A few years ago a friend of mine and I were discussing a sermon we had recently heard, during which the speaker mentioned the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. My friend asked me what historical evidence he was talking about, and I replied that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were excellent places to start! His reaction astonished me
- he said that those were gospels, not history. Ironically, my friend took the very same view of the gospels (for much different reasons) that the most critical skeptics take - the gospels should not be considered "history."
This is quite contrary to the very claims of the gospels. Luke clearly says he did research in order to write an orderly account of the life and teachings of Jesus (Luke 1:1-4). What else would you call that but history? As Christians we believe the gospels are not just history - they are Spirit-inspired accounts of the life of Jesus. But they are history.
We can never allow our desire to respect and honor Scripture to lead us to draw conclusions about the Scripture that directly contradict the Scripture.