The AD33 crucifixion detail in Judea

[M. Demetrius]

Suppose I didn't believe that Julius Caesar conquered Gaul. Instead, I believed that his Gallic Wars was simply a composite account of a number of generals' exploits in Gaul, and that between all their efforts, over a period of years, Gaul was conquered, and a consortium of writers decided amongst themselves that it would be good political strategy to ascribe the war to Caesar. And that over a number of years, ideas and events were added to the text to make points and create examples that made him look good.

If I believed it was a spurious document, if I believed it never happened, if I believed it was virtually impossible that it was dictated to some scribe or other to be recorded at the time and/or after the fact in the form of memoirs--if I believed that, it would be easy to pick and choose from what I wanted to believe was actually fact and what was entirely fiction.

Basically the problem is that people have accepted it uncritically.

And some have rejected it uncritically, many without even reading it.

But as I said, and I'm self-moderating here, this can not become a discussion of the validity of the Bible, as it will quickly become a discussion on "modern religion" and we'll both be in trouble with the Staff. We should return to the original questions, rather than whether the text is accurate or not.