SheWrites wrote: Wordslinger wrote:Want to read some astounding facts about the Gospels being absolutely filled with mistakes, historical inaccuracies and made-up "facts" that are now ignored by millions of hardcore Fundamentalists who claim every word in the Bible is true?
This Bud's for you:
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/17/reza_aslan_destroys_biblical_literalism_the_gospels_are_absolutely_replete_with_historical_errors_and_with_contradictions/
From Aslan's book: “For every well-attested, heavily researched, and eminently authoritative argument made about the historical Jesus, there is an equally well-attested, equally researched, and equally authoritative argument opposing it”
From a review of the book: "I appreciate Aslan’s frank admission that there are eminent scholars who disagree with his over-all position. This leaves the reader with a problem, however. What does one do when eminent scholars disagree? At the very least, one should be on guard against coming to a hasty and definitive conclusion about this book. It is not the last word. Other prominent scholars disagree strongly with much of Aslan’s argument, as can be seen in some early reviews of this book." - Theissen
Always good to read the arguments. Surely you do not come to a clear/concise conclusion from an article in Salon?
BTW...Aslan's books are on my list of things I need to read. Thanks for the reminder. Maybe during the holidays.
Frankly I'm amazed at your witless remark about the veracity or credibility of an article because you disagree with the politics of the publisher. Salon didn't write the material -- a well recognized and highly honored religious scholar did.
Much as I sneer at FOX news's absolutely unfair, un-balanced and highly slanted broadcasts, I recognize truthful moments despite my prejudice.
Evidently that capability is a bridge too far for you.
Nobody in their right mind can dispute that two of the so-called gospels in the Christian Bible disagree on when the character now called Jesus was born. The two claimants are virtually years apart. One of them may be right, or both may be wrong. This is one of the examples set forth by Aslan in the article I cited. His point, of course, is that one should not regard the material in the Bible as being historically correct, simply because it's in the Bible -- and anyone disputing that bit of wisdom is flat-out wrong. Genesis is explained twice -- and the two versions differ as to what was created first.
Of course there are "expert" religious-oriented reviewers who argue that Aslan is wrong and that the Bible is literally and historically true.
You want to consider them and their statements of religious belief as legitimate evaluation of Aslan's academic perspectives on the accuracy or inaccuracy of religious books, be my guest. You should recognize, however, that many of the world's most honored religious leaders agree with Aslan that religious books should not be considered as being literally true.
One more thing you should realize is that Aslan himself is a believer of the God fantasy -- a Muslim who at one time was a Christian.
When one realizes that this scholar isn't attacking the idea that God is real, but is simply attempting to correct mistaken assumptions that religious books should be considered as being literally true: his work takes on new relevancy.
Home
