Why would we believe anything written by Christians?

The most basic historical source is the Bible.  Ignore whether the Bible is the "Word of God" and rather, ask is it a reasonable historical record?  Some people argue that the Bible is complete mythology, but even mythology can have some historical significance.  For example, Homer's Iliad is commonly considered fiction, but it still provides some historical value in understanding the Greek culture.  In addition, Troy appears to be a real city with archaeological signs of warfare.   

For an objective review of the Bible and its potential evidence if there is life after death treat the Bible as a historical account.  Don't overload the text with all of the cultural/religious suppositions about the text.  Read it, investigate it, enjoy it.  Don't let other people tell you what you should think, decide for yourself.

This page does not stand on its own but builds on the previous discussions.  In the first section, it was stated that by definition science could not provide an answer if there was something beyond the material.  In the second section, we saw that if there was any predetermined meaning in life, that logically/philosophically, it would be connected to death.  Finally, we saw there were good non-bias sources which ay that the Jesus followers, after his crucifixion, were remarkedly different than the normal Roman citizen.  In this section, you are investigating what might have caused such a remarkable change in the people and if any of this makes sense. 

But before you investigate the Bible, there is one question to be looked at.  Is the Bible a reliable record, at all?

The main historical accounts of Jesus are in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and of some of his followers in the book the Acts of the Apostles (which is actually the second half of Luke).

1) Are the copies we have today accurate to the early writings?  There are more than 5000 historical copies of the Bible with no meaningful variation over the years.  The earliest manuscripts of the Gospels date to the late 2nd century and the accuracy of the manuscripts compared to the thousands of copies is outstanding.  

2) Does history/archeology prove the Bible wrong?  There is no known portion of the Bible which has been found false by archeology.   In fact, historical details in the Bible which were thought false were later corroborated through new finds.  There are many details in the Bible which have been proven true including sections which were written well before the historical event.  

 
3)  Is the account in the Gospels consistent with the rest of the Bible?  The other books of the New Testament, which are letters written by the early leaders, are consistent and verify many of the key events in the Gospels.  There are cross-references to stories in the Gospels, which is remarkable, because they were not written at the same time and many are written by different authors.  

4) Who are the authors and would they be good witnesses?   Internally, two Gospels were written by Jesus main disciples, a third by a Gentile who was a close associate of Paul, a man who worked with the disciples, and the fourth by Mark, who was likely a teenager during Jesus' ministry and whose family was close to Jesus.  All had access to first-hand accounts from eyewitnesses and overall should create an accurate picture of the man and his works.  They are also different backgrounds: tax-collector, small business fisherman, doctor, and teenager.   You would expect differences in the writing and events.  It is remarkable how from these four viewpoints, there is so much commonality.

5) Could these have been written later (i.e. centuries later), by non-eyewitnesses?  Even though the authors were alive during Jesus' life, most scholars believe the works were written decades after Jesus' death.  There is an internal consistency in all of the books similar to what you would expect from multiple different eyewitnesses of an event.  In other words, the stories might have differences in details, but the basic truths/facts are the same.  And there are historical details confirmed by Roman history which would have been difficult to incorporate by later authors.  

There are multiple theories that the books were written at a later date, but there are many reasons to doubt this.  After all, the historical record of the rapid growth of Christians in the 1st century would have to be attributed to some cause.  There are inconsistencies between the accounts which would be unexpected from a later writing.  There are differences in writing styles and historical references which would not have occurred with a later authorship.  Finally, many of these theories would place the writings multiple centuries later.  By then, the early Christian church would be larger and better organized, which would make widespread acceptance of "new" stories almost impossible.  

There are other authors who go into great detail about these points.  The arguments above represent a commonsense point of view similar to a lawyer trying to convince the jury of the truth.  You might not agree with what the Bible says, but it appears to be a reliable historical reference.

There are many excellent cell phone apps and websites with the content.  You can find the text in the original language with translation of the words if you want.  

There are many translations of the Bible.  New King James Version is an update to an English version written in 1611.   If you want a popular word for word translation, try the English Standard version.  If you want a version which reads more smoothly and tries to translate phrases and ideas better (versus each individual word), try the New Living Translation.   Or if a friend or someone you respects, recommends a different translation, try it.  

Of greatest value in your study is the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.  For a western thinker, I like the book of Luke.  It was written by a non-Jewish doctor, so its style matches Western culture best.  It is full of parables.  Many people recommend John first.  His account has a limited amount of very important stories and considerable firsthand conversations between Jesus and his closest disciples.  

Ideally, the purpose is to see the historical record and try to understand what motivates the followers of Jesus.     Is the Bible consistent with the non-Christian historical references?

This is your study.  You should not bet your death on anything written on this website.  A series of books which have lasted 2000 years are a much better bet.  If the writings are true, then the issue is between you and God. 

There is one point to highlight as you begin.  A careful reading will show that Jesus' resurrection is a central theme to his life even before his crucifixion.  Many people will say Jesus was a great teacher.  When you look at the Biblical account, you will realize that 1) he was more than a teacher, he was an actor of force and 2) that he predicts his death and resurrection before it occurs.  It is natural to assume this belief was from the beginning.  For the early Christ followers to be such dynamic agents of change, without material rewards, it means something great drove them forward.   An objective reader cannot just take Jesus' teaching without also being confronted by his life.   His teachings are wonderful, but without a proof of something beyond his short life, the final answer is lacking and the early Christians would have fallen apart.  Jesus' life is a testament of meaning beyond death.  

We logically got to a point that leads to a resurrected man, but do you have to accept everything that Christianity says?  It just doesn't fit together with my world!  How do I reconcile these two viewpoints?  And who would you listen to in the 2+ billion Christians in the world?

Let's discuss this in the next section "Community Input".