- Jun 13, 2014
- 5,921
- 1,344
I don't completely understand what you're saying but we just don't have the kind of evidence now that they did back then so we base it all on faith, or at least I do. Now,..
HIR,
This is not true. To investigate the historical evidence for the existence and actions of Aristotle (384-322 BC), Empero Nero's activities (AD 37-68), the life of Jesus Christ (first century), Benjamin Franklin's life (1706-1790), Captain James Cook sailed up the east coast of Australia (1770), and what was reported in The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 June 2010, 'Bill Clinton to visit Australia', all require the same historical principles for investigation.
How do you demonstrate that the narrative of the Assumption (Luke 1:26-38) comes from the trustworthy Gospel of Luke? See: IS LUKE’S ACCOUNT OF JESUS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE?
What would lead you to state that the evidence we have now is not the same as for the first century? There probably is better evidence because, (1) We have a stack more evidence and so the evidence is not the same - but better; (2) We've had 2,000 years to search for more historical, archaeological and MSS evidence.
If I'm not making myself clear on the need for historical evidence, please help me to clarify what I mean. I can provide the criteria used by historians to determine the authenticity of any document from the past.
If given the opportunity to answer to demonstrate whether the angel Gabriel's evidence is acceptable, I generally take 2 tacks: (1) Demonstrate the Bible is a reliable document, and (2) Show that within this reliable historical document it teaches about the Archangel Gabriel and Mary.
We don't know how Gabriel manifested himself. Was he like a 'person' who could be seen by others or was Mary the only witness? I don't want to read between the lines in Scripture.
Regarding the criteria used to determine the reliability of the NT, why don't you read Craig Blomberg, The Reliability of the New Testament.
Oz
