Originally Posted by bollywood:
“I can only say I agree with Ehrman when he says that atheists who go on about the Gospels not being reliable, are as bad as the religious fundamentalists who take everything in the Bible literally.
There is no reason, for example, for a scholar to think that Luke lied about the earlier writings (now missing) about Jesus.
There is no reason to assume that the early writers, like Paul, were constructing things just to fool people and convince them of something not true. This was their perception of Jesus.
If you, like mushy, claim these things were constructed, then you need to show evidence they were.
Otherwise I don't have to accept them.
You can be in denial that a person such as Jesus could exist.”
“I can only say I agree with Ehrman when he says that atheists who go on about the Gospels not being reliable, are as bad as the religious fundamentalists who take everything in the Bible literally.
There is no reason, for example, for a scholar to think that Luke lied about the earlier writings (now missing) about Jesus.
There is no reason to assume that the early writers, like Paul, were constructing things just to fool people and convince them of something not true. This was their perception of Jesus.
If you, like mushy, claim these things were constructed, then you need to show evidence they were.
Otherwise I don't have to accept them.
You can be in denial that a person such as Jesus could exist.”
So you agree with mainstream historians when they say that Jesus existed, but not when they point out the inaccuracies and contradictions of the gospels?
Makes sense.





