Science & Christianity - No Conflict!

A person can be a God-fearing Christian on Sunday and a working scientist come Monday morning, without ever having to account for the partition that seems to have erected itself in his head while he slept.[1]

This “partition” between science and Christianity has been constructed from both sides. Many scientists see Christianity as anti-science and anti-reason, and in direct opposition to science. Many Christians see science as anti-God and view evolution as a direct attack on the Christian faith. This “war” between faith and science is needless. Not only are science and Christianity not in conflict, they actually are very much connected.

Science and Christianity have historically complemented each other. Christians see God as a Lawgiver, as a rational mind, and as the Creator. Because of this, the world must be rational, must follow prescribed laws, and must have a reason for its existence. Science is the way we study the world, the laws, and the reasons. Christian theology also teaches that man was created in the image of God, so we also have the ability to comprehend God’s laws and reasons. Therefore, science arose only once: In Christian Western Europe in the 17^thcentury.

Christianity depicted God as a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as His personal creation, thus having a rational stable structure, awaiting human comprehension. Christians developed science because they believed it could be done and they thought it should be done.[2]

Since they believed it could be done, the vast majority of initial thinkers in science were Christians who did their investigations becauseof the Christian ideas they had about the universe. Nicolaus Copernicus was a church deacon who did astronomy in his spare time. Robert Boyle, father of modern chemistry, set up Christian apologetics lectures. Boyle saw his work as a theological vocation and described natural philosophers as priests who deciphered truths about the natural world – the temple of God.”[3] Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was a Christian monk. Isaac Newton, discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation, thought that one of the important goals of natural philosophy was to formulate convincing arguments for the existence of God.[4]  Newton finishes his Principia with:

This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God.[5]

Johannes Kepler, discoverer of the laws of planetary motion, wrote:

The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.[6]

Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate and co-discoverer of the cosmic background radiation, says of Kepler’s philosophy: 

That really goes back to the triumph, not of Copernicus, but really the triumph of Kepler. That's because, after all, the notion of epicycles and so forth goes back to days when scientists were swapping opinions. All this went along until we had a true believer and this was Kepler. Kepler, after all, was the Old Testament Christian. Right? He really believed in God the Lawgiver. And so he demanded that the same God who spoke in single words and created the universe is not going to have a universe with 35 epicycles in it. And he said there's got to be something simpler and more powerful. Now he was lucky or maybe there was something deeper, but Kepler's faith was rewarded with his laws of nature. And so from that day on, it's been an awful struggle, but over long centuries, we find that very simple laws of nature actually do apply. And so that expectation is still with scientists. And it comes essentially from Kepler, and Kepler got it out of his belief in the Bible, as far as I can tell. This passionate belief turned out to be right. And he gave us his laws of motion, the first real laws of nature we ever had. And so nature turned out to redeem the expectations he had based on his faith. And scientists have adopted Kepler's faith, without the cause.[7]

One common charge against Christianity is that it “hinders scientific progress.” Any commonly accepted idea could hinder science—not just ones that Christians hold. The best example was the dogmatic adherence to Aristotle that hindered scientific progress for over 2000 years. One of the first people to disagree with Aristotle was a Christian, Nicolaus Copernicus. And it was Galileo, also a Christian, who challenged the prevailing scientific view of the universe in the name of science. Most people at the time, including secular scientists, held the Aristotelian idea that the earth was at the center of the solar system and heavenly bodies moved in perfect circles. It was Kepler who showed planetary orbits to be ellipses. Christians were the ones actually pushing science forward in an age of scientific stagnation.

Another example of this was Louis Pasteur, a devout Christian credited with the discovery of germ theory. The prevailing view in Pasteur’s time was that microbes could spontaneously appear from chemicals and this was the cause of illness. Spontaneous generation disagrees with the Christian Doctrine of Creation, so Pasteur set out, with obvious success, to show that life appearing from non-life could not be correct. Based on his Christian beliefs, Pasteur was motivated to test a prevailing scientific theory to the benefit of mankind.

A current example of a theory holding back science is the beliefthat our DNA contains a vast amount of “junk” that has no function. Scientists held to this belief because it was one of the evidences for evolutionary theory and this “held back” science for 30 years. We are now discovering all kinds of function in “junk DNA” that we never bothered to look for earlier because of a dogmatic adherence to evolutionary theory. Christianity is no more guilty of “holding back science” than any other commonly held idea that society sees as correct.

Christianity and science are not at odds, nor should they be at war.  Some of the hostility comes from a perceived limit of each domain; the assumption that science deals only in facts and answers the “how” questions, while Christianity is limited to faith questions and only can answer the “why” questions. These are artificially imposed limits that neither area actually restricts itself to. I believe most of the hostility comes from a misunderstanding of how each area operates.

Because humans make mistakes, it is the interpretation of nature (science) and the interpretation of scripture (theology) that can be in conflict. In fact, both domains can work together, support each other, and learn from each other. When interpreted correctly, Christian scripture and nature should be in harmony. God created the universe and inspired the Bible, so both should agree. Science is constantly changing based on new evidence and our interpretationof scripture should be open for evaluation as well.

As it did with the early scientists, Christianity can provide inspiration for scientists; giving them a reason for their work. Discovering how the universe began or deciphering the ultimate nature of matter is a much richer activity when you can pair it with the knowledge of the One who created it all. Christianity may even provide some direction for investigation like it did with Kepler and Pasteur.

Conversely, Christians should not be afraid of “good” science; that is models and theories that honestly are based on evidence. For example, Christians should not simply dismiss evolutionary theory, nor should we assume we have to rethink our interpretation of the Bible to fit evolutionary theory. Instead, we should learn the current evidence for the theory and evaluate it based on this evidence; it is not persuasive to argue against a scientific theory by using passages of scripture. We shouldn’t be upset when a discipline that looks only at the natural world has a theory that leaves God out. What we can do is show how the same evidence used to support evolutionary theory can be used to support the doctrine of creation.

The physical world and God both constantly surprise us and as we probe deeper they both stretch our intellect in unimaginable ways. The more I study God and the more I study science, the more I see an intimate connection between the two.  The great fathers of modern science saw the same connection. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton & Boyle all believed in the Christian God and “it was their discoveries – an increase in knowledge – that incited their written expressions of praise and reverence for an ingenious, omnipotent Maker in whom image mankind is made.”[8]

What I see the current generation of apologists doing, is moving heavily into philosophy—I think that's a good thing. I mean, what I notice is that, philosophers are becoming more and more predominantly Christian as time goes on, but I'd like to encourage balance, that we'd also be encouraging young Christian scholars to go into theological apologetics and scientific apologetics, and the latter's where I see the greatest need. Too many churches are discouraging their young people from pursuing scientific disciplines. They kind of look at science as the enemy of the Christian faith… At Reasons to Believe we emphasize the opposite: science is the ally of the Christian faith, and we need to be sending an army of young people into the top scientific institutions, to get advanced degrees and to use those advanced degrees to develop new reasons to believe and to show people that we can integrate new science, philosophy and theology to find the truth that God wants us all to understand.[9]

---

[1]Sam Harris, The End of Faith, Norton, New York, 2004, page 15

[2]Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God, Princeton University Press, 2003, page 147

[3]Science and the Mind of the Maker, Melissa Cain Travis, Harvest House Publishers, 2018, page 76

[4]ibid, page 74

[5]Isaac Newton, Principia, 1687

[6]Johannes Kepler, Astronomia nova, 1609

[7]Michael Bumbulis, Christianity and the Birth of Science, http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

[8]Science and the Mind of the Maker, Melissa Cain Travis, Harvest House Publishers, 2018, page 66

[9]Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe, http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/11/interview-transcript-hugh-ross.html

Doing Science Teaches Us About God

There are several places in scripture that tell us how important it is to God for us to know about nature.  We are also told that when we study nature we will learn things about God.

The Old Testament teaches that Solomon was wiser than all other men; 1^stKings lists some of the topics about which Solomon was wise.  

He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall. He spoke also of beasts, and of birds, and of reptiles, and of fish.[1]

King Solomon was a naturalist! God chose to give biological knowledge to Solomon, which he then shared with “people of all nations.” Information about the natural world - also called science - must be important to God. Solomon understood this when he said, “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways and be wise.”[2]

Psalm 8 compares the universe to God. 

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him.[3]

We obviously have to know about nature in order for this comparison to work; we must have already done some science in order to see how great God is. When we see the incredible immenseness of the universe, we realize how much God must care to pay attention to such a small speck. The more we learn about how fine-tuned the moon and stars have to be for life to exist on earth, the more we see the love that God has for us. Psalm 19 directly tells us that the universe will teach us about God, so we need to do some cosmology, astronomy and geology to see that the heavens actually do “declare the glory of God”. 

The heavens declare the glory of God,

   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech,

   and night to night reveals knowledge.[4]

Historically, Christians have used what is discovered about nature to help inform them about what scripture is teaching. Augustine wanted the interpretation of scripture to stay consistent with the cosmology and physics of the classical tradition and used the natural sciences in his role as a theologian and bible interpreter. Christians should think of Scripture and Creation as two “books” that should be read together for understanding of the fullness of God’s self-revelation; science is a God-given tool for discerning the handiwork of God in Creation and is fully compatible with God’s Word revealed in Scripture. The oldest of the doctrinal standards of the Christian Reformed Church is the Belgic Confession of 1561. Article 2 proclaims that we can know God by studying nature.

We know God by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which allcreatures,great and small,are as lettersto make us ponderthe invisible things of God:God’s eternal power and divinity,as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.All these things are enough to convict humansand to leave them without excuse.Second, God makes himself known to us more clearly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for God’s gloryand for our salvation.[5]

Augustine also wanted Christians to be knowledgeable about the natural world and use it as a handmaiden of theology and religion. He worried about Christians talking nonsense about science and how that would hurt the religion.

Augustine made it clear that although scriptural knowledge is vastly superior to knowledge gained through the senses, the latter is inestimably superior to ignorance. Moreover, he worried that Christians, naively interpreting scripture, might express absurd opinions on cosmological issues, this provoking ridicule among better informed pagans and bringing the Christian faith into disrepute.[6]

Augustine’s warning to Christians is still relevant today.  Bernard Ramm in the 1950’s observed this exact thing and gave a similar warning.

It is impossible to settle the complex problems of Bible-and-science, theological and empirical fact without a well-developed Christian theism and philosophy of science. For example, the idea of creation is rather complex. Evangelicals were not always aware of the great deal of thought put into this matter by Augustine and Aquinas. As a result, evangelicals posed the problems of modern science as resolving down to : (i) fiat, instantaneous creationism; or (ii) atheistic developmentalism. This is certainly a gross over-simplification, not a genuine probing, of the entire concept of creation.[7]

This way of thinking has resulted in science being taught with absolute disregard of biblical statements and Christian perspectives. Science mostly is done with no interest as to what the Bible says on the subject and is now developed and is now mostly controlled by people who do not believe in the scientific credibility of the Bible. Both science and theology are hurt when we operate as if the divide between them exists. 

God has put us in this universe and made us curious because what we learn about nature teaches us about Him.  Biochemistry is showing us that only an incredible mind could be responsible for the information and intricate systems we are finding. Cosmology is teaching us about the grandeur and vastness of the universe; which had to be created by something even more grand.  Geology and biology are showing us the incredible fine-tuning needed for life to exist on earth and the care that had to be taken by the creator to make a home for us.  Recent discoveries in geology have added support to the creation narrative in Genesis.[8]The very small and the very large both point us to God and show us His characteristics and His greatness. The Bible tells us to do science for this very reason. Christians throughout history have followed this instruction; it has been to the detriment of Christianity when we haven’t.

---

[1]1 Kings 4:33 ESV

[2]Proverbs 6:6 ESV

[3]Psalm 8:3 ESV

[4]Psalm 19: 1-2 ESV

[5]Belgic Confession of 1561, Christian Reformed Church

[6]David C. Linderg, When Science and Christianity Meet, University of Chicago Press, 2003, page 14

[7]Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, William B Eerdmans Publishing, 1954, page 19

[8]http://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe

The Inspirational Design & Presence of Phosphate

This entry summarizes four YouTube Videos by Reasons to Believe, conversations between Barrie Winn and Fazale Rana about phosphates, found here: https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonsToBelieve1/videos

Some information also comes from The Inspirational Design of DNA, by Fazale R. Rana, PhD, published in Chapter 3 of Building Bridges, 2018 by Reasons to Believe.

Phosphate is indispensable for life.  It is uniquely designed to be used in a variety of applications in living organisms; no other substance has the chemistry to accomplish this wide range of functions. You will find phosphates in cell membranes, DNA, RNA, ATP, ADP, as well as the teeth and bones of vertebrates.

Phosphate is best able to ionize in the same pH range (around 7) in which cell reactions operate; this is crucial for phosphate to retain a negative charge while bonding with two sugars in the deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) backbone. This negative charge stabilizes the DNA backbone by preventing water molecules from breaking it up while also insuring that the DNA stays within the cell membrane.  Phosphate chemical analogs cannot bond to both sugars in the same manner. Phosphite and sulfate can form two bonds but would do so without the necessary negative charge remaining. Arsenate is not able to form bonds with organic materials and bonds to nitrate would not be stable.

In addition to being perfect in DNA, phosphate is also the best molecule to provide energy for metabolic functions. All organisms, from the simplest bacteria to humans, use adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as their primary energy currency. Phosphate is also found as part of the calcium apatite crystal structure in bones and teeth of vertebrates.

Phosphate is obviously crucial for life on earth. It is a component of vertebrate backbones as well as the backbone of DNA; it is also the basis for the physiology of every organism. For it to be used in so many applications, it should have been easy to access on the early earth as the first life emerged, but it wasn’t; this is known as “The Phosphate Problem”. Phosphorus doesn’t exist in a stable gas form or even as a stable liquid element or compound. Given that all the other major elements necessary for life (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen) exist in the gaseous phase as stable substances, it is almost impossible to see how phosphorus could have participated in reactions with the other necessary elements. Phosphorus was probably present on the early earth as apatite or phosphide compounds, but both of these are extremely insoluble solids. To make them soluble requires conditions (like a very low pH or a very high temperature) that would not support other reactions required to make the molecules necessary for life.  What is necessary to make phosphates available to reactions in solution would undermine any other kind of chemical evolution. 

We have found some pathways and conditions that can increase the solubility of phosphorus compounds in other solutions, such as urea, but all of these require intense human intervention.  It is highly unlikely that these pathways existed on early earth without a mind intervening. 

As we continue to do research, the origin and concentration of phosphorus on earth is looking more and more like a miracle.  Phosphides are found in meteorites, but it is difficult to get these to become phosphates under the conditions of early earth; these reactions also require attentive lab intervention; requiring a mind to make sure they occur. The trendline of research confirms the increasingly difficult task of finding a chemical pathway necessary for phosphate to be available on the early earth.

Even the presence of phosphorus on earth in a relatively large concentration looks as if a mind was required. Phosphorus is produced by nucleosynthesis and is spread throughout the universe when a star explodes. Recent research is finding that phosphorus creation is inconsistent in supernovae; it is found in some explosions but not in others! Even though phosphorus is not ubiquitous in the universe; the earth seems to have an exceptionally high concentration and it seems that it was delivered in a “geological instant”.  The earth’s crust is relatively abundant in phosphorus; much of it delivered by meteorites in a relatively short  period of time.  We were either exceptionally lucky, or the phosphorus on earth is another example of the incredible design we are discovering as we investigate the universe.

It is reasonable to conclude that the presence and amount of phosphorus on earth was designed.  Not only does it look as if the presence of phosphorus is unusual, but only a mind could take something that would be hard to access and make it a major component necessary for life. Phosphate provides us with another example of nature declaring the glory of God.

The Inspirational Design of DNA

This entry is a summary of The Inspirational Design of DNA, by Fazale R. Rana, PhD, published in Chapter 3 of Building Bridges, 2018 by Reasons to Believe.

DNA design is elegant, ingenious, and optimally designed for its role in the cell as a molecular-scale information storage system.  Biochemists believe that DNA approaches the theoretical maximum in terms of its digital storage capacity.

There are several key structural features of DNA that are responsible for its optimal data storage properties. Emerging data indicates that the components that make up the nucleotides appear to have been chosen carefully with every detail of DNA’s structure critically factored into this molecule information-storage role.  The components must give the DNA maximum stability while still allowing for protein binding to occur.

Phosphate is perfectly suited to form the stable backbone. Phosphate can form bonds with two sugars at the same time to bridge two nucleotides, while still maintaining a negative charge.  This negative charge imparts the DNA backbone with stability that prevents reactive water molecules from cleaving it.  The charge also serves as a protein binding site.  Both phosphite and sulfate (chemical analogs to phosphate) can form two bonds, but would do so without the necessary negative charge remaining. Arsenate (also a chemical analog) is not able to form bonds with organic materials.

The specific nature of the phosphate to sugar bonds is also optimized. The 5’ to 3’ phosphodiester linkage is a maximally stable bond; stability being one of the requirements to effectively store information. The sugar itself, deoxyribose (which lacks an OH group on the #2 carbon), also provides stability.  Ribose (the sugar in RNA), however, has this #2 OH group, which can catalyze the cleavage of the backbone. While DNA needs to be stable to store information, RNA needs to possess a certain measure of instability to keep extra proteins from cluttering up the cell.  The use of thymine (instead of uracil) in DNA, along with the antiparallel arrangement of the nucleotide strands both lead to the increased stability of DNA over RNA.

Research has shown that deoxyribose is the only sugar that could fulfill the role it does in DNA. When other sugars instead of deoxyribose are used, the DNA does not have all the properties necessary to operate in the cell.  Some of the analogs don’t form a double helix, in others the interaction between the nucleotide strands is too strong or too weak.  Still others can assume multiple structural conformations – which keeps the cells machinery from operating on the DNA as it should.

The nucleobases adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil appear to be the best possible choices as well. This set of nucleobases display ideal photophysical properties; minimizing the damage caused by ultraviolet radiation by absorbing light at exactly the same wavelengths that are most effectively shielded by ozone! Also, the chemical structure of these nucleobases cause the UV radiation to be radiated away after absorption, limiting the damage.

One kilogram of DNA can store all the digital data that currently exists. This exquisite optimization of DNA’s structure indicates that it is not the outworking of a historically contingent evolutionary process; instead extreme optimization points to a creator. Computer scientists and molecular biologists have come to realize that the cells machinery, which manipulates DNA, literally functions like a computer system at its most basic level of operation. How could humans have designed a system that operates exactly like the information computing system that operates inside a cell?  The most rational answer is that since we were created by God, we think in a similar way as our creator.

Why Would A Good God Create Viruses?

(This blog is a summary of the article written by Anjeanette “AJ” Roberts, PhD, found in Chapter 4 of Building Bridges, Reasons to Believe, 2018)

The presence of “natural evil” is one of the most common objections levied at the existence of God.  How can a good God allow the suffering caused by naturally occurring disasters such as earthquakes and tsunami? Viruses such as influenza, herpes, measles, and Ebola that cause widespread disease and death are a perfect example of this. 

As it turns out, these horrific viruses are actually very rare exceptions. The vast majority of viruses on planet Earth are not associated with any disease or suffering.  The earth is filled with an incredible abundance of viruses.  A single milliliter of ocean water or a gram of soil can harbor 10-100 million virus particles or more.  Viruses outnumber all other living things by a factor of at least 10 to 1 and even possibly 100 to 1. It is estimated that there are 10³¹viruses on earth – that’s 10 million times more viruses than stars in the universe, but only an infinitesimal fraction of viruses are associated with human disease, or diseases of any kind.

In fact, viruses are critical for sustaining the balance in Earth’s ecological webs and for providing higher ordered organisms ecological space to thrive. If it were not for viruses, bacteria and other single celled organisms would rule the planet, sequestering all nutrients and filling all ecological niches, making higher life and the survival of multicellular organisms impossible. Bacteriophage kill 40-50 percent of all the bacteria in Earth’s oceans on a daily basis.  This bacterial death releases an abundance of biogenic and organic molecules into Earth’s biogeochemical cycle and food chain for the survival of other organisms. It is possible that many viruses also exist to regulate animal populations. Some viruses have a symbiotic relationship with different organisms to help them survive through particular stresses. We need viruses for our very survival.

We are also harnessing viruses to improve our quality of life. We use them as tools to genetically alter organisms and to mitigate disease, manipulating and engineering them to fight cancer and polio. Much of what we know about molecular and cellular biology has been knowledge gained through viral studies. 

Although a few viruses are remarkably bad, life as we know it would be impossible without the vast array of viruses that fill the planet. While we understandably focus on the viruses that are dangerous to humans, our existence actually depends on the presence of viruses. Just like earthquakes and tsunami, viruses are responsible for horrific pain.  But also just like earthquakes and tsunami, viruses are necessary for life as we know it to even exist in the first place.

The New Testament Writers Were Concerned About Truth: An Argument from Omission

The only concern of the writers of the New Testament was accurately recording the history of Jesus and presenting the truth of the gospel. A few of the common reasons given to show that they were concerned about representing Jesus accurately are: The inclusion of embarrassing details about themselves and Jesus, the inclusion of the demanding and difficult sayings of Jesus, the inclusion of historically verifiable names and locations (over 30 of which have been confirmed), and the matter of fact way that they describe miracles just like they would describe any other historical event; without embellishment or exaggeration.[1]

The apostles were not driven by the pursuit of power.  Being a leader within the Christian community was a liability; not an asset.  The nonbiblical histories and writings related to the lives and ministries of the twelve apostles consistently proclaimed that the apostles were persecuted and eventually martyred for their testimony.[2]

Two portions of Luke’s gospel also illustrate this point.  Luke 9 (as well as Matthew 10 & Mark 6) records Jesus sending out the twelve apostles, as well as their return. Luke 10 does the same with the sending and return of the 72.  In all cases the New Testament writers leave out any specific stories of what theydid on their journeys; focusing instead on what Jesus taught them.  

Luke records that Jesus gave the disciples power and authority over all demons and diseases and told them to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal. Luke also writes what Jesus told the disciples to take with them, where to stay, and what to do if a particular town did not believe them. When the disciples return, Luke simply states that they told Jesus what they did. Nothing is said about who did what, how many demons were cast out, or what diseases where healed.  If the writers were concerned about gaining power, they would have written about all the incredible things they accomplished on their time away from Jesus.

Matthew adds a few more specifics to the instructions Jesus gave before the twelve left including the warnings about being persecuted, but Matthew also leaves out any mention of what the apostles did on their journeys.  Mark adds the simple statement that the disciples “cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.”[3]

If the apostles were concerned about gaining power and prestige in a new “invented” religion, they would have reported what they did on their journey to show how spiritual they were.  Mark (traditionally the scribe writing for the apostle Peter) should have listed all the great and wonderful things that Peter did, Matthew should have written about all the demons he cast out, and Luke (traditionally one of the 72) should have listed all the diseases he cured when he went out with the 72.  Because none of them did this (and instead included embarrassing details about themselves and Jesus) we can have confidence that they were concerned with reporting the truth about Jesus and not concerned with their power and reputation.

Luke 10 even records a rebuke from Jesus to the 72 about thinking that what they were doing is something they should boast about.

            

The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.[4]

The writers of the New Testament documents were concerned with accurately representing the history and teachings of Jesus.  They were not concerned with gaining prestige or power.  Check out these other blogs (listed below) that discuss the historicity and accuracy of the New Testament documents.

Argument for the Early Dating of Christian Theology and Christian Writings

Argument for New Testament Reliability

Do We Have Accurate Copies of the New Testament Documents?

---

[1]Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004

[2]J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, David C Cook, 2013, page 245-246

[3]Mark 6:13 ESV

[4]Luke 10: 17-20 ESV

Jesus of Testimony

Excellent documentary on the historicity of Jesus, the New Testament documents, miracles, the Resurrection, and the reason that Jesus came.  Very well done!

http://www.jesusoftestimony.com/watch/