Reliability of the NT when it comes to the prophecies and claims about Jesus

[PeaceInChrist]

I could claim that any ancient body of work is a fabrication, claiming it does not provide any evidence. The Gospels are written in the style of a Biography, and were written shortly after the life of Christ. Despite the amazing claims of these biographies, we do not have record of anyone trying to disprove it for several hundred years after it was written. If it had been a fabrication, don’t you think there would have been droves of people working to disprove it, especially considering its claims?

There was very little interest in the immediate years of Christianity outside of Jerusalem and individual territories, so it absolutely makes sense that there weren’t written refutations immediately (as there weren’t even written accounts of Christ’s resurrection immediately after it happened).

I suggest listening to that program I linked to. It goes over the rationality of belief in the account of the Bible, and even goes so far as to claim that refusing to believe it is irrational.

Believing what eyewitnesses claim to have said based on writings that occurred thousands of years ago could be considered irrational. Many non-Christians put quite a bit of effort into examining Christianity. That they do not come to believe does not mean they do so irrationally. They may not have arrived at absolute truth, but that doesn’t mean their search wasn’t rational.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Also, we have pagan writings against Christianity as early as the 200s. So yes, there were refutations early on. Porphyry is the only one I can find right now. Hierocles also wrote against Christians. Many works, including parts of Poryphyry’s work, were lost as Christianity became dominant and pagan works were destroyed.

And again to the claim of no refutation being made: Bahai is a recent religion that has sprung up out of the Middle East. I had never even heard of it until about a year ago. I doubt many refutations were made immediately, because no one writes about something they have t heard about or are do not think is worthy of refutation. When I first heard of it, I thought it sounded silly and wouldn’t dream of the need to refute it. Now that I see how it has been spreading, I see the need to refute it. This is exactly what happened with Christianity.

 

[SonOfMan]

To the contrary.

In the NT specifically, we have half a dozen or so different authors all corroborating one another.

In other words, youre using the Bible to say that the Bible is true, which doesnt make for a compelling argument.

 

[SonOfMan]

You do not know the scriptures.

John 21:15-19
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Peter was told in advance by Jesus that he would die a martyr’s death, and, in fact, Peter was crucified in Rome around AD 62 during the persecution of the Church by Nero.

The apostles were not expecting to become rich or powerful.

Let me ask you, are you able to come up with any argument without using the Bible as a source? Because over and over, I see the Bible being used as its own source with nothing else to support, which is faulty reasoning.

Maybe Peter really was executed by Nero and someone filled in the blank and the surrounding story later. 2000 years from now people can claim Osama Bin Laden as a martyr because he was persecuted for his religion. Just because someone says it, doesnt make it the truth. Any rational person would require extra proof or extra sources in order to believe Bin Laden was a saintly martyr. If the only place this claim is found is within Al Quada, then its pretty safe to assume there is strong bias there and the claim far from being reliable.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In other words, youre using the Bible to say that the Bible is true, which doesnt make for a compelling argument.

No, I’m using half a dozen authors whose historically reliable works are found in the Bible to say that the resurrection of Jesus is true.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

1. The four gospels have been accurately delivered to us.

Textual criticism proves this.

2. The authors wrote early.

Had to be before the destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and before the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul (AD 62-65).

3. The authors recorded eyewitness accounts.

Matthew was an apostle. Matthew may have been chosen specifically because of his record-keeping skills which means that his accounts may have been based upon contemporaneous records of Jesus’ teaching, etc.
Luke interviewed people involved.
Mark was the companion of Peter
John was an apostle.

4. The authors wanted to write accurate accounts

All of the authors thought they were passing on the very words of God which obviously deserved great attention to detail and accuracy.
Luke and John specifically state that they are writing so that others may know the truth.

5. The authors did write accurate accounts which are verified and corroborated.

Jewish and Roman accounts corroborate the basic story.
The gospels are accurate according to careful studies of geography, topography, culture, style and the names of people in key roles.

6. The authors were accountable to other eyewitnesses (pro and con).

Jews did not deny the tomb was empty; they offered alternative explanations for why it was empty.
Thousands of people had witnessed Jesus’ miracles and preaching; the authors of the gospels could not make up stories that would not be challenged by those who were present.

7. The authors had no ulterior motive.

What was in it for the gospel writers? Sex? Money? Power?

8. The four gospels clearly show that Jesus claimed to be God.

9. The four gospels contain clear support for the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is the problem for you that there really ISN’T enough evidence for Christianity or that you don’t WANT there to be enough evidence for Christianity?

 

[Kaninchen]

Should I begin by building a case for the historical reliability of the NT first and go from there? This has the advantage of being a methodical approach. The downside is that putting a proper foundation in place takes time - but this is the topic of the thread.

One other question: the arguments for the reliability of the NT are well-known and used by any number of authors including (but not limited to) Josh McDowell. So, how will I be able to present the evidence without you objecting that I have simply done a “cut and paste”?

If you proceed at all, I think you should accept that, after a couple of decades of discussing religion online, you’re very far from being the first practitioner of your form of evangelism that I’ve come across.

So, you should take it that I know the arguments about topics such as the historicity/reliability of the New Testament and know that is one thing to say that a believer has some level historicity/reliability to back up their beliefs and quite another to suggest that what historicity/reliability exists ‘proves’ that the rest of the text is accurate reportage and thus proves Jesus’ divinity.

What would be interesting would be to see you attempt to make that link but I think it would be an error for you to assume that increasing numbers of metres of text mean increasing likelihood of establishing your case.

The evidence is what it is…I think if we are to discuss it, you’re going to have to be a little flexible on this point.

Not really, no.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Or would you rather tell me the biggest objection you have to the claims of Christianity and let me see what I can offer in response? This has the advantage of getting to the heart of the matter quickly. The downside is that sometimes the cart gets ahead of the horse.

If you proceed at all, I think you should accept that, after a couple of decades of discussing religion online, you’re very far from being the first practitioner of your form of evangelism that I’ve come across.

So, you should take it that I know the arguments about topics such as the historicity/reliability of the New Testament and know that is one thing to say that a believer has some level historicity/reliability to back up their beliefs and quite another to suggest that what historicity/reliability exists ‘proves’ that the rest of the text is accurate reportage and thus proves Jesus’ divinity.

While I appreciate your many years of Internet presence as well as the discussions you mentioned that you have had with friends and associates in the past, I cannot possibly know what arguments you have heard or not heard nor how well they were presented to you. Consequently, it would be a mistake for me to skip over anything that might make a difference.

However, perhaps the second option (which I have repeated above) would be best.

At your request, I’ll try to keep this brief.

1. 
   *]Since you have heard it all before, Kaninchen, what, in your opinion, is the weakest link in the case for Christianity?
   
   *]To begin at the beginning, do you think that there ever really was a human being named Jesus of Nazareth around and about whom certain beliefs later developed? Or do you think he is merely a legend? (And no, this is not the lead-in to a variation of the trilemma argument…I’m just trying to understand what you do and do not believe as a starting point for our discussion.)
   

   What would be interesting would be to see you attempt to make that link but I think it would be an error for you to assume that increasing numbers of metres of text mean increasing likelihood of establishing your case.

   That’s interesting. When a prosecutor is presenting evidence in a courtroom, he would prefer to have a greater number of pieces of evidence rather than fewer. Of course, you’re not on trial…Christianity is…and I’m presenting evidence in the hope of convincing you, a very tough jurist, that it is sufficient in your mind to bring about a conviction.
   
   That said, I will take a crack at making the link that you have requested. Since you KNOW it’s a tall order, please bear with me if I need a few more “metres of text” to do your question justice.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

1. The four gospels have been accurately delivered to us.

Textual criticism proves this.

Here is my support for point #1.

Textual Criticism Explained

Each author of a NT book wrote an original manuscript which I’ll call “M”. Using M, copies were made and sent to various Churches in the NT era. I’ll call these second-generation copies, C1, C2 & C3. The number of copies is not important for this illustration. Now, imagine that copies of the copies were made as the Christian Church expanded since every local congregation wanted to have a copy of these important texts. I’ll call the copies of C1, C1a, C1b & C1c. There would also be C2a, C2b, and so forth. With me so far? In the following diagram, each column represents a generation. For example, M is the original, C1 a copy of M, C1a is a copy of C1, and C1a1 is a copy of C1a. Like this:

M > C1 > C1a > C1a1

Over the course of history, some copies are lost or destroyed. The copies which have not been lost are portrayed in red.

M—C1—C1a—C1a1
-------------C1b—C1b1
----------------------C1b2
-------------C1c—C1c1
----------------------C1c2
------C2—C2a—C2a1
-------------C2b—C2b1
------C3—C3a—C3a1
----------------------C3a2
-------------C3b—C3b1
-------------C3c—C3c1
----------------------C3c2
----------------------C3c3

Now, imagine further that M, C1, C2 & C3 along with C1a, C2a, C3a & C3b have all been lost, but that C1b, C1c, C2b & C3c are all in museums scattered around the world - Moscow, London, the Vatican, etc. Additionally, all of the copies of those copies still exist (I’m simplifying, of course).

We know that M must have existed, and logic dictates that C1, C2 & C3 must have existed (though we may be unsure of the number of first-generation copies). We can learn that both C1 & C2 must have existed by comparing the extant copies C1b & C2b and discovering subtle variations in the texts - copyists glosses or “typos”, if you will. If C1 was slightly different from C2, then those differences will be reflected in C1a and C2a along with all of the subsequent copies of those copies. Variations were passed on from generation to generation. Make sense?

So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don’t have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text? By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said with a very high degree of confidence.

 

[Kaninchen]

That’s interesting. When a prosecutor is presenting evidence in a courtroom, he would prefer to have a greater number of pieces of evidence rather than fewer. Of course, you’re not on trial…Christianity is…and I’m presenting evidence in the hope of convincing you, a very tough jurist, that it is sufficient in your mind to bring about a conviction.

Take it that this isn’t a court of first instance because the court has read an awful lot of the evidence, many times (and has heard different kinds of Christian advocates arguing with each other over questions of historicity etc); this is your opportunity to make your case based on that. It will save you an awful lot of typing or copying and you’ll be able to concentrate on the heart of your argument.

In answer to one of your questions, I think that arguing that there was no ‘Jesus’ (in the sense of the itinerant rabbi) is one of the most futile ways for anybody to spend their time. It would also be futile to start your argument at that sort of level.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now that we have seen how Textual Criticism works, let’s take a look at how it might be applied to the New Testament and what conclusions Biblical scholars have drawn from this study.

There are currently 643 surviving manuscripts of Homer’s Iliad, and the first complete text dates from the 13th century. By comparison, we have nearly 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament including 5,685 in Greek, more than 10,000 Latin Vulgate and more than 9,000 additional manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian and many other languages.

F.E. Peters states that “on the basis of manuscript evidence alone, the works that made up the Christians’ New Testament were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books in antiquity.” (Peters, HH, 50)

The importance of the sheer number of manuscript copies cannot be overstated. As with other documents of ancient literature, there are no known extant original manuscripts of the Bible. Fortunately, however, the abundance of manuscript copies makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy.

Dockery, Matthews and Sloan have written:

“For most of the biblical text, a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of the text about which any questions occur…It must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament that for any other work in Greek literature…although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. (Dockery, FBI, 176, 182)

In addition to the manuscripts themselves, quotations of the New Testament may be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Sir David Dalrymple undertook a challenge to determine whether the New Testament could be reconstructed solely from these Fathers. He was able to find all but eleven verses of the New Testament quoted in these patristic writings. Geisler and Nix estimated that more than 32,000 quotations of the New Testament may be found in the writings of the Fathers produced before the Council of Nicea in AD 325.

According to Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, “we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts.”

Commenting on the discovery of several previously unknown New Testament papyrii, Dr. Wallace noted in 2012:

As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Take it that this isn’t a court of first instance because the court has read an awful lot of the evidence, many times (and has heard different kinds of Christian advocates arguing with each other over questions of historicity etc); this is your opportunity to make your case based on that. It will save you an awful lot of typing or copying and you’ll be able to concentrate on the heart of your argument.

In answer to one of your questions, I think that arguing that there was no ‘Jesus’ (in the sense of the itinerant rabbi) is one of the most futile ways for anybody to spend their time. It would also be futile to start your argument at that sort of level.

Okay.

I will assume that the court is aware of the fact that both Jewish and Roman historians made mention of this rabbi named Jesus who was a real person and not a fictional character or a legendary figure.

This may seem like a minor thing, but will you also stipulate that this extra-Biblical evidence shows that the NT reliably reports that Jesus was a real person?

Now, purely as a historical matter, do you believe that this itinerant rabbi known as “Jesus of Nazareth” was put on trial for and convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and executed by crucifixion on the orders of the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate?

+++

By the way, I am posting additional material in this thread on the reliability of the NT for the benefit of the OP and lurkers, but our discussion will be a parallel thread within a thread. Feel free to ignore or comment upon those other posts, of course.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you proceed at all, I think you should accept that, after a couple of decades of discussing religion online, you’re very far from being the first practitioner of your form of evangelism that I’ve come across.

So, you should take it that I know the arguments about topics such as the historicity/reliability of the New Testament and know that is one thing to say that a believer has some level historicity/reliability to back up their beliefs and quite another to suggest that what historicity/reliability exists ‘proves’ that the rest of the text is accurate reportage and thus proves Jesus’ divinity.

What would be interesting would be to see you attempt to make that link but I think it would be an error for you to assume that increasing numbers of metres of text mean increasing likelihood of establishing your case.

I have printed out your post above, and I have taped it to the wall above my desk so that I may refer to it regularly in order to stay focused.

Now, I have a question.

You appear to be saying that while the gospels do contain reliable and accurate background details, you view these things as having been included by the gospel writers in the same manner in which someone might write a novel about the American Civil War which contains historically accurate information about the Battle of Gettysburg, the names of the generals involved and so forth as background for a love story about a Union soldier and a Southern belle which is pure fiction.

Is this an accurate assessment of how you view the gospels - that they are historical fiction?

 

[Kaninchen]

Okay.

I will assume that the court is aware of the fact that both Jewish and Roman historians made mention of this rabbi named Jesus who was a real person and not a fictional character or a legendary figure.

This may seem like a minor thing, but will you also stipulate that this extra-Biblical evidence shows that the NT reliably reports that Jesus was a real person?

Now, purely as a historical matter, do you believe that this itinerant rabbi known as “Jesus of Nazareth” was put on trial for and convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and executed by crucifixion on the orders of the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate?

I’m sorry, Randy, but we’re a long way away from what it is that we’re supposed to be looking at which was: “what historicity/reliability exists ‘proves’ that the rest of the text is accurate reportage and thus proves Jesus’ divinity.”

We don’t need to go through Josh McDowell-lite for that.

 

[Kaninchen]

I have printed out your post above, and I have taped it to the wall above my desk so that I may refer to it regularly in order to stay focused.

Now, I have a question.

You appear to be saying that while the gospels do contain reliable and accurate background details, you view these things as having been included by the gospel writers in the same manner in which someone might write a novel about the American Civil War which contains historically accurate information about the Battle of Gettysburg, the names of the generals involved and so forth as background for a love story about a Union soldier and a Southern belle which is pure fiction.

Is this an accurate assessment of how you view the gospels - that they are historical fiction?

No, pious fiction which is something quite different but you’re right that I’m saying that we don’t have to ‘believe’ an entire narrative just because it contains some references to events or places that have an existence outside that text - in other words, the fact that there is a King’s Cross Station doesn’t mean that there’s a magician called Harry Potter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

2. The authors wrote early.

Had to be before the destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and before the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul (AD 62-65).

Here is my support for point #2.

The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70.

The New Testament fails to mention the seige of Jerusalem which lasted for three years and ended with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 67.

Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles does not mention the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul which took place in AD 65 and AD 64 respectively. Moreover, the Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul alive and under house arrest in Rome. This silence suggests that the Luke’s accounts were written prior to AD 64.

Luke, a trained physician and a skillful historian, recorded the martydoms of Stephen (cf. Acts 7:54-60) and James, the brother of John (cf. Acts 12:1-2), but he does not mention the death of James, the “brother” of Jesus, who was martyred in AD 62. This silence suggests that Luke wrote Acts prior to AD 62.

Luke’s Gospel was written prior to the book of Acts as Luke himself records:

Acts 1:1-2
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

This suggests that Luke’s Gospel was written prior to AD 62.

Paul is the undisputed author of the letters written to the Romans, the Corinthians and the Galatians, and these letters were written between AD 48 and AD 60. The Letter to the Romans is typically dated around AD 50, and in this letter, Paul writes,

Romans 1:1-4
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Thus, a mere 17 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, Paul is proclaiming Jesus as the divine Son of God. This is echoed in his letter to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-8) dated from AD 53 to 57.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul appears to be quoting a passage written by his friend, Luke.

Luke 22:19-20
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Although all four gospels contain accounts of the Last Supper, only Luke’s gospel contains the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” From this we can conclude that Paul is quoting from Luke’s gospel. This suggests that Luke was written prior to AD 55.

Luke quoted 250 verses from the gospel of Matthew 250 and 350 verses from the gospel of Mark. This suggests that both of these gospels were known and accepted at the time Luke wrote around AD 55.

In the book of Galatians (ca. AD 55), Paul recorded that after his conversion (ca. AD 35-36), he traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles. The first trip occurred three years after his conversion (ca. AD 38-39) (cf. Gal. 1:15-19) and the second 14 years after his conversion (ca. AD 52-53) (cf. Gal. 2:1).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains what many scholars believe to be an early creed of the Church based in part upon the apparent stylistic differences between this passage and other writings of Paul. These differesnce suggest that the passage contains a core statement of belief of the early Church which Paul – following standard Jewish rabbinic tradition – had memorized and passed along verbatim:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: 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, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Note that Paul reminds the Corinthians that he has given this basic message to them orally in the past and that he explicitly stated that what he is about to repeat in writing was received by him previously from others (presumably during one or both of his two trips to Jerusalem). **This suggests that the basic oral tradition concerning the resurrection of Jesus can be dated to within 10 years of the event itself! **

The bottom line

Given that as few as 10 years may have passed before Paul first heard the proto-creed of the Church proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15 and that Paul encouraged his hearers to consult with eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection for corroboration of the message he preached, it is possible but not plausible that the central facts contained in the four gospels concerning Jesus of Nazareth were skewed or altered by additions and embellishments.

The New Testament was written early enough to be reliable and not so much later as to be incredible as deniers wish to believe.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m sorry, Randy, but we’re a long way away from what it is that we’re supposed to be looking at which was: “what historicity/reliability exists ‘proves’ that the rest of the text is accurate reportage and thus proves Jesus’ divinity.”

We don’t need to go through Josh McDowell-lite for that.

Agreed. But I’m trying to ascertain the proper starting point.

I think that at some point in the sequence of events in the life and death of Jesus, you’re going to say, “Hold on…that is pure fiction.” or “I was okay up until this point, but now you’ve crossed over into later embellishments.” Or something like that.

Therefore, the reason I asked whether the trial and execution of Jesus is fact or fiction is simply to know where the crux of your dispute with Christianity lies. (You could just come right out and tell me, of course. )

A Trappist monk once said to me, “Never answer a question you are asked too quickly. That suggests that the question was not worthy of being asked.” Your question was a good one and I am trying to treat it (and you) with great respect by answering meticulously.

+++

As an aside, I have been posting the evidence for the Reliability of the NT in my general posts in the thread. You want brevity so:

1. The texts that we have today accurately contain the words of the original manuscripts.
2. The gospels were written early enough to contain actual eyewitnesses accounts.

I’m going to go on to show that they were

1. corroborated by Jewish and Roman sources and
2. they were accurate in the smallest details.
3. I’m going to explain that the authors had no ulterior motive.

Ultimately, all of the evidence points to the fact that the gospels are historically reliable. This approach (evaluation of circumstantial evidence) puts criminals in jail every day, and it should be sufficient to warrant our conviction about Jesus, as well.

 

[Kaninchen]

Agreed. But I’m trying to ascertain the proper starting point.

I think that at some point in the sequence of events in the life

I’m afraid we’d diverge from the start, from the whole birth narrative onward and that’s the problem because, using that approach, we’d merely spend our time heading down a plethora of culs-de-sac.

Ultimately, all of the evidence points to the fact that the gospels are historically reliable. This approach (evaluation of circumstantial evidence) puts criminals in jail every day, and it should be sufficient to warrant our conviction about Jesus, as well.

It’s Josh McDowell time again.