The Case For Christ

With Craig Blomberg having established the essential reliability
of the New Testament documents, Bruce Metzger having confirmed
their accurate transmittal through history, Edwin Yarnauchi
having demonstrated extensive corroboration by ancient historians
and others, and now John McRay having shown how archaeology
underscores their trustworthiness, I had to agree with Wilson.
The case for Christ, while far from complete, was being
constructed on solid bedrock. At the same time, I knew there were
some high-profile professors who would dissent from that
assessment. You've seen them quoted in Newsweek and being
interviewed on the evening news, talking about their radical
reassessment of Jesus. The time had come for me to confront
their critiques head-on before I went any further in my
investigation. That meant a trip to Minnesota to interview a
feisty,
Yale-educated scholar named Dr. Gregory Boyd.
Deliberations
Questions for Reflection or Group Study
1. What do you see as some of the shortcomings and benefits of
using archaeology to corroborate 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. McRay'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?
L