1. What do you see as some of the shortcomings and benefits of using archaeology to corrobrate the New Testament?
2. If Luke and other New Testament writers are shown to be accurate in reporting incidental details, does this increase your confidence that they would be similarly careful in recording more important events? why or why not?
3. Why do you find Dr. Mc Ray's analysis of the puzzles concerning the census, the existence of Nazareth, and the slaughter at Bethlehem to be generally plausible or implausible?
4. After having considered the eyewitness, documentary, corroborating, and scientific evidence in the case for Christ, stop and assess your conclusions so far. On a scale of zero to ten, with zero being "No confidence" in the essential reliability of the gospels and ten being "Full confidence," where would you rate yourself at this point? What are some reasons you chose that number?
2006-10-11
15:32:44
·
5 answers
·
asked by
anstod88
1