'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels'

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

STEVE CR
[Blomberg defends "the historical reliability of the Gospels"]
[snip]

JIM KIRBY aka Peter  #16
I would appreciate clarification of what exactly constitutes "historical
reliability" of the Gospels.  I suppose I can be a test case.  A few of my
beliefs:  Theism is irrational, supernatural miracles are absurd, Mary
wasn't a virgin, Jesus didn't walk on water, there was no three hour
eclipse at crucifixion, there was no empty tomb.  Some more beliefs (that
might be belief in the "historical reliability" of the Gospels):  We can
know some stuff (with varying degrees of probability) about the historical
Jesus by applying criteria to the Five Gospel narratives; this includes
that there was a Galilean Jewish preacher named Yeshua c. A.D. 30, that he
was baptized by John, that he was crucified by Pilate, that he performed
acts deemed miracles by his contemporaries, that he spoke some form of the
Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer, etc.  From what you've read of me, do I
sound like I believe in "the historical reliability of the Gospels"?

STEVE CR
Blomberg doesn't define historical reliability, but from what he writes it
means, did the gospels record what actually happened? That's what I take
him to mean anyhow. If by definition you exclude the possibilities of these
kind of events happening then obviously the gospels are not historically
reliable and you've spared yourself the trouble of further investigation.

Steve Carson-Rowland
Brisbane, Australia
(Witty or incisive quote pending)

• Previous message: 'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels'
• Next message: 'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels'
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]