PSA:
If you leave skid marks in a public toilet, please take the extra 10 seconds to put some paper in the bowl and flush again. Nobody needs to see that.
Calling me an “ethnic Jew” is like looking at a chocolate cake and calling it “cocoa powder.” It’s one of the main ingredients, but I prefer to call myself by the sum of my parts: an American.
That said, Reubens are technically goyslop because they mix meat and dairy. Delicious goyslop, though. Enjoy your lunch!
As promised, here's my explanation:
So when I got into the Bible again, I was operating under the assumption that the New Testament books are eyewitness accounts by people who actually knew Jesus. The question then was whether I believed the parts about miracles and exactly what Jesus said about himself. But then I began doubting the authenticity of those accounts once I started looking into what we know about them.
Modern scholars, including many who are/were Christian, believe none of the books, besides a few of the Pauline epistles, were actually written by the people they are traditionally attributed to. It's pretty well established that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John almost certainly did not write their respective gospels. It's also highly unlikely that any of these were written before about AD 70, so they definitely wouldn't be recent accounts even if they are authentic.
Even setting aside the anonymous authorship of the gospels, I think it's a bit suspicious how they have omniscient narrators. Somehow, the writer knows exactly what characters are *thinking*, and what Jesus said to Satan while alone in the desert or what he prayed while alone at Gethsemane. The gospels are formatted more like fiction than like eyewitness accounts.
There are also a handful of times when the gospels contradict extrabiblical history. A clear example is the Census of Quirinius, which is part of the nativity story. This is supposedly why Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem from Nazareth, fulfilling the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But this census happened in AD 6, long after King Herod died in 4 BC. It's not possible to reconcile these dates with the chronology presented in the Bible.
While most serious scholars believe Jesus existed, they reject the gospels as reliable accounts of his life. We know nearly nothing about him or what he taught from outside of the Bible, and the earliest extrabiblical references to him come years after his death. There are some very smart apologists who attempt to defend the historicity of the gospel accounts, but I just don't find them very convincing. They seem to be working backwards from the presumption that the Bible is inerrant, not coming to the conclusion that the Bible is inerrant after studying all available evidence.
The whole thing fell apart once I looked into the origins of the Bible. I went from being unsure of the divinity of Jesus to doubting that Jesus as described in the gospels even existed to begin with. I'm a little disappointed, but I guess it's easier to reject it now that I'm thoroughly convinced it isn't true.
I am still open to changing my mind if I hear a truly convincing defense of the gospels, but I just don't think it seems very likely at this point.