Mr.u wrote:Nicos wrote:Mr.u wrote:Taking into account that many of the new testament is a later invention, that is probably not true.
Jesus was more forward thinking than anyone else in his time. The effect of Jesus on history
The new testament is a collection of all jesus's teachings and known life and gospels of the disciples and paul the apostle letters.
98 percent of all historical scholars in academia agree that the new testament is a historically reliable source.
The New Testament is a collection of 4 Gospels, Acts and the Letters. The Gospels are essentially histories of the life of Jesus, written starting around 30 years after Jesus's ministry and attributed to several Disciples, but almost certainly not written by them. Based apparently on oral traditions of the sayings of Jesus and of his ministry. Later Gospels were influenced by the first and by other sources.Acts is an account of the early years of the church. I'm less sure of its composition.
The Letters include some believed to be from Paul, some attributed to Paul, but not currently thought to be written by him and several known to be from other early church figures. They're the oldest parts of the New Testament and provide quite a bit of insight into the early Church.
I have no idea where the claim that 98% of anybody considers the New Testament a reliable source or what they actually meant by it. If the claim is that 98% of historians think the Gospels are primary source accounts of Jesus's life, it's nonsense. If it's that they think there is useful historical information about the early church in the New Testament, it's probably true.
The only historical information about the early church that can be found in the Gospels is to be found in Paul's letters (and not much of it). Acts has long been known to be fraudulent. Even Paul's letters have been altered by Christian apologists over the centuries that it's impossible to get back to the original letters.