My professor told us the Holy Innocents weren’t real?

[bobperk]

And, if you take a look at the Epistles of St. Paul, you’ll find that not only does he say almost nothing about Jesus’s life, he doesn’t say much about Jesus at all. Paul is all about the “points” of the stories to use my own word. If we just look at his Epistles (because we have no record of what his preaching was–except that once in a while he says “I told you such and such…”) I think even you have to admit Paul was not concerned with what I call “details.” He was concerned with the meaning.

This is beside the point of the original post, but if St. Paul did include a lot of the same details that the Gospels do, then some certain skeptics would have even more ammunition to claim that Paul “invented” Christianity. So on one hand, people claim the Gospels grew out of legend after Paul preached about Jesus; but then others will claim the Gospels are inaccurate because Paul never mentions the miracles of Jesus, Mary, etc. Sometimes you can’t win.

In some sense you have a very “Jordan Peterson” view of Scripture, i.e. that it communicates universal truths through timeless stories that mankind generally agrees upon, without the need for actual events to have taken place. I don’t believe that is your entire outlook, but I think you would tend to side with him more than I do (if you have listened to any of his lectures).

I have enjoyed reading your posts, but for now I may be done with this one. Hopefully the OP learned something from all of the conversations and found some peace with her original question.