Descriiption : If, for the sake of argument, we consider the 27 documents of the New Testament, not a divinely inspired scriipture (which they are), but merely as historical documents relevant to the origins of Christianity, they there are objective ways to assess their reliability. Such an approach cannot be accused of “using the Bible”, since it employs documents which, as a matter of fact, are in the Bible, but these documents are not treated as inspired revelation from God. This must be kept in mind as we evaluate the arguments for and against New Testament historicity.
Answer the next two questions thoroughly
1. In ch. 5 of Jesus Under Fire, Gary Habermas builds a case for the historical reliability of Jesus’s miracles. List the main points in his argument against the claim that the presence of ancient parallels to Jesus’s miracles undermine the latter’s credibility. How do you assess his argument?
2. Have you ever heard someone raise the argument against Jesus’s miracles based on the “widespread” existence of ancient parallels and myths? How would you practically apply Habermas’s case if you encountered such a claim? If you had limited time with the skeptical person, which points would you emphasize and which would you leave out, given time constraints?
Cite any outside sources please
