M
Max Power
Guest
gop_jeff said:That's not a very valid comparison, as the New Testament is a historically reliable book.
How many authors of the bible were there for the virgin birth?
If none, how can it be historically reliable?
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
(I think that the straight dope is not a biased source)
Quite a few collections of stories about Jesus circulated in the early church, among them The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John. Some of these gave very different and in some cases conflicting accounts of the gospel and, most importantly, of Jesus' alleged resurrection. Some argued for the physical resurrection, with the mantle of leadership falling on those who had experienced it firsthand: the apostles. Others said the resurrection was a spiritual event that anyone could experience. Some thought this latter "heresy" would have led the church away from an organized entity into a situation where anyone could judge the truth for themselves. As Elaine Pagels points out in The Gnostic Gospel, this was no trivial matter. The decision on which interpretation was "correct" was central to the future of the church.
What makes these gospels historically inaccurate, compared to those that are in the bible?
Because of which ones were later selected to be included in the bible (abritrarily related to historical accuracy)?