Chateau Lloyd

I'm more than halfway through Brant Pitre's The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ, and I'm already speed-running it.  Normally, I do that on something that I don't really enjoy and want to just get out of the way, but in this case, Pitre's arguments are so solid, so well-reasoned, that I need only glance at them to see how valid they are.

What draws me forward is a desire to see the next way he will take a rhetorical axe-handle to the arguments of bogus "Bible scholars" like Bart Ehrman.

Four years ago the Lord of Spirits podcast highlighted the intellectual dishonesty and obvious bias of these fake academics, and it's refreshing to see them get pulverized using chapter and verse.

This continues to irritate me, in large part because if the same "scientific" method were applied to secular histories, nothing could be authenticated.

One of the critiques Erhman and his cohorts use against the Gospels is the (shaky) assumption that they were written long after the fact, and therefore suspect.

I hate to break it to Herrdoktorprofesser Erhman, but most histories are like that.  There is no reason to doubt the factual content of Walls of Men simply because I wasn't alive 4,500 years ago.  There are things call "sources" and also oral traditions that are extremely valuable in determining what happened in the past.

I swear, these knuckleheads what photos of the Apostles holding up a newspaper from AD 34 to verify their claims.

Anyhow, it's a quick read, and worth the effort, especially if one wants to shut down an modern know-it-all atheist.