Is It Bigoted To Have A Supported Opinion?

I haven't been following this thread but I noticed this and thought I'd add my 2 cents.I disagree with that statement. The fact is that we don't know exactly who wrote the Gospels but my own view is - so what. Luke at the start of his Gospel writes the following:

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

The point is that the authors of the Gospels might actually have been men named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and possibly we know nothing else about them. It is also possible that they are the names of disciples of Jesus and that someone else has recorded the accounts on behalf of the disciples from both oral and written accounts.They are written as historical documents and we can all make up our own mind as to what we believe about them and about their accuracy. We know that there are contradictions within details of the Gospels which is what we would expect if there were many shorter recorded accounts that the writers have compiled to their narratives.One things that the Gospels are all in agreement with is the bodily resurrection into a new bodily form of Jesus. I really don't see how anyone can really doubt that they believed this to be the case so IMHO the question is whether they were mistaken or not. I choose to believe that they got it right.

You're right and I apologise. I gathered from jar's post that you felt that the Gospels lacked validity on the basis of authorship. Obviously that isn't what you were saying.

I'll try reading what you have to say before replying this time. Actually I couldn't agree more. My Christian faith is the most fundamental aspect of my life and yet if I felt it was necessary to understand the Bible as being the inerrant word of God I would have to leave the faith.First off, you only have to read the Bible with all of its contradictions, errors and for that matter the personal anecdotes of the authors to understand that it is not God dictated. Worse than that however it paints a picture of a sometimes loving god, a sometimes vengeful god, a sometimes hateful god, a sometimes cruel god etc. It paints a picture of a god that is of no discernible nature meaning that you can understand him in any image that suits you.If however we consider the Bible as being written by men inspired to write their personal understandings and accounts, recognizing that their individual and cultural biases will show up in what they write, we actually can then come up with a coherent narrative and within that narrative a relatively clear understanding of God.Christianity started out being Christ centred and now in many instances, particularly on this continent it has become so Bible centric that Jesus is virtually left out.

I'd agree with that. As something far less than a great man but still with great flaws I also believe that I am accepted by God.