Roberts Four Gospels
Roberts as a pastor and author has provided a us with an outline of his journey to understanding the reliability of the four gospels. His main focus in this book was on the “historical dimension” (pg. 13) in discovering if we truly can trust the gospels. Roberts brief overview of many topics on the reliability of the gospels has us, the reader asking ourselves dose the gospels hold up to critical scrutiny, scrutiny of the authorship of the gospels, the trustworthiness of the scholarly methodology, and discovering what the original manuscripts say vs. what the (Bible) gospels says today. Roberts makes a strong case for trusting the gospels while including opposing thoughts which included contradictions, personal agendas in the writing of the
…show more content…
He explained the case for the author having had personal knowledge of Jesus’s ministry, know Jesus personally or having had investigated, interview persons who had the knowledge. Roberts points out that we know the writer of Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus’s ministry, but had interviewed “close followers of Jesus” (pg. 46-47). Knowing the original had been handed down by eyewitnesses should help us trust the gospels. Roberts does make a concession the trustworthiness of the gospels is not about who wrote them but about the message of the gospels. He explains by “having many manuscripts” (pg. 33), we’re able to know what the original manuscripts said, understanding the meaning of the gospels and therefore we’re able to trust the gospels for what is written and not who wrote …show more content…
When Roberts discussed the issues of the contradiction of the gospels, he referred to them nothing more than “variation” (pg. 101) meaning they did not go against one another but it was from a different view point the stories where being told. Roberts explains how many writes would arrange events by themes rather than chronology order. Robert shows how the “Hellenistic world often preferred thematic to chronological” (pg. 103) when recording of events. Roberts goes on to show our trust and theology should be based on history. He showing many of the contradictions and problem with the miracles are nothing more than how or what a person believes; Robert calls all to be more open in our faith when it comes to trusting the
He explained the case for the author having had personal knowledge of Jesus’s ministry, know Jesus personally or having had investigated, interview persons who had the knowledge. Roberts points out that we know the writer of Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus’s ministry, but had interviewed “close followers of Jesus” (pg. 46-47). Knowing the original had been handed down by eyewitnesses should help us trust the gospels. Roberts does make a concession the trustworthiness of the gospels is not about who wrote them but about the message of the gospels. He explains by “having many manuscripts” (pg. 33), we’re able to know what the original manuscripts said, understanding the meaning of the gospels and therefore we’re able to trust the gospels for what is written and not who wrote …show more content…
When Roberts discussed the issues of the contradiction of the gospels, he referred to them nothing more than “variation” (pg. 101) meaning they did not go against one another but it was from a different view point the stories where being told. Roberts explains how many writes would arrange events by themes rather than chronology order. Robert shows how the “Hellenistic world often preferred thematic to chronological” (pg. 103) when recording of events. Roberts goes on to show our trust and theology should be based on history. He showing many of the contradictions and problem with the miracles are nothing more than how or what a person believes; Robert calls all to be more open in our faith when it comes to trusting the