If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on THE JURY MIGHT BE OUT, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality THE JURY MIGHT BE OUT, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in THE JURY MIGHT BE OUT, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your THE JURY MIGHT BE OUT, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT paper at affordable prices!
THE JURY MIGHT BE OUT, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT
In the "rational" 0th century, many people truly believed that christianity had been proved inaccurate by science. Certainly, there have been those in that field who have consistently tried to portray that as the case, but, on the other hand, there are many across the scientific community who are proud to call themselves Christians. In the 1st century, rationalism is still part of the scene, but there is an increasing number of people for whom evidence, even if there should be some to support Christianity, is irrelevant. We can call these people "neo-rationalists" or even "relativists." Their belief is that there is truth in all creeds and whatever you believe is okay.
So who is correct? Is Christianity out of date, or doesn't it indeed matter?
The truth is it does indeed matter if Christianity is wrong, or inacurate, or based upon false premises. If it is wrong historically, says the Apostle Paul, then we might as well close up shop and stay at home. Paul, one of the chief proponents of Biblical Christianity and the author of much of the New Testament, believed in the historicity of the claims of Christianity. So did Jesus, himself. Jesus wasn't just concerned with saying nice things and being nice to people. He claimed to be the Truth and the only way to God. He called upon people to trust Him for salvation. If we are to trust someone, they must be telling the truth. If not, it is not good to follow them it could even be disastrous. It is not enough to say well, the teaching is good. It must be okay. Hitler's followers thought that and look what happened. Pol Pot's followers believed he was right, and nearly destroyed the Cambodian nation. The founder of any creed must be found trustworthy and we must be sure that what we have written of his teachings represents his words, not those collected by people hundreds of years later, nor teachings supposedly based upon his words.
Cheap custom writing service can write essays on THE JURY MIGHT BE OUT, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT
History is important. Very important.
So what historical evidence have we for Christianity?
Firstly, the text of the New Testament which we have today is what the first Christians had in front of them. There have been no additions or subtactions or changes of belief to suit the changing circumstances Christians found themselves in in later centuries. How do we know this?
We do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testament documents (yet!!!), but we have such a collection that the accuracy of the text can be .% ascertained. Scholars, both christian and non-Christian have at their disposal manuscripts of every NT document, some from within a generation of the originals. And not just one or two, but thousands. It seems that in the first few centuries after the resurrection, Christians were in a flurry to disseminate the words of Christ and his apostles and were furiously copying the originals.
But, could that not lead to inaccuracies as documents went from hand to hand? That is a possibility. But the early Christians came out of the Jewish tradition, which had developed copying methods to limit mistakes long before the NT period. These methods included counting words, columns and letters and constantly cross-checking. There have been mistakes, but they are so minor so as not to concern the accuracy of the text. Most errors were spelling errors, missing lines or substituting one word for another with the same meaning (eg king-ruler).
We also have the writings of early church leaders, such as Clement. Clement quoted copiously from the NT writings, so much so that almost the entire NT can be reconstructed from his letters alone!
There were, in 180, over 5000 NT manuscripts in Greek alone (because the NT was written in Koine Greek), but then there are also the translations. Christianity, in its early years, had not settled into the "sacred language" fixation possessed by Roman Catholicism,and so, translated the NT works into the languages of peoples to whom the Gospel was brought. Within a short time, translations into languages such as Latin, Coptic, Assyrian, and Persian were available and eventually the Greek Christians moved into the Slavic lands. It was the Christians who first gave the Slavs an alphabet, and the first book written in Slavic was the Bible. So also, the first written Germanic text was the Lord's Prayer. The list of languages goes on and on. By comparing the translations with the Greek texts, we can see, even more, the accuracy of the received text of the NT. In the 180's, there were over 0 000 early translations still in existence.
If we compare the NT with other books from the ancient European/ Middle Eastern world, we can see even more, how historically accurate the NT is. Euripides wrote between 480-406 BC, but the oldest manuscript of his works is from 1100 AD, over 1500 years later. Only manuscripts exist of his works. Catallus, a Roman author, wrote in 54BC, but the earliest surviving manuscript of his works dates from 1550 AD! Homer wrote the Iliad in 00 BC, and the earliest manuscript dates from 500 AD. He is the best represented of the ancient authors, with 650 manuscripts surviving. The NT, written between 40-100 AD, has over 5 000 surviving manuscripts, the earliest written within 50 years of the originals. Yet few question the textual accuracy of the ancient authors! Why, then, with such evidence for the NT, do people continue to question the accuracy of the received text?
The second area of accuracy is whether what the authors wrote was true, even if it has been transmitted accurately. No one believes the writings of Homer these days, even though we may have an accurate transmission of his manuscripts, so why believe the NT?
It was a 1th century game to constantly and publicly doubt the historicity of the Bible. This lost impetus in the 0th century as archaelogical and literary evidence for the NT piled up (don't even start me on the OT!). Excavations of Jerusalem have unearthed the Pool of Siloam where Jesus healed the lame man, a slab with the name of Pontius Pilate on it and the burial box of Caiaphas, the High Priest. There is even a possibility that the sarcophagus of Jesus' brother, James, may have been found, though the jury is out on that one for the time being. Since Jerusalem was razed in AD 70, the distinctive features of the city at the time of Christ were unknown to later writers. That the NT accurately describes the life and times of pre-destruction Jerusalem, shows that the NT was written by people who were there and who were concerned to relay the truth to those reading and listening.
When Luke, quoting the Apostle Paul, writes of the apostle's sea voyages, his narrative is so accurate that it is used as the major text on seafaring in the Mediterranean in the first century. His use of titles for various rulers and officials is spot-on, and shows a man who is a stickler for detail. Could such a person have misreported the words of Jesus in the Gospel account he also wrote? Not likely.
If so, then not only is the NT historically accurate, and not only is it textually accurate, but, if Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life no one comes to the Father but by me", then those words must be spiritually accurate. Jesus believed he was God's Son, the Saviour of the world. There are only three possibilities that he was a lunatic, a liar or the Lord. Even the most relativist people in the 1st century would never say that Jesus was a lunatic or a liar at the least they claim he was a good spiritual teacher. Jesus says you don't have that choice. I didn't come to teach goodness and niceness. I came to teach Truth. And I am that Truth. Either you accept it or reject it. If you accept it, then the consequences are phenomenally good. Reject it and you will regret it eternally.
So, while the jury may be out on James' funeral box, there is enough evidence to convict Jesus of being who he claimed to be the Lord of All, the coming Judge of the world, the Word of God.
Please note that this sample paper on THE JURY MIGHT BE OUT, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on THE JURY MIGHT BE OUT, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on THE JURY MIGHT BE OUT, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
