How to tell a real freethinker

[Esquilax]

I made plenty of unanswered points, so I could say the same. But answer Durant's points here then:

The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies -- for example, Hammurabi, David, Socrates -- would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed -- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

Okay.

Well, for one thing, there's nothing terribly compelling about Durant's objections here; it doesn't matter how compelling the Jesus personality is, or how glitteringly bright his ethics (some argument there from me, both to the actual ethical nature of Jesus' teachings and their originality besides) nor the supposed flaws that any inventor would have kept from their fiction. Why would any of that matter? Why would any of that testify to the reality of the man, let alone his divinity? Fictional characters can be compelling and ethical too, even if they've got some negative traits or events in their stories. This is merely an appeal to emotion, a desperate attempt to conflate happy feelings with evidence and facts.

Besides, even if it were all true, everything Durant says about the history of Jesus and his wonderful ethics and personality, that doesn't say one damn jot about his divinity, which is the only part of this worth talking about.

Also, you're misunderstanding me anyway; when I say things in the bible are demonstrably wrong, I'm talking about a whole host of other things that the bible claims, and yet are contradicted by scads of real world, scientifically verifiable evidence: there was no great flood, the earth was not formed in six days, nor where all the animals therein created in their current forms. The earth and the universe it inhabits are far older than the bible would indicate, and there's a good possibility that we are not the only life in the universe. A supposedly inerrant and divinely inspired book should not have so many errors, yes?