mark/Peter, Luke/Mary and others), and they desired to record the information they had about Jesus accurately. Further, as I pointed out above, their intimate knowledge of people and places suggests that they did report accurately.**

 

[Randy_Carson]

It doesnt make him non-partisan though. Paul was a believer.

Okay. So what? Holocaust survivors are biased, too, but that does not mean that their accounts of Auschwitz are not reliable. If anything, we have reason to believe that they desire to tell extremely accurate stories in the hope that nothing like that ever happens again.

Similarly, the NT writers were motivated to tell what they knew with great accuracy and attention to detail because they saw themselves at witnesses of God incarnate.

It may seem like no answer, but we’ve been given no evidence. There really isnt much to say, the jury is deadlocked with the amount of information that we have; it isnt sufficient.

Insufficient for what? To be coercive? Well, you got us there.

People act like there are logical reasons to believe these extraordinary claims. It isnt logical. There is no evidence, so please stop acting like there is, it hurts your arguments. I think Father Serpa has given the most honest response; there is no proof and you will never get any, you must decide based on Faith. I respect him much for his honesty and the decision is much more simplified from that point on, as a person can spend their time reflecting on that decision more than they spend time looking up facts/non-facts about the Bible.

You’ve been misinformed. This brief article is an excellent overview of the evidence and logic you are seeking:

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
By Craig L. Blomberg
4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952775

 

[Randy_Carson]

I already stated that it doesn’t appear in writing (to my knowledge), and neither does “Catholic Church” for that matter. So I’m afraid you haven’t met your own standard there and have yet to show me where "The Catholic Church"appears in the Bible as well (citing something written** 36 years after the fact **actually proves my point more than it does yours). Surely if the Catholic Church preceded, wrote, and canonized the Bible, it would make perfect sense if they would have specified that in their own writing. The fact that it doesn’t, is suspicious. Claiming something after the fact doesn’t work, much like someone trying to claim the winning numbers on a Lotto ticket after the winning numbers were already revealed.

It seems the verdict is that the Bible is vague on who this church is, leaving it open for anyone and everyone to claim authenticity.

This likely falls under a whole new topic in which I disagree with, but that still doesn’t demonstrate that Jesus instituted “The Catholic Church”, it is just written that Jesus wished to institute “*a *church.” Unspecified and very vague, anyone can make the claim that he was refering to them.

As requested.

“Catholic Church” in the Bible

Many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture.

Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:

Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto (russ.org/gtb/luke.html#a9)

Acts 9:31
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.

εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church.

Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

Protestant Scholar on the use of the Proper Name "Catholic"

One Protestant author who is honest about this history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Vague references to “a church” and then later different groups trying to claim “Oh yeah, that’s us. See it says there” are a little far-fetched. Unless, of course, you have the proof to back that up. So where is it?

Augustine is especially clear, so I’ll highlight him in red.

Oh, notice, too, how the reference to Peter upon whom the Church is built is mentioned.

Early Church Fathers on the “Catholic” Church

Ignatius of Antioch

Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also. Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord. As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for ‘he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God.’ In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. Be ye subject to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning in Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place.” (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp)

“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, [A.D. 156]).

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him – that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, [A.D. 200]).

Clement of Alexandria

“From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.” (Stromaties 7:17:107:3 [A.D. 202]).

“… There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to Gods ordinance… In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church …”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cyprian of Carthage

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” (Letter of Cyprian to All His People 43 (40), 5 [A.D. 251]).

“The house of God is one, and there can be no salvation to anyone except in the church.” (Letter 61 [AD 250]).

“Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” (Letters 66 [A.D. 253]).

St. Victorinus

“The Catholic church is one.” (Against Arius [AD 280]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness” (Catechetical Lectures 18:23, [A.D. 350]).

“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is - for the others, sects of impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’ - nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church, for this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.” (Cathechetical Lectures 18:26, [A.D. 350])

Athanasius

“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.” (St. Athanasius, “Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuisc,” [c.AD 360].

Augustine

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. When heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. They will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name, which the whole world employs in her regard.” (The True Religion 7:12, [A.D. 390]).

"[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [AD 397]).

“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

 

[thistle]

I ask this as a Catholic who would like to be clarified and who is called to defend Catholic Christianity.

One of the main reasons I’m a Christian is because of the Argument of the Resurrection of Jesus, Jesus’ fullfilment of OT prophecy Jesus’ claim to be God etc.

But a non Christian (especially a Jew or an atheist) could perfectly say that the Apostles exaggerated the story about Jesus and Jesus didn’t make those claims that are in the New Testament about his Divinity for example.

One argues that Jesus was the Messiah because of the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies. But the New Testament was written after the Old Testament so what if Jesus though a real historical figure didn’t fulfil the Old Testament prophecies?

What if his apostles and the NT writers read the OT to make the prophecies fit and maybe invented stuff about him that never really happened (such as Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ garments) so that Jesus could seem more credible as a Messiah?

I am asking this so that I can have a better defence for the Christian faith. Thank you and God bless.

Why would the Apostles suffer and die for a lie??

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why would the Apostles suffer and die for a lie??

More specifically, why would they suffer and die for something they KNEW to be a lie?

 

[thistle]

More specifically, why would they suffer and die for something they KNEW to be a lie?

 

[SonOfMan]

Why would the Apostles suffer and die for a lie??

People suffer and die for Islam all the time.

People are also assassinated all the time, it doesnt make them martyrs.

With being the leader(s) of a new, global religion comes great power. A lot of people are willing to die for such power.

 

[SonOfMan]

As requested.

“Catholic Church” in the Bible

Many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture.

Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:

“Trinity”, “Bible”, “Catholic Church” are not mentioned and you are perfectly willing to accept them as realities. But by the same token neither is “Orthodox Church” mentioned, and they claim they are the originators of Christianity, and people are willing to accept that as a reality too, without it explicitly stating that.

These same apologetics can be used to justify any church claiming authenticity. Not a compelling argument.

 

[SonOfMan]

Augustine is especially clear, so I’ll highlight him in red.

Oh, notice, too, how the reference to Peter upon whom the Church is built is mentioned.

And that could be any Church that traces their lineage back to Peter, which is all of them. I know the Orthodox take their influence from other apostles, depending on which region what apostle brought the news, but ultimately it was Peter who gave them the ok to spread the news In the first place anyway. Also, not all gospels say that Peter is the Rock.

Anyway, this is all using the same source to justify itself. The Bible says there is an infallible Church, and the infallible Church says the Bible is correct.

There are no other sources from contemporary, non-partisan observers that corroborate the reliability of the Bible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

People suffer and die for Islam all the time.

People are also assassinated all the time, it doesnt make them martyrs.

With being the leader(s) of a new, global religion comes great power. A lot of people are willing to die for such power.

Those who did not “start” Christianity or Islam would not be in a position to know with certainty that they were dying for a lie.

The question before you is: why would the apostles who were with Jesus from the beginning be willing to die for their faith in Him as the risen Son of God if they knew that the resurrection did not happen?

And, perhaps you can share with us some of the benefits that the apostles received during their lifetimes (cut short by martyrdoms) when Christianity was anything BUT a global religion?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Trinity”, “Bible”, “Catholic Church” are not mentioned and you are perfectly willing to accept them as realities. But by the same token neither is “Orthodox Church” mentioned, and they claim they are the originators of Christianity, and people are willing to accept that as a reality too, without it explicitly stating that.

These same apologetics can be used to justify any church claiming authenticity. Not a compelling argument.

Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And that could be any Church that traces their lineage back to Peter, which is all of them. I know the Orthodox take their influence from other apostles, depending on which region what apostle brought the news, but ultimately it was Peter who gave them the ok to spread the news In the first place anyway. Also, not all gospels say that Peter is the Rock.

All four of the gospels do not NEED to say it. In addition to the one reliable witness who did, we have the primacy of Peter demonstrated throughout the Gospels, the Book of Acts and several of the epistles.

Anyway, this is all using the same source to justify itself. The Bible says there is an infallible Church, and the infallible Church says the Bible is correct.

Very good. This is exactly right.

Now, let’s be precise:

A careful study of history, archaeology, and the internal evidence found within the gospels reveals that the gospels are historically reliable. I provided links to online articles for your review.

The historically reliable set of books records that Jesus claimed to be God and backed it up by rising from the dead. Since God does not lie, we can depend upon the things that Jesus said. Among these things are his promises to build a Church that would speak in His name. Teaching error in the name of God is not a logical charicteristic of a Church that God would build. Therefore, when the Church built by Jesus and protected from error by the Holy Spirit declares that the Bible is not merely historically reliable, but also the inspired Word of God, we can believe it.

There are no other sources from contemporary, non-partisan observers that corroborate the reliability of the Bible.

You mean like an HBO film crew on the scene filming a behind-the-scenes documentary, “Making the Bible” complete with interviews with Mary and Pontius Pilate and even a few bloopers of John and some of the other apostles hamming it up for the cameras by the Sea of Galilee trying to walk on water?

Yeah, that would have been nice, wouldn’t it?

 

[thistle]

People suffer and die for Islam all the time.

People are also assassinated all the time, it doesnt make them martyrs.

With being the leader(s) of a new, global religion comes great power. A lot of people are willing to die for such power.

People will die for something they know to be true.
People will die for something they think is true (even if its not true).
Nobody will die for something they know to be false.

 

[Kaninchen]

Just as a matter of interest, preferably without a lot of copying and pasting, how do we ‘know’ that the apostles suffered?