Hi Gerald.

Yes, the way you phrase it, “balanced against 2000 years of investigation, thinking, scholarship, historical analysis, etc., etc.”, is a far more rational and sensible approach than Matthew's emotional rant.

I don't completely dismiss everything that scholars like N. T. Wright have to say – I would consider each statement on its merits – but we cannot avoid the fact that he starts from the position of a committed Christian, which is bound to influence his thinking. May I suggest that the same is true of you?

I completely agree that we also have to question the motivation of debunkers of Christianity. We should always examine the motivation of any writer on theological or philosophical issues. Everyone has a responsibility to clear their minds of any preconceptions, and examine evidence on its merits, which is indeed very difficult.

You say that you genuinely share an interest in finding the truth where ever it may lie. I assume this means therefore that you think any reassessment or investigation of Christianity in modern times is worthwhile and valid. However, you assert that “Jesus's life and the primary events of them are very well attested historically, that I think is beyond dispute”. You call them “well accepted facts”.

As a Christian I can well understand why you might say that, but it suggests that you are against any such investigation, that you are not sharing an interest in finding the truth wherever it may lie. You are deciding what is true in advance. What exactly are these 'facts' that are 'beyond dispute'? If you talk about 'primary events', which ones are you excluding? What do you make of the section on mythology in my article?