Could biblical history as what the article portrays, possible have anything that may be confusing or contradicting? The article mentions some-what of very confusing and misleading evidence of how the early church was, Could early Christianity really be what the article has portrayed? Although we should hold the Bible as inerrant and infallible, As what the article suggests, Could the bible really have added scripture to it as the article suggests throughout the Early Church? Did Constantine really influence the Early Church and to what is today? As much as I doubt much of what the article has to say, did Constantine influence the new testament also?
I was also wondering about a lot of these questions that you have asked, as well. I am not an expert on these things and I’m sure these people, like Kurt, who make these claims have studied these topics a lot more than you or I have, but I can say that many people, including Christian scholars, have studied the Bible and they trust it’s accuracy in how it lines up with other historical books. Archaeology is also proving that the Bible is a historically accurate book so I would say that these contradictions may be sorting themselves out and some of the contradictions may not be as big of a deal as Kurt is making them out to be.