^^ thanks! I think the reason guys like Hitchens and others have clicked with the public is that they had the ability to make the mundane into something that was clear and to the point. They took what was presented to the public by theologians and made it clear that most if not all of it is bunk.
Im at a loss as to why the religious scholars cant do the same thing? I understand Erhman's hypothesis, but that certainly is NOT the vision/version of most of today's Christians, and in fact he at times lends more credence to the atheist viewpoint with some of his ramblings. (I admittedly have not read all of his books). Lets face it though it is all hypothesis with nothing that really stands out as fact.
I would LOVE to be better educated in this regard, and would absolutely appreciate your efforts to illuminate, but please do so in a clear and viable dialogue that presents your sides version so non-academics like myself walk away scratching our head (or asses if preferred)
.