Inerrant

[OzSpen]

The Bible is not a history book in the sense that it is a consistent, verifiable, chronological account of events. If that was the case, there would be no contradictions. All one has to do is read the gospels to see that is the case. For example, when did Jesus go to the temple and overturn the tables? The accounts differ, so which one is historically correct?

Are you an ancient historian who is able to assess the historicity and accuracy of any historical document?

 

[pescador]

Are you an ancient historian who is able to assess the historicity and accuracy of any historical document?

a) I am ancient
b) Are you an ancient historian who is able to assess the historicity and accuracy of any historical document?

The Bible contains historical contradictions, such as when/how Judas died or when Jesus overturned the tables at the temple, etc.

You're obviously trying to discredit me personally instead of discussing the topic at hand, so I won't discuss it with you any further. Bye.

 

[OzSpen]

a) I am ancient
b) Are you an ancient historian who is able to assess the historicity and accuracy of any historical document?

The Bible contains historical contradictions, such as when/how Judas died or when Jesus overturned the tables at the temple, etc.

You're obviously trying to discredit me personally instead of discussing the topic at hand, so I won't discuss it with you any further. Bye.

pescador,

You refuse to answer my questions.

I'm a scholar of ancient history, having a PhD in the discipline of the historical Jesus.

Luke tells us his sources in Luke 1:1-4 (NIV).

Oz