(June 1, 2012 at 2:15 am)King_Charles Wrote: Though the Gospel accounts are biased, they cannot be discounted as non-historical.
Why not? What evidence is there to the contrary? Do you give the same credence to the Homeric epics and the story of Gilgamesh?
If you claim that the accounts in the Gospels give us insight to ancient culture, custom and other societal attributes I would agree; however, to claim that the events can't be discounted without corroboration is disingenuous.
This 'could' be equivalent to saying 2000 years from now James Michener was a historian that documented events in the South Pacific, Hawaii, and Alaska (among others). The 'could' part is that we will pass along the knowledge that Michener's work was fiction. There is no such proclamation, aside from assumed veracity, that comes with the Gospels. Just because Bart says so doesn't make it so.
