Affirming the Gospels ...
on the whole, the gospels are excellent sources of historical reliability, as a matter of fact, they're the most trustworthy, complete and reliable sources for Jesus, the incidental sources really don't add much detailed information; however, they are valuable as corroborative evidence, let's be honest, some people scoff at how much corroborative evidence there really is, for example, in 1979 Charles Templeton wrote a novel called Act of God, in which a fictional archaeologist made a statement that reflects the beliefs of alot of people ...
The [Christian] church bases it's claims mostly on the teachings of an obscure young Jew with messianic pretentions who, let's face it, didn't make much of an impression in his lifetime, there isn't a single word about him in secular history, not a word, no mention of him by the Romans, not so much as a reference by Josephus ...
now that doesn't sound as if there's much corroboration of the life of Jesus outside the bible, Templeton's archaeologist is simply mistaken, because we do have very, very important references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus, the gospels themselves say that many who heard him - even members of his own family - did not believe in Jesus during his lifetime, yet he made such an impression that today, Jesus is remembered everywhere, whereas Herod the Great, Pontius Pilate, and other ancient rulers are not as widely known, so he certainly did make an impression on those who believed in him, he did not of course, among those who did not believe in him
|