This article said that the "Bible can be a problematic source" "Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events"....
These statement are bloody lies - we have tons of evidence showing that the New Testament is an incredably accurate and incredibly faithful record of historical events, people and places.
There is no debate, just a bunch of criticism. Also, these "scholars" are telling lies.
Zias lied about there is no evidence that Jesus was nailed on the cross - instead, he thinks that Jesus was tied to the cross. Zias needs to read John 20:25.
Zias thinks that crucified victims do not survive long on the cross. If that is the case, why would Roman shoulders need to break the legs of the crucified victims to speed up the death ?
Barbara Simpson is one of the few that stand for what is true about the "Passion":
Reverent Reilly points out there are some Catholic theologians that claims that the Gospels are theological diatribes thoroughly lacking in historical value and accuracy; that the Gospels were written much later and therefore are inaccurate.
Don't believe a thing these Catholic theologians say about the late dating of the Gospels, folks. The New Testament is written less than 30 yrs after Christ's death.
Personally, I would want to find out more about these Catholic theologians first before I put any trust in their words because I have too much evidence that the Bible is written early and is very very accurate. What is their motive to lie ????