Letters to the Editor
-
@droogoy
you wrote:
"The Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter, in his monograph A Concise History of the Catholic Church, notes (page 17):
“The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or God.”
This is a shattering admission indeed, and from a historian of Christendom’s largest Church. It is a de facto admission that no historical support exists for any of the accounts in the New Testament. Indeed, if they ‘were not meant to be historical’ (or accurate), then we cannot be sure if any are!"
I hate to wade into this boiler-room, but dude...this is not a "shattering admission" or even news of any kind. You learn this stuff in grade school! The Four Gospels were written with four very different audiences in mind:
Mark for the Romans - Jesus is a heroic figure
Matthew for the Jews - it's all about his fulfilling the prophecies
Luke - To convert the Gentiles, it's all about how he cares for the poor
John - It's the most abstract version, for the intellects (he's the incarnation of The Word and all that jazz)
Regardless, the Catholic Church hasn't proclaimed The Bible as The Unadulterated Word of God since at least The Council of Trent in the 1560s (you're confusing the Catholic Church with the Protestant churches Luther spawned - they're the ones that all about the Sola Scriptura...which was really just a means to wrest power away from Rome, but I digress). There hasn't been any claims to historical accuracy in the bible from Rome in centuries...there is however a rather booming industry in Jewish Archaelogy being based on the Old Testament, but again I digress.
look, you clearly know your stuff about science - that's cool, but you should learn a little bit more about the people you attack, lest you look a bit daft.
cheers!