[Lysander]

It is wrong for a historian (or uneducated critic) to arrogate to himself the historical truth without any evidence that the historical writer did not speak truthfully. This is what you are doing if you claim that the texts are not accurate in quoting Jesus and Paul.

There is plenty of evidence that the Bible contains truth, not facts. Look for the higher truth, it will liberate you. Don't start with your faithful conclusions and work backward to your assumptions, but start with your assumptions based on faith and establish your conclusions.

As to your implication regarding my education it includes graduate degrees and contains an extensive history background along with bible studies. I am a retired school principal and currently head up our churches Sunday school programs.

[exmarine]

There is plenty of evidence that the Bible contains truth, not facts. Look for the higher truth, it will liberate you. Don't start with your faithful conclusions and work backward to your assumptions, but start with your assumptions based on faith and establish your conclusions.

Huh? Archeology firmly supports the FACTS in the bible - place names, rulers' names, events, etc. History consists of facts. Fact: Something true and accurate (Webster's).

My faith is based on facts and evidence; it is not a blind faith and I don't check my brain at the door when I go to church. Christianity is the ONLY faith that is supported by the evidence. When one speaks of evidence, one can only discuss judeo-Christianity.