“The problem then with Jesus is that he cannot be removed from his time and transplanted into our own without simply creating him anew”

[P]eople need to use their intelligence to evaluate what they find to be true and untrue in the Bible. This is how we need to live life generally.

In Matthew, Jesus declares, “Whoever is not with me is against me.” In Mark, he says,“Whoever is not against us is for us.”

In terms of the historical record, I should also point out that there is no account in any ancient source whatsoever about King Herod slaughtering children in or around Bethlehem, or anyplace else.

In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet.

Traditionally in Christian circles, Judas in fact has been associated with Jews. Of being traitors, avaricious, who in fact, betray Jesus, who are Christ-killers. And this portrayal of Judas of course also leads then to horrendous acts of anti-Semitism through the centuries.

I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it’s silly to talk about him not existing.

You can’t believe something just because someone else desperately wants you to.

A fundamentalist is no fun, too much damn, and not enough mental.

The search for truth takes you where the evidence leads you, even if, at first, you don’t want to go there.

As time goes on, thing do get made up.

Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another.

In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology.

I don’t know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this.

Different authors have different points of view. You can’t just say, ‘I believe in the Bible.

Did he say both things? Could he mean both things? How can both be true at once? Or is it possible that one of the Gospel writers got things switched around?

There are few things more dangerous than inbred religious certainty.