RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 16, 2015 at 10:10 pm
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2015 at 10:12 pm by Mudhammam.)
^
Exactly. Apologists can't fathom that early Christians could really believe in superstitions such as astrology, dreams, lots, and other forms of divination, write the Gospels as poetic biographies, blurring the line between facts and myths, derived from hearsay and popular theological interpretation of the "sacred" or "authoritative" Jewish texts, and embrace persecution for their beliefs because they sincerely believed it. I've yet to hear Randy even attempt an argument relevant to his thesis that we have reason or evidence to accept the miraculous and often bizarre claims of the NT writers as historical fact, which is why all of his efforts can be ignored as basically missing the point.
Exactly. Apologists can't fathom that early Christians could really believe in superstitions such as astrology, dreams, lots, and other forms of divination, write the Gospels as poetic biographies, blurring the line between facts and myths, derived from hearsay and popular theological interpretation of the "sacred" or "authoritative" Jewish texts, and embrace persecution for their beliefs because they sincerely believed it. I've yet to hear Randy even attempt an argument relevant to his thesis that we have reason or evidence to accept the miraculous and often bizarre claims of the NT writers as historical fact, which is why all of his efforts can be ignored as basically missing the point.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
