Is Information from the Bible historically reliable?

From our Interview with N.T. Wright on the Historical Jesus, this clip answers the question: Why are so many scholars reluctant to accept information from the Bible as being historically reliable?

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Historical Jesus
• Historical Christianity
• John Ankerberg
• N.T. Wright
• Historical reliability

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 Ah well, StopSpamming, you've just revealed your intellectual callibre... and it's not something to be proud of.

[StopSpamming1]

@neoclassicism1

Boring.

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 I'm afraid you do need to prove yourself correct when you make ridiculous statements. And I indeed attack your person: the conclusions I have reached about yourself are through similar encounters with many an arrogant undergraduate making such statements. Or maybe I'm just being culturally biased - French culture posits that one should get actively involved with a conversation even if one does not know the slightest thing about it. So, if you're French, I apologise.

[StopSpamming1]

@neoclassicism1

Oh dear! You are getting to be a bore.

Just because you have proven something a little, does not mean I now need to prove this little bit is wrong.

The rest is just plain, unnecessary stupidity and attacking my person. Jumping to conclusions and making assumptions.

Don't they teach you anything?

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 ...make ridiculous claims concerning history, showing your utter lack of knowledge on the subject of which you question, and then proceed to have a foundationless confidence in yourself. People like you and the creationists are simply two sides of the same coin. And in a situation like this, I can be a 'Mr High-And-Mighty' - at least I've done publically recognised research rather than like you picking up a thing here and a thing there from Wikipedia and the History Channel.

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 I'm going to have a rant at people like yourself: why do you make such ridiculous, unacademic comments? It's obvious you don't have a single bit of grouding in New Testament scholarship; you probably don't read or speak Koine (and if you did, it would make your position even more astonishing, and laughable); and then you come up as being self-righteous, making statements like 'I just asked questions'. Yes, we all ask questions, but sometimes the questions we ask show our...

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 Well, it must be the case that you don't do your research on Paul at a university then. I gave you the two indicators of historical verifiability earlier, of which Paul's writings make an exact match (this is standard first semester undergraduate stuff). I have not 'proved' his existence beyond doubt, but it does make his existence more than likely. This does mean that the pressure falls on you in questioning this uncontroversial hypothesis.

[StopSpamming1]

@neoclassicism1

A person tells you something and you blindly believe it!? Well done!

I do my own research - something our Mr. High-And-Mighty does not do or think is possible.

Have you provided any proof for his existence? No.

What I find amusing is that people here get all hot under the collar and I have never made any kind of statement or claim regarding Paul. I just asked questions.

[neoclassicism1]

@StopSpamming1 Yes, I say Paul is real, because 99.99% of reputable New Testament scholars - including those who are atheists - believe he was. Go into any New Testament scholarship department in any university in the world and ask them, 'Was Paul a real person?' and 99.99% will say yes; the only reason why I don't say 100% is because there is probably a crank somewhere out there. Do your research before making ridiculous statements - perhaps at least study the subject.

[StopSpamming1]

@neoclassicism1

So YOU say: Paul is real and wrote some letter about a Jesus character he never met.

And if I find that hard to believe I am the one who needs to prove it?

Oh boy!