That wasn't insulting... Part A was an honest piece of advice. Part B was the expression of rearing up for your inevitably failing 'undisputed fact' evidence.phelix said:
20,000 posts is 500 pages...
Well, no, my mistake. 20,001 is.Yumm. Which anime?I am finishing watching an anime then going to get some barbecue stuff
That's not my argument, so this point needs no rebuttal.
I have no problem believing Jesus was real. I simply do not believe the mythical accounts in the bible are true.
I've never said the bible is completely a falsehood. But your point doesn't make sense. It is quite possible for one to be completely sincere yet be completely false. How else do you explain Heaven's gate?
you seem to believe that I think Jesus didn't exist. that's false. I am sure the story of jesus has roots in someone real. whether or not the stories attributed to him are real is what is what I doubt.
It seems we are in large agreement then
I'd be interested to know how you determine which bits of the stories are likely accurate and which likely are not though? How do you rule out the passages which aren't miraculous, but which skeptical biblical scholars have decided did not happen, while keeping in the stories which they have largely decided did?Of course this is possible. It is also possible for multiple people to be sincere but wrong about the same thing, without a conspiracy, though this is stretching things a bit. When it comes to easily disprovable claims though, such as the existence of Jesus, or his being put to death by the Romans, then it seems very very unlikely that such a thing would happen.
Fair enough. Yes I did believe that but I stand corrected.
As above I'd be interested to know how you would sift through the given stories to find which are true and which are not.
It's a case by case issue. In general, things that can be largely corroborated from extrabiblical evidence can be assumed to have happened. things that only have the other gospels (which do not really equal independent sources), I can't claim any of them happened as they say they did. It is likely there was a Jesus who preached end of days and was anti-establishment. Beyond that, Don't know.It seems we are in large agreement then
Past events are extremely easy to be self-delusional. Just ask Holocaust deniers, 9-11 truthers, moon hoaxers... People are able to invent a whole host of stories that are peppered with truth, but are largely false.
No problem. you are debating many here. It's easy to lump everyone into one bin.Fair enough. Yes I did believe that but I stand corrected.
I get your point. But to put my opinion in perspective, It should be noted that I am also sure that the story of Achilles has roots in a real warrior.
Both of these things were objectives. I would like to know on what ground you dismiss the historical biographical aims of Luke, given this is widely accepted. Also, why would Luke and Matthew both fudge so badly the reason for Jesus being from Nazareth? What would be the proselytizing purpose of a wildly implausible account making sure that three people are ultimately based in a village that nobody had ever heard of?
Yes and no. Historians were generally pretty bad at the time as standards hadn't really been set. Trying to extricate any knowledge at all from the rambling, and often blatantly exaggerating texts is tough work. Have a read of any Josephus and you'll see what I mean. Furthermore, if you want to find out about minor figures, like Jesus or Apollonius, you are often limited to the writings of their followers, who's works naturally include implausible and miraculous claims.
You're going with the stance that the appearance of historicity is a literary trick in order to better convert people to Christianity. I'd be interested to know if you think this "basic literary trick" was used anywhere else in that time period or before in a way that has gone completely unnoticed by all relevant scholars? Also, was the crossover in story between the various authors of the New Testament achieved by conspiracy, or luck?
..... or am I named after your cat....That is pretty much what I think too, but for a couple of things. The main one is that Jesus knew John the Baptist. We are accepting that both these characters exist, now in all four gospels and a non-canonical gospel they have multiple run-ins. Often inconsequential ones. The accounts across the gospels sometimes match and sometimes differ and sometimes contradict. The chance that absolutely all of that is false strikes me as unlikely, especially since the message about Jesus gains nothing at all by its inclusion, so this is something that I accept probably happened.
Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers and moon hoaxers are all different kettles of fish to multiple biographies of someone who never existed. All the examples mentioned involve a lack of understanding over concepts of evidence and analysis. The "every gospel writer was wrong" idea requires multiple full-sensory hallucinations.
This has nothing to do with this thread. Please keep in mind this thread is a search for the truth via evidence, not a speculative debate.
Ah, finally you mention the key word in this thread.
Again, there are threads to discuss the existence of Jesus. This isn't among them.
I don't really understand what you mean by "this thread is a search for truth via evidence, not a speculative debate". We use the same historical approach to assess when certain sources are lying, when they're sincere but wrong, and when they're telling the truth for the bible as for any other historical source from devoted followers.