The Gospels aren't just random oral lore. They are deliberate, elaborate literary constructs, intentionally structured to deliver specific messages. It's purposeful storytelling, not just collection. #BiblicalStudies#GospelTruth
Historians bypassing books and critiquing irrelevant points instead of the actual content is suspicious. It suggests a strong emotional bias against engaging with the material. #History#Bias#Academia
Analyzing Jesus means looking at sources chronologically: epistles first, then Gospels. The Gospels' narratives aren't just convenient rewrites of older heroes; they're distinct stories. #BiblicalAnalysis#SourceCriticism
Early Christians constructed stories using scriptures we no longer have or different versions of them. Understanding their narrative building requires looking beyond modern Bibles. #BiblicalStudies#EarlyChristianity
The origin of Jesus' birthplace is debated, with Luke reportedly altering Matthew's narrative by inventing the census to explain it. This means the census argument can't be used to explain the origin of Nazareth, as it was added later. #BiblicalHistory#GospelAnalysis
Was Jesus really from Nazareth? Historical analysis suggests his original title was 'Nazorean,' meaning something else entirely. The Nazareth connection may have been a later invention to explain the name. #BiblicalHistory#Jesus
Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome, exploiting existing prejudice against them. Tacitus noted Christians were disliked, making them convenient scapegoats, with some even confessing under duress. #RomanHistory#Nero#AncientRome
Challenging assumptions is tough when fear of attack or loss of funding silences dissent. Even a debate offer with a $5,000 prize was refused. Some prefer to keep their heads in the sand rather than confront evidence. #Debate#IntellectualIntegrity
Two prophecies, two invented stories to make them true. With Bethlehem not in Galilee, there's a clear motive to place the Gospel's origin there. #BibleStudy#Theology
Historians bypassing books and critiquing irrelevant points instead of the actual content is suspicious. It suggests a strong emotional bias against engaging with the material. #History#Bias#Academia
Peer review isn't about proving a conclusion is true. It means the work met the field's standards—it's not just 'crank' science. It's worth your time to critique or replicate. #Science#PeerReview
Fields that avoid critique risk losing credibility. True reliability comes from self-criticism and a willingness to improve. Accepting ambiguity and nuance is psychologically challenging, but essential for progress. #Science#CriticalThinking
The argument that Jesus's existence is disproven by a lack of evidence is flawed. Instead, scholars suggest he was an uninfluential nobody, Vid: https://t.co/oFXQR3XRXL #Historicity#JesusStudies
Fields that avoid critique risk losing credibility. Reliability comes from self-criticism and a willingness to improve. Accepting ambiguity and nuance is psychologically challenging, but essential for progress. #Science#CriticalThinking
Did Pliny the Elder mention Christianity? His lost History of Rome was a key source for others like Tacitus. If he'd written about Christ, it would have survived, cited by friends or foes. Vid: https://t.co/oFXQR3XRXL
Academic scholars are increasingly open to agnosticism about Jesus' historicity, a rise from just a few to 8-12 PhDs. This shift is hindered by an emotional bias, with many critiquing the topic without fully engaging with the research. #BiblicalStudies#AcademicDebate
Biblical scholars agree: New Testament stories about Jesus are often built upon and updated versions of older hero narratives, particularly those of Moses and Elijah. This isn't controversial for mainstream academics. #BiblicalStudies#ReligiousHistory
Scholars changed their minds about biblical narratives like the Exodus, but weren't consciously aware their reasoning was Bayesian. #BayesianAnalysis#Psychology#ScholarlyDebate