By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Khan said:
happydolphin said:
I know this thread is about bad journalism, but after having watched the daily show interview posted by seth, it goes to show how off you can be when you reject the bible's account...

Jesus didn't defy the roman empire, he defied the Jewish stranglehold on the Judaic tradition. He was crucified as an outlaw though he never defied the state, that's because he was crucified for reason of Jewish persecution, not roman hostility...

When a scholar of two decades can't appreciate that subtle difference, you know the world is going to shit.

Having not read Dr. Aslan's account, I would suggest that it is in the interests of the Bible Writers to present an account that painted the Jewish establishment in something of a bad light as Christianity was the new claimant to the Abrahamic tradition, and at the same time to at least paint a neutral picture of the Romans (lest the Empire drop the hammer on the religion in its infancy, and so that Roman citizens would be less inclined to reject the Christian message for patriotic reasons).

This.

People read the bible believing it is a factual account.  It isn't.  The Great Flood, for example, didn't happen.  It's a story that is common in the middle-eastern region and has its origins in Mesopotamia long before even biblical scholars can attribute it to happening in the biblical time-line.

There are historical facts in the bible, but the bible isn't a true historical document.