From mark Copeland... "CONVERSIONS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS" The Corinthians (18:1-11)

                   "CONVERSIONS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                       The Corinthians (18:1-11)

INTRODUCTION

1. Following his limited success at Athens, Paul went to nearby Corinth...
   a. An economic center of Greece, known for its immorality
   b. It became an important focus of Paul's ministry
      1) Where he stayed a year and a half on his second missionary journey
      2) Where he visited once and possibly twice on his third journey
   c. A well-known church was established, the recipient of at least 
      two epistles by Paul

2. The establishment of the church is described in Ac 18:1-11 in which
   we read of...
   a. Paul's work in the local synagogue
   b. The conversion of many Corinthians, including the ruler of the 
      synagogue

3. We also read something about their conversion in 1Co 1:14-17...
   a. Where Paul expresses thanks for personally baptizing just a few 
      of the Corinthians
   b. In which some have concluded that Paul was declaring the 
      non-essentiality of baptism

4. In this study we shall examine the conversion of "The Corinthians"...
   a. Once again, to glean what we can about the gospel's message and
      response
   b. To determine whether Paul was actually demeaning the importance 
      of baptism in his epistle to the Corinthians

[Turning to Ac 18:1-11, let's review Luke's account of...]

I. THE CONVERSION OF THE CORINTHIANS

   A. PAUL'S ARRIVAL IN CORINTH...
      1. He meets up with Aquila and Priscilla - Ac 18:1-2
      2. Of the same trade (tentmakers), Paul stays with them - Ac 18:3

   B. PAUL'S MINISTRY AT CORINTH...
      1. He goes to the synagogue, as was his custom - Ac 18:4; cf.17:1-3
         a. He "reasons" with the people, as he did with...
            1) Those at Thessalonica - cf. Ac 17:2
            2) Those at Athens - Ac 17:17
            3) Those at Ephesus - Ac 18:19; 19:8-9
            4) Felix the governor - Ac 24:25
            5) Festus and Agrippa - Ac 26:25
            -- The gospel is designed to appeal to the mind as well as
               the heart! - cf. Mt 22:37
         b. He "persuades" both Jews and Greeks...
            1) As he did at Thessalonica - Ac 17:4
            2) As he did at Ephesus - Ac 19:8
            3) As he came close to doing with King Agrippa - Ac 26:28
            -- Again, the gospel appeals to the reasoning processes of the mind
      2. When Silas and Timothy arrive, Paul is constrained to preach
         even more - Ac 18:5
         a. He "testified" to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ 
            - cf. Ac 20:21,24; 23:11; 28:23
         b. Such testimony likely involved:
            1) Using the Messianic prophecies of the  Old Testament 
               - Ac 17:2-3
            2) His eyewitness testimony as an apostle - cf. Ac 26:16
      3. Rejection by some of the Jews sends him to the Gentiles 
         - Ac 18:6-7
         a. Just as it did at Antioch of Pisidia - Ac 13:45-46
         b. In Corinth, Paul has only to go next door, to the home of Justus
      4. The gospel bears fruit in Corinth - Ac 18:8
         a. Crispus, ruler of the synagogue, believes with all his 
            household - cf. 1Co 1:14
         b. Many of the Corinthians believe and are baptized
      5. Encouraged by the Lord in a vision, Paul stays for a year and
         a half  - Ac 18:9-11

[With Luke's description, we see a similarity with what we have read 
before.  Upon hearing the gospel, those persuaded both believe and are
baptized (cf. Ac 8:12; 18:8). This is certainly in keeping with the
commission of our Lord (cf. Mk 16:15-16).

But often people will use Paul's comments in 1Co 1:14-17 to say that
baptism has nothing to do with conversion (salvation).  Is that true?
Let's take a close look at...]

II. PAUL'S COMMENTS TO THE CORINTHIANS

   A. THE CONTEXT...
      1. The church at Corinth was badly divided - 1Co 1:10-11
      2. People were aligning themselves as followers of different men
         (perhaps based upon who baptized them) - 1Co 1:12-13
      3. Paul illustrates the absurdity of calling themselves after men
         with several rhetorical questions
         a. "Is Christ divided?"
         b. "Was Paul crucified for you?"
         c. "Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
         -- The implied answer to each question was "NO!"
      5. But notice what else is implied by each question...
         a. Christ is not divided
         b. It was Christ (not some man) who was crucified for you
         c. You were baptized, not in the name of some man, but in the
            name of Christ!
      -- So the context itself implies what we read in Ac 18:8 
         ("...many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.")

   B. PAUL'S COMMENTS...
      1. "I thank God that I baptized none of you except..."
         - 1Co 1:14
         a. Paul should be understood in light of the context
         b. Since some of the Corinthians were dividing over who may 
            have baptized them, Paul was grateful that he had not 
            PERSONALLY baptized many of them
         c. His reason?
            1) Not because he did not consider baptism important
            2) But as he states himself:  "...lest anyone should say
               that I had baptized in my own name." - 1Co 1:15
         d. The Corinthians had been baptized - cf. Ac 18:8; 1Co 1:13
            1) As a result of Paul's preaching, by the way
            2) But not many by Paul personally, for which he was later
               thankful!
      2. "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the 
         gospel..." - 1Co 1:17
         a. Are we to understand Paul to say that he did not preach baptism?
            1) Clearly he did to Lydia and the Philippian jailor 
               - Ac 16:14-15; 32-33
            2) Clearly he did to the Corinthians - Ac 18:8
            3) He taught baptism as the means by which one puts on 
               Christ - Ga 3:27
            4) He taught baptism as the means by which one dies to sin 
               - Ro 6:1-7
         b. Rather, we are to understand that Paul was emphasizing his
            function as apostle
            1) He was sent to preach the gospel (which includes the 
               command to be baptized - Mk 16:15-16)
            2) It was not his primary function to perform the baptisms
               of those who responded to the gospel!
               a) Though he did in some cases - 1Co 1:14,16
               b) But he was often accompanied by others (e.g., Silas,
                  Timothy, Luke), and they were likely the ones to 
                  handle the physical act of immersing people
            3) In view of what later occurred at Corinth, he is simply
               thankful that his involvement in the act of baptizing
               others was rather limited
         -- Such was the point of Paul's comments, and they should not
            be understood as Paul demeaning the value or place of 
            baptism in the process of conversion!

CONCLUSION

1. The conversion of "The Corinthians" confirms what we have seen in
   previous examples of conversions in the book of Acts...
   a. The gospel concerning Jesus as the Christ was proclaimed
   b. Those "persuaded" by the gospel message believed and were 
      baptized immediately

2. The conversion of "The Corinthians" also stands out because of the
   impact the gospel had in their lives...
   a. As mentioned, the city of Corinth was known for its immorality
   b. Many of the members of the church had lived immoral lives - cf. 1Co 6:9-11a
   c. Yet through their faith and obedience to the gospel of Christ, 
      Paul could write:

   "But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were 
   justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of
   our God." (1Co 6:11)

Such is the power of the gospel of Christ to the obedient believer.  
Have you been "washed", "sanctified", and "justified"?  Let the
conversions in the book of Acts show you how!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

 

The Quran: the Sun Sets in a Mud Puddle? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=702

The Quran: the Sun Sets in a Mud Puddle?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Quran contains a considerable amount of uninspired folklore from Jewish (and other) sources. It also occasionally incorporates elements of mythology and fairytale in its pages. In a surah that Muslim sources identify as one in which Muhammad answered questions designed by Jewish rabbis to challenge his prophethood (Pickthall, n.d., pp. 211-212), the Quran relates the story of Dhu‘l-Qarneyn—“The Two-Horned One.” In conveying the story, the Quran gives credence to the outrageous superstition that the Sun sets in a mud puddle:

They will ask thee of Dhu’l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him. Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road. And he followed a road till, when he reached the setting‑place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout: We said: O Dhu’l‑Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness. He said: As for him who doeth wrong, we shall punish him, and then he will be brought back unto his Lord, who will punish him with awful punishment! But as for him who believeth and doeth right, good will be his reward, and We shall speak unto him a mild command. Then he followed a road till, when he reached the rising‑place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom. So (it was). And We knew all concerning him (Surah 18:84-92, emp. added).

Observe that the Quran’s account is not worded in such a way as to be allowable on the basis of accommodative or phenomenal language—even as we speak of the Sun setting or rising. The inclusion of the location of the Sun’s setting—a muddy spring—places the account squarely into the realm of myth.

The same mistake is made earlier in the same surah (vss. 10-27) when the Quran lends credibility to the legend of the “Seven Sleepers of Ephesus” (see Campbell, 2002; Gilchrist, 1986). The legends (which predate the Quran) spoke of seven (the number varies) noble Christian youths who fled persecution during the reign of Decius the Emperor who died in A.D. 251. The youths took refuge in a cave near Ephesus, but then were sealed in to die. Instead, their lives were miraculously preserved by falling into a deep sleep that lasted for nearly 200 years, a sleep the Quran claims lasted 309 years (vs. 26). For the Quran to dignify such outlandish tales is to disprove its own inspiration.

REFERENCES

Campbell, William (2002), The Quran and the Bible in the Light of History and Science, [On-line],URL: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Campbell/contents.html.

Gilchrist, John (1986), Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, [On-line], URL: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/Vol1/5c.html.

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (n.d.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die? by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1201

Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

One of the most often-used weapons in the skeptic’s arsenal is to seize statements from religious people that make God look like a cruel despot waiting to cast any and everyone into a torturous lake of eternal fire. However, this frequently lands the skeptic in a less-than-defensible position when the actual text of the Bible is consulted. Consider the following paragraph from Ronald Defenbaugh, a self-avowed atheist:

One evening, a friend about the same age as us rode home with us from one of our children’s sporting events. This was the first time I realized I may have a real problem with believing. She was a good friend of my spouse’s, a member of our Church and very religious. I don’t remember how the subject came up but salvation was our subject of conversation. She stated that even though my father had been an honest, caring person who did nothing but good, he would not receive salvation. He could only go to Heaven if he accepted Christ as his Savior. I remember thinking that I wanted no part of a deity that sent my father to Hell under those circumstances. Why would a baby, or my father, or even me be sent to Hell just because we didn’t accept Christ as our Savior? What about the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? Again, what about me? This started me thinking that I probably was without belief. Or at least I didn’t understand it. It didn’t fit my logic (2003, emp. added).

After hearing from his religious friend that his father would not be in heaven because of his failure to obey Jesus’ teachings, Mr. Defenbaugh quickly constructed a straw man by insinuating that the God of the Bible would have no problem sending babies to hell along with disobedient, reasonable adults.

Does the Bible teach that babies go to hell when they die? In order to answer this question, we must find a biblical example in which an infant died, and in which his or her eternal destination is recorded. To do such is not difficult. In 2 Samuel 12, King David’s newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” It is clear that David’s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be “in the house of the Lord” (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that “the house of the Lord” would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant son’s soul would go to hell.

Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 18:3-5:

Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

And in Luke 18:16-17, Jesus remarked: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Therefore, we have been given a specific example in the Old Testament of an infant who died and would live forever in heaven. And Jesus Christ Himself, in the New Testament, stated that little children retain the qualities that make a person eligible to inherit the kingdom of God. We see, then, that infants and small children that die are in a safe state, and will live eternally in heaven.

With such clear statements from the Bible about the eternal destiny of dead infants and small children, why have religious people mistakenly taught that babies go to hell when they die? Due to the influential nature of John Calvin and his teachings, many people have taught that sin is “passed” from one generation to the next. It is believed by many religious people that children “inherit” the sins of their parents. Yet, the Bible pointedly and explicitly teaches that such is not the case. In Ezekiel 18:20, the Bible says: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.” Also, in Exodus 32, Moses pleaded with God to forgive the sins of the Israelites when he said: “Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written. And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book’ ” (Exodus 32:32-33). The Bible is plain in its teaching that babies do not inherit the sins of their parents. [One commonly misapplied scripture used to teach that infants inherit sin is Psalm 51:5-6, which has been dealt with in detail by Wayne Jackson (2000).]

The Bible nowhere teaches that babies go to hell if they die in infancy. Neither does it teach that babies inherit the sins of their parents. Although many skeptics have tried to portray God as an evil tyrant Who condemns innocent children to eternal destruction, their arguments are without merit or any semblance of biblical credence. In the words of Jesus Christ, “Let the little children come to me.”

REFERENCES

Defenbaugh, Ronald (2003), “Why I Couldn’t Deconvert,” [On-line], URL: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=263. Jackson, Wayne (2000), “ ‘Original Sin’ and a Misapplied Passage,” [On-line], URL: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/originalSin.htm

Beware of Dawkins’ “Common Sense” by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2452

Beware of Dawkins’ “Common Sense”

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

Due to Richard Dawkins’ atheistic assumptions, he has the impossible task of trying to arrive at a legitimate set of ethical judgments. He robustly denies that the idea of God offers any real morality, but as he attempts to contrive morality without a divine standard, he quickly loses his way and makes self-contradictory statements.

For instance, in chapter 9 of his book The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that teaching a child to be religious is a form of mental child abuse. Of course, he lumps all religious practices together (which is a logical fallacy in the first place; e.g., Butt, 2007) and chooses an example that is inconsistent with truth. He correctly states that it is wrong to think that sprinkling a little water on an infant has any ability to “totally change a child’s life” (e.g., Colley, 2004). But, to arrive at his conclusion, Dawkins says that the implications of infant baptism fly in the face of “everything that ordinary common sense and human feeling see as important” (2006, p. 213, emp. added).

Notice one of Dawkins’ reasons for claiming that the practice is wrong—because it goes against “common sense.” Of course, the next question to be asked is, “How reliable of a guide is common sense?” Should we always trust our “common sense” when making moral decisions? Dawkins answers that question himself, although probably unwittingly. In his discussion of tiny quantum particles, Dawkins claims that the human brain has not really evolved the ability to understand many physical realities on a quantum scale. He states that much that we have learned about quantum mechanics goes against our “common-sense” notions. Thus, he concluded: “Common sense lets us down, because common sense evolved in a world where nothing moves very fast, and nothing is very small or very large” (2006, p. 364).

Putting the pieces together, then, Dawkins believes that moral decisions should be based on what the general population determines to be moral (Dawkins, 2006, pp. 237-278). Basically, he states that the combined “common sense” of humanity serves as a good indicator of morally correct behavior. But then he suggests that “common sense” is nothing more than an evolved entity that can “let us down.” If common sense can “let us down” in our judgments about the physical world, does it not also follow that it can do the same in moral determinations?

With such inconsistent statements, Dawkins forces himself and his fellow atheists back to the drawing board to concoct some facsimile of moral oughtness. In the end, all he can really conclude is that there are no moral absolutes and we cannot be certain that anything is really right or wrong. He said as much himself when he stated: “Fortunately, however, morals do not have to be absolute” (2006, p. 232). And, whereas one could easily argue that Dawkins’ idea of constant moral fluctuation goes against “common sense,” that is not why his idea is wrong. It is wrong because it violates the self-evident rules of logic, dismisses the powerful and irrefutable evidence that a divine Creator exists, and contradicts the Truth revealed by that Creator.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2007), “All Religion Is Bad Because Some Is?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3546.

Colley, Caleb (2004), “Did Jesus Command Infant Baptism?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2638.

Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).

A Sponge with Fiber Optics by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=961

A Sponge with Fiber Optics

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

The last time you picked up a phone to call your business partner about a work project, you might have been using fiber optics. The last time you logged onto the World Wide Web from your home computer, you might have been using fiber optics. We hear much about fiber optics these days, but what, exactly, is meant by the term “fiber optics”? In simple terms, a fiber-optic cable has a core (center) made of very thin glass. Light can travel through the glass and relay light signals that can reproduce sound and other information. Fiber-optic cables stretch thousands of miles all across the world, and can send information quickly and efficiently.

But there are some problems with these cables. First, since they are glass, they can be brittle, which means they can crack and break. Digging up the cables and replacing them is very expensive. Second, in order to produce the cables, factories must use very high heat, which also is very expensive. Fiber optics are amazing, but they could use some improvement.

Interestingly, scientists have found an amazing sponge that has wonderful fiber-optic “cables.” The sponge, called the Venus Flower Basket, lives in the deep waters of the ocean. This sponge produces several fiber-optic cables that grow out of its base. These tiny cables are about as wide as a single human hair, and grow to be anywhere from 2 to 7 inches long.

The fibers produced by the Venus Flower Basket have several advantages over the manmade ones. First, they are produced in cool temperatures. If we humans could learn to copy this, we could save millions of dollars. Second, the fibers from the sponge are very strong and flexible, and do not crack and break like the ones humans produce. In fact, the fibers from the sponge are so flexible they can be tied into a knot. If scientists could learn to make such strong, flexible fibers, we would not have to spend as much time and money repairing our current fiber-optic cables.

Dan Vergano, in an article for USA Today, wrote about the Venus Flower Basket. He quoted several researchers who had been working with the fiber-optic cables of the sponge, or some other facet of biomimetics (the science of copying nature). George Matsumoto, a marine researcher of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California, said: “Nature often provides us with a better way of doing thing [sic].” He went on to comment that sponges have evolved varied traits over more than 400 million years (2003).

It is amazing that many scientists who are working in the field of biomimicry do not acknowledge the implications of their work. It is a self-evident truth that where there is design, there must of necessity, be a designer; where there is a painting, there must be a painter. Those who study biomimicry freely acknowledge design in nature. For example, what seems to be the official Web site on biomimicry offers a course from its home page titled “Biologists at the Design Table.” In the course summary, under the heading of “Workshop Logistics,” the site describes the participants in the course as those who are “biologists and naturalists with a passion for the natural world, an understanding of sustainability and an interest in applying nature’s elegant design strategies to human challenges” (n.d., “Biomimicry,” emp. added).

Supposedly, then, over a period of billions of years, nature developed “elegant design strategies”—the likes of which even our most educated, brilliant minds have yet to plumb the depths. And yet we are to believe that this “design” somehow originated by a process of blind, evolutionary chance. Such a conclusion steps beyond bounds of logic.

Intelligent scientists have been working on fiber-optic cables for many years, just to get them to work as well as they do now. Yet, the Venus Flower Basket has strong, flexible fibers that are produced in cool temperatures. If there is design, which is even more intricate and efficient than that produced by highly intelligent humans, then the designer of such must have an intellect equal to or greater than the humans themselves. The writer of Hebrews accurately noted: “For every house is built by someone, but he who built all things is God” (3:4). God’s design in the sponge’s fiber-optic “cables” proves that animals like the Venus Flower Basket did not evolve. Design demands a Designer.

REFERENCES

“Biomimicry,” (n.d.) [On-line], URL: http://www.biomimicry.org/intro.html.

Vergano, Dan (2003), “Sponge Goes Man-made Fiber Optics One Better,” USA Today, [On-line],URL: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-08-20-sponge-fibers_x.htm.

America's Sexual Anarchy by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=698

America's Sexual Anarchy

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

A host of social indicators document the continuing moral and spiritual decline of America. Two of the most recent ought to evoke national mourning. One comes from a biennial study of the sexual content of television programming by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Their findings: The number of sexual scenes on television has nearly doubled since 1998. The study found that 70% of all shows include some sexual content, and that these shows average five sexual scenes per hour (Graham and Kingsley, 2005, emp. added).

The second social indicator comes from a report by the National Center for Health Statistics that summarizes the 2004 birth rates for the United States. Childbearing by unmarried women reached a record high of almost 1.5 million births in 2004. More than 4 in 5 births to teenagers were nonmarital. Over half of births to women in their early twenties and nearly 3 in 10 births to women aged 25–29 were to unmarried women. This data means that in 2004, 35.7 percent of all births were illegitimate(Hamilton, et al., 2005, emp. added).

These social indicators are staggering! From the 1960s to the present, American civilization is being sucked into the vortex of sexual disorder and confusion. The dismantling of the Christian foundations of America has resulted in a plethora of sexually deviant actions. America is literally spiraling downward into the abyss of moral depravity and degradation. Many are emulating the adulterous woman, who “eats and wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wickedness’” (Proverbs 30:20). But God still warns: “flee sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18). Indeed, doom is inevitable for a nation gripped by such widespread sexual anarchy. “Stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant. But he does not know that the dead are there, that her guests are in the depths of hell” (Proverbs 9:17-18).

REFERENCES

Graham, Rob and Sarah Kingsley (2005), “Number of Sexual Scenes on TV Nearly Double Since 1998,” Kaiser Family Foundation, [On-line], URL: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedi a110905nr.cfm.

Hamilton, Brady, Stephanie Ventura, Joyce Martin, and Paul Sutton (2005), “Preliminary Births for 2004,” National Center for Health Statistics, [On-line], URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/prelim_births/prelim _births04.htm.

From Gary... At the intersection of Faith and Reason

I do not accept just anything, I want evidence. And proof, solid evidence that can be trusted. Frankly, I am not into opinions. Like I said, I want proof- and it had better be rock solid proof before I put my trust (which is another way of saying faith) into something. Now, if this is true for the here-and- now physical world, how about for matters spiritual? Consider, if there really is an afterlife, then living correctly right now is of paramount importance! For what you do now (in this short earthly existence) will determine that which unfolds in eternity. Consider the following passages from the Bible...

Acts, Chapter 1 (WEB)

  1 Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us,  2 even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word delivered them to us,  3 it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus;  4 that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were instructed. 

1 Corinthians, Chapter 15 (WEB)

 1 Now I declare to you, brothers, the Good News which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand,  2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.  3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,  4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,  5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  6 Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep.  7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,  8 and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.  9 For I am the least of the apostles, who is not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the assembly of God.  10 But by the grace of God I am what I am. His grace which was bestowed on me was not futile, but I worked more than all of them; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.  11 Whether then it is I or they, so we preach, and so you believed.

2 Peter, Chapter 1 (WEB)

 12  Therefore I will not be negligent to remind you of these things, though you know them, and are established in the present truth.  13 I think it right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you;  14 knowing that the putting off of my tent comes swiftly, even as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me.  15 Yes, I will make every effort that you may always be able to remember these things even after my departure.  16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 

Luke was a physician, a man of precision and learning- not a person to take lightly. During the past couple of years, I have been reading through the New Testament in Greek and I have noticed that reading what he writes (Luke and Acts) is much harder than most of the other New Testament books. He writes with more complexity, which reflects a mind that has been trained to think in an orderly fashion.  Notice that he has researched, investigated and consulted eyewitnesses of Jesus to get his facts correct in order to know the truth!!!

Paul presents "the Good News" and gives as evidence the witness of over five hundred people. Then adds his own for emphasis. And talk about being logical- read the book of Romans. This book reads like a textbook on logic!!! What a mind, what ability, what truth!!!

And then there is Peter- unlike the others, he was not a man of "letters" but he did know Jesus and what was true. I genuinely like Peter, faults and all, because his humanity shines through his writing. He too was a witness and not of "cunningly devised fables", either.

To me, it is logical that if the things they wrote were untrue, then their contemporaries would have produced the body of Jesus or presented undeniable evidence debunking Christians as being  frauds. Where is that material? Not there, because what they wrote was (and is) the TRUTH!!! 

Before you dismiss the above, ask yourself - am I willing to wager eternity on what I believe?