(January 31, 2016 at 6:23 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't taks these seriously as "historical", when they contains nonsense bullshit. This means the authors were either delusional, or in the business of making shit up. Or, in this case, believing stories which were obviously made up. Either way, none of these give me any confidence that the authors were interested in portraying truth.
If I had to guess, I'd actually come down on the side of the authors intending them to be non-literal stories, or fictional propaganda. Even if they didn't, integrity and accuracy were clearly of no concern to them as the gospels tell an increasingly ridiculous tale when viewed chronologically. Especially with Matthew going off at the deep end and adding a bunch of nonsense of his own.
You might be able to try and establish the existence of characters within the fictional story, but to just believe anything happened as written without verification is not something I'd ever do.
Also, the resurrection is supposed to be absolutely central to Christianity. Yet it's a forgery. It is quite incredible this doesn't cause Christians concern.
The reason this doesn't cause the atheists who become Christians concern is because after careful study, they recognize that the NT is far more credible than you appreciate.
At some point, you really need to admit TO YOURSELF that you are woefully ignorant of both scripture and the history of the early Church and that you are spouting OPINIONS that are based on the misinformation you have gleaned from the Internet.
