i have some questions about New Testaments from book "The Case for Christ"?

Question

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?

Answer 1

LOL Im half way through the book. 1)Benefit, if the Bible's stories are true, they will have some context within actual archeology. Shorcoming, well, because the Bible really only talks specifically about certain people, it is too small a range for archeology in theory to go. So someone could say, well there is no evidence for Jesus Christ, I would say, well you have less than .01% of the archeological record so if you got a piece of this period, it would be a miracle. 2) Im not sure. 3) Dont remeber if I read that yet. 4) 10 and I havnt even finished the book. Its not the book that makes this rating but its all the other information Ive gathered over the years. Reading books like "Icons of Evolution" many by Hugh Ross, and obviously the Bible, have given me a million to one odds that "people" are wrong. There is too much going on not to include a God into the scope of things, and the Christian God is the only one that makes any sense. The others just bable on about unimportant things.

Answer 2

1 archeology is an imperfect study of man... the evidenses mayy not be found yet but dont get me wrong there are great evidenses

2 if Luke was found trustworky in what we could check we should trust him in what we cannot

3 I dont knw Ray's posiiton, some reconcile the chronology of Quirinius placing it earlier than most put it... similatly the exodus is later because the southern and nother kingdoms overlap in time where many put them sequential causing them to misplace the exodus and look for it in the wrong place


4 the eyewitness testimony of the New Testimony is substantial.. in watergate a dozen powerful people could keep a secret for months but the paostels went to their deaths confessing Jesus as the risen Messiah

Answer 3

I wouldn't use archaeology to corroborrate anything, just to fill in some details, hopefully. Archaeological conclusions are constantly changing.

Answer 4

Science or no science the devil decievs all.All prophecies have come true and they are alot.And they are some that are still to come.

Answer 5

sorry i have not read the book