Apologetics is a concept we're all at least intuitively aware of, but some of those who've made a systematic study of the issue have discovered some key points that virtually cripple doubts about the gospel. I am condensing things quite a bit. There are some profound insights (mostly not my own) in what follows, so please read carefully.
Doubt for the Christian could appear to be largely a function of environment. Isn't it easy to trust God living in a time and place where persecution is light?
Although this seems logical, isn't it contradicted by the examples of the past and present?
Evangelical churches in China are still persecuted now and were horribly treated (unto death!) in the recent past yet remained steadfast.
In Vietnam, followers of a particular pastor (who used to be a sorcerer), were thrown into prison with murders and thieves, yet they persevered, converting a number of prisoners.
Perhaps it is the easy life that makes it easy to ignore God, but when you have little, you thank Him for that little bit He provided.
Now knowing full well that God has promised protection, I would have difficulties when loved ones or myself were drug out to be killed. I expect doubt would be nearly overwhelming. These people knew God was able to protect them. They could talk to eyewitnesses even if they hadn't seen miracles first hand themselves.
I have a feeling that you underestimate your own resolve.
What torturous doubt would enter my mind, knowing that the Almighty was withholding His protection! But they overcame any such doubts, and refused to abandon their testimony even under torture and penalty of death. What could God's plan have been? If He loved them, how could He allow such things to happen?
The destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) actually resulted in Christians being spread throughout the Roman Empire. This spread caused the Romans to persecute the growing religion and caused them to spread beyond the boundaries of Rome. I'd say God knew what he was doing when He allowed that to happen. It is in adversity that we grow stronger.
God was thinking of us. He gave His Son for us, and he also allowed His followers to suffer (at apparent risk to His reputation) for the sake of those who would live in later times. It is precisely because these people suffered so much and were martyred that we can be absolutely sure they told the truth to the best of their ability.
Nobody knowingly dies for a lie. (I must emphasize 'knowingly', as there have been martyrs for false causes.) Thus WE can be certain that the New Testament was written honestly. Unless those men were somehow deceived, their word is good. This cannot rationally be disputed, and if you think it can I suggest you give the matter a few minutes' consideration.
It is possible that those men were deceived. If so, for them the Gospel was the truth and they could not deny it and remain true to themselves. The key word is knowingly. If they did not know it was not true, then they may have died for a lie. Difficult to tell because tradition and truth are so intertwined. Did Peter die on a cross, upside down? Did Thomas really go to India? John was on Patmos (sp?) but was his Revelation a real vision from God or was it Peter's Apocalypse?
Now determining whether or not the writers of the New Testament were deceived is best done by reading it, and carefully studying to see if they could have been mistaken. I don't care to copy all the evidence here. I will just point out that they were in very close proximity to the events of which they testify, and the single most important event is the death and resurrection of our Lord.
Who wrote the New Testament? Don't you wish we had clay tablets of original writings? Some say Mark was written as early as 75 AD and as late as 120 AD. Who is right? What is the Q document and when was it written...and by who? Many questions with varied answers. The atheists like to point out the contradictions but gloss over the obvious continuity in many of Jesus' teachings. I'd like to think that it is not the nits that ruin but the weave that makes the tapestry.
The reason it's so important is that we have a Living Saviour. Without His death, we'd be in bad shape: the price of our sin would still be due. Without His resurrection, we'd just be worshipping a dead man, with no hope after this life, and no basis for hope during this life.
Honestly, for me this is where it gets confusing. Paul says that acceptance of the Son is all we need (Romans) yet Jesus stated that works of a type are necessary (Parable of Sheep and Goats). Which is it? Why did Jesus say the law will stand for all time yet Paul says that we are no longer under the law?
One often encounters the claim "all religions are the same". Or "how do you know you're right and everyone else is wrong?" I say nothing else matters. I'll follow the Living God. I'll follow the God who loves me enough to see to it that I can justify confidence in the Holy Books that tell me about Him. I don't know of any rivals that even come close.
While I admire your confidence and steadfastness, I have to ask: Have you ever been involved in another religion? I agree that they are not "all the same". However, Buddhist teachings are intriguing and research shows they are by far the most contented followers of any religion.
