Ben Wilson

These aren't objective historical documents, right? They definitely have a perspective. They are trying to convince you that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God. They certainly are not correct in every little minute detail. They don't agree with each other in every little minute detail.

But for one thing, the Jesus as presented in the Gospels is the one who took over the world, if that makes sense, right? Most people who became followers of Jesus never met him. It was this person as presented in the Gospels that became so popular. So that is who we want to understand.

But for one thing, the Jesus as presented in the Gospels is the one who took over the world, if that makes sense, right? Most people who became followers of Jesus never met him. It was this person as presented in the Gospels that became so popular. So that is who we want to understand.

If non-Christians are correct, that he was just a man and that the miracles attested to in the Bible are either exaggerations or fabrications, then it's still the Jesus of the Bible who we want to understand, even if he is more literary character than historical character. It is still that character who captured the world's imagination.

If non-Christians are correct, that he was just a man and that the miracles attested to in the Bible are either exaggerations or fabrications, then it's still the Jesus of the Bible who we want to understand, even if he is more literary character than historical character. It is still that character who captured the world's imagination.

And then secondly, there are a lot of reasons to believe that the Gospels are correct, at least in the broad details of Jesus's life. There is one school of thought that suggests that the gospels were written by people who were more than 15 degrees of contact removed from Jesus and have no relation to the truth whatsoever. But I just don't find that reasoning very compelling.

And then secondly, there are a lot of reasons to believe that the Gospels are correct, at least in the broad details of Jesus's life. There is one school of thought that suggests that the gospels were written by people who were more than 15 degrees of contact removed from Jesus and have no relation to the truth whatsoever. But I just don't find that reasoning very compelling.

People have a number of biases and the gospel writers certainly had biases. They were not objective historians trying to write a non-biased account. But one bias people have is for the truth. Even when they are biased in other ways and they have other motivations, people prefer to tell the truth where possible. The truth is always cleaner, simpler, and more easy to explain than lies.

People have a number of biases and the gospel writers certainly had biases. They were not objective historians trying to write a non-biased account. But one bias people have is for the truth. Even when they are biased in other ways and they have other motivations, people prefer to tell the truth where possible. The truth is always cleaner, simpler, and more easy to explain than lies.

And so I think even from a historical, secular perspective, there's probably a lot of truth about the life of Jesus in the Gospels. And in addition, you can see the writers of the Gospels trying to wrestle with and explain inconvenient historical facts. If the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life have no relationship to his actual historical life whatsoever, then why do they include these facts?

And so I think even from a historical, secular perspective, there's probably a lot of truth about the life of Jesus in the Gospels. And in addition, you can see the writers of the Gospels trying to wrestle with and explain inconvenient historical facts. If the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life have no relationship to his actual historical life whatsoever, then why do they include these facts?

I'll give one example, which is the virgin birth. So the New Testament scholar N.T. Wright says, The Matthew birth story describes how a Galilean virgin named Mary, though pledged to Joseph, became pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

I'll give one example, which is the virgin birth. So the New Testament scholar N.T. Wright says, The Matthew birth story describes how a Galilean virgin named Mary, though pledged to Joseph, became pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

Joseph was planning to set aside the marriage privately on suspicion of infidelity until an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and told him that what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. Matthew adds an editorial remark that Jesus' birth fulfills the words of Isaiah 7.14 about the virgin bearing a child who is to be called Emmanuel, which means God with us.

Joseph was planning to set aside the marriage privately on suspicion of infidelity until an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and told him that what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. Matthew adds an editorial remark that Jesus' birth fulfills the words of Isaiah 7.14 about the virgin bearing a child who is to be called Emmanuel, which means God with us.

This is the more interesting in that we know of no pre-Christian readers of Isaiah who took the passage in this way. It seems far more likely that the story of Jesus' extraordinary conception generated a search for relevant texts rather than, as has often been suggested, the other way around.

This is the more interesting in that we know of no pre-Christian readers of Isaiah who took the passage in this way. It seems far more likely that the story of Jesus' extraordinary conception generated a search for relevant texts rather than, as has often been suggested, the other way around.

Okay, so in other words, the idea that the Messiah would be born of a virgin was not widely accepted in the Jewish community before the coming of Jesus. And so if you're just looking at the historical account, it looks like the gospel writers are trying to explain this strange conception.

Okay, so in other words, the idea that the Messiah would be born of a virgin was not widely accepted in the Jewish community before the coming of Jesus. And so if you're just looking at the historical account, it looks like the gospel writers are trying to explain this strange conception.

rather than believing that the Messiah needed to be born of a virgin, and so inventing some story about his birth. So, you know, even if you're a non-Christian looking at this, it seems more likely that Jesus' mother did indeed become pregnant before she was married. Of course, if you're not Christian, you're going to explain that as an extramarital affair or something like that.