Isn't that what you'd expect from four different eyewitnesses?
These are not eyewitness accounts, and nobody thinks they are, as I understand it.
I don't know what "scriptural sophistication" means...
It is the phrase I chose with which to make a little polite fun of your assumed superiority (faith-based) in matters of history and scripture.
The assumption of your own superior knowledge of written scripture to that of any atheist, or that of the Professor of Scripture, struck me as ludicrous, in this statement of yours:
"I don't expect an atheist to know the Bible, and am not at all surprised at the author's viewpoint. Perhaps if pressed she would disavow the miracles and the Resurrection, as well."
....or what it has to do with Gibson's film.
If the author of Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, an historical study of the last twelve hours of Jesus's life, is correct, Gibson's film is a crazy mixed up mess historically, yet purports to be the truth. "It's meant just to tell the truth," Gibson said.
If it can't be true, historically, that kinda has something to do with the film.
BTW, I note that as usual, you fail to reply responsively.
Am I correct in gathering, though, (you implied it), that you do feel that in order responsibly to study the history of religion or the scriptures, it really would be better if one believed in miracles, and specifically that Jesus Christ's dead body came back to life, walked around for a bit, and then left for heaven? |
