When.com Web Search

  1. Ad

    related to: why are the gospels credible

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of...

    The Gospel of John is a relatively late theological document containing little accurate historical information that is not found in the three synoptic gospels, which is why most historical studies have been based on the earliest sources Mark and Q. [115] Nonetheless, since the third quest, John's gospel is seen as having more reliability than ...

  3. Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of...

    Concerning Acts 2, Lüdemann considers the Pentecost gathering as very possible, [52] and the apostolic instruction to be historically credible. [53] Wedderburn acknowledges the possibility of a ‘mass ecstatic experience’, [ 54 ] and notes it is difficult to explain why early Christians later adopted this Jewish festival if there had not ...

  4. Historicity of the Bible - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

    There are a number of historical texts outside the gospels showing the bodies of the crucified dead were buried by family or friends. Cook writes that "those texts show that the narrative of Joseph of Arimethaea's burial of Jesus would be perfectly comprehensible to a Greco-Roman reader of the gospels and historically credible." [135]

  5. Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

    The gospels each derive, all or some of, its material from a common proto-gospel (Ur-Gospel), possibly in Hebrew or Aramaic. Q+/Papias (Mark–Q/Matthew) Each document drew from each of its predecessors, including Logoi (Q+) and Papias' Exposition. Independence: Each gospel is an independent and original composition based upon oral history.

  6. Historiography of early Christianity - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early...

    These gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate authentic, reliable information from what they judge to be inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.

  7. Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the...

    Although the gospels do not provide enough details to satisfy the demands of modern historians regarding exact dates, scholars have used them to reconstruct a number of portraits of Jesus. [188] [189] [191] However, as stated in John 21:25 the gospels do not claim to provide an exhaustive list of the events in the life of Jesus. [192]

  8. Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

    The traditional authors are unknown and the names were attributed to them arbitrarily to make it seem more credible : Peter the apostle (First and Second Peter); the author of the Gospel of John (First, Second and Third John), writing in advanced age; "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James" (Epistle of Jude); and James the Just ...

  9. Source criticism (biblical studies) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism_(biblical...

    Source criticism, in biblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the authors and redactors of a biblical text. It originated in the 18th century with the work of Jean Astruc, who adapted the methods already developed for investigating the texts of classical antiquity (in particular, Homer's Iliad) to his own investigation into the sources of the Book of Genesis. [1]