Is the New Testament historically reliable?: Difference between revisions

Is the New Testament historically reliable? (view source)

27 bytes added , 5 years ago

no edit summary

11,141

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Top of Page}}
+{{Rational Christianity}}
 =Summary=
@@ Line 9: / Line 7: @@
 .	 There are no valid reasons that the New Testament should not be accepted as a reliable historical document.   This would include:
-a.	The accounts in the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses within forty years of the events that are described therein.  The accounts are credible and trustworthy.
+:a.	The accounts in the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses within forty years of the events that are described therein.  The accounts are credible and trustworthy.
-b.	The accounts in the New Testament are from numerous independent authors.
+:b.	The accounts in the New Testament are from numerous independent authors.
-c.	The historical references contained in the New Testament are in agreement with secular and Jewish historians from the first and second centuries.
+:c.	The historical references contained in the New Testament are in agreement with secular and Jewish historians from the first and second centuries.
 .	Archeology confirms the historicity of the Bible and there is not a single archeological discovery that has disproved any biblical reference.
-.	There are real problems in the Bible, but there are also real answers to those difficult passages.
+.	While there are real problems in the Bible, there are also real answers to those difficult passages.
 =Are the Gospel accounts historically accurate and trustworthy?=