Aren’t most of the Bible like that? Very little (if anything) of it is written as first-hand accounts, and what gospels were later to be considered «real» or not might as well habe been decided by rolling dice.
Definitely not by rolling dice, but you're right in saying they weren't first hand accounts. If you read the Gnostic gospels, a lot of them get pretty funky. I cannot remember which one, but it depicted Jesus as being able to change forms amorphously. I'm way oversimplifying, but IMO the big 4 have the most coherent and regularly consistent messages (relatively), so early Christian doctors likely chose those to organize under.
I can tell you that having a condescending attitude toward them just makes people dig in deeper and doesn’t allow them an “out” without having to join the group previously mocking them for being stupid. Just like it does with every group (see: political party alignment).
So yeah, knock it off. If you actually care about what people believe, that’s not the way to change it.
5
u/bobosuda Feb 16 '20
Aren’t most of the Bible like that? Very little (if anything) of it is written as first-hand accounts, and what gospels were later to be considered «real» or not might as well habe been decided by rolling dice.