Just exactly how reliable New Testament accounts are depends on exactly what you use them for.
As guides to definitive Christian teachings, they are 100% reliable, 100% of the time, period.
But if you are a scholar, a historian or scientist who asks precise questions about data, such as: "does the account in document A confirm this other account in document B?" then you begin to notice that there are discrepancies not just among the Gospels & Epistles, but also between those and other ancient documents which have somehow survived.
When you begin to put all these documents together, and analyze them, then you start to see a somewhat different historical picture.
The example right here of our understandings about Pontius Pilate is illustrative.
It's the reason I draw distinctions between "facts" as defined by science versus history versus religious faith.
Have you read the book? Because your comment would steer one to think otherwise.
The example right here of our understandings about Pontius Pilate is illustrative.
***Oh, I totally agree. You’ve built up a whole conjecture just on the basis of something recorded in the gospels (and nowhere else as far as I can tell), and then turn around and throw out evidence from the gospels because it doesn’t fit your conjecture.
It’s the reason I draw distinctions between “facts” as defined by science versus history versus religious faith.
***It has been my experience that Freepers who point out such obvious generalities are running an agenda. There’s all kinds of 4D’s involved. It is a simple matter of history to examine the crucifixion, yet even you can’t seem to do it without trying to pull in extrabiblical sources that support your unbiblical opinion. Which is not to say (I know most freepers will not realize that I address this point, so I will be emphasizing here What I DID NOT SAY) that extrabiblical sources are worthless and scripture is the only thing worth looking at for historical validity (<—see here, I did NOT say that).
So look at our own correspondence. Have I brought ANY matters of faith? Have I proposed that history is science? NO. But plenty of freepers feel the need to comment on these side issues. We’ve been discussing HISTORY, plain and simple, but some freepers have real trouble focusing on simple history. It’s a form of distracting from the real issue to be discussed.