Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[DeistPaladin]

I am interested in specific contradictions between the earliest known manuscripts. That is by far the most useful discussion.

Good. I provided two. And I'm not a Biblical scholar.

Highly intelligent people, including agnostic historians, disagree with everything except the addition at the end of Mark

Now there's a classic example of the logical fallacy, "Appeal to Authority".

Argument from authority is not the same thing as citing sources and their research.

Well that's a thin line but I will grant that upon re-reading it.

The line seems pretty thick and distinct to me.

1. "Smart people say you're wrong" -Appeal to Authority
2. "Dr. So-and-so in his research study X published in book Y found that Z." - Citing a source

The distinction is that even experts and authorities need to show the evidence as to what convinces them something is true. Presenting evidence or citing research is different from "cause smart guy says so".

Clear?

Oh gosh, this is practically common knowledge.

Apparently not as this is the first I've heard of this assertion. And I read both apologetic and skeptic sources.

The early Christian writers are walking New Testaments. Have you read any of them?

Heard of them, yes. Expert on them? No. I'll leave such things to Min. I'm more concerned with the Bible and Christian mental gymnastics that they employ to make it all coherently work.

That's one of those vague statements that will just get us into arguing about what qualifies one as a "Biblical scholar." You surely know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epi...e_epistles

If two Gospels are half true, you should become a Christian immediately.

They are not, as evident by their contradictions with what we know of science, history or their lack of agreement with one another.

Why do you think "false in one part false in all" is a logical fallacy?

If the vaunted WORD OF GOD has flaws in it, on what basis would you presume to know which parts are true and pure revelation and which parts are human error and prejudice? Are you God? Are you an angel? Do you somehow know the mind of God that you can edit out all the errors in the Bible?

You will never find out if there are nine gifts of the Spirit, or experience one. You will never find out what the" rivers of living water" Jesus promised to those who belive feels like. Right?

You know what a brain is, right? You know that the brain stores and accesses memories, right? You know that these memories can be lost of the brain is damaged by injury or illness, right? Alzheimer's ring a bell? Amnesia? These are conditions by which memory is lost while the body and brain still lives.

What gives you even the slightest hope that memory can survive the total destruction of the brain which happens at death?

Just food for thought as you spout all you woo-woo about nine levels of spirit and living water rivers.

You are unlikely to employ "the greatest system of morals, ancient or modern"

Yeah, because the NT outlawed slavery. Oh, wait, no it didn't. It admonished slaves to obey their masters.
But the NT promoted gender equality. Oh, wait, no it didn't. It actually did the opposite.
But the Bible outlaws rape. Oh, wait, no it didn't. It actually prescribes the rape survivor to marry her attacker.
But it outlaws torture, right? Oh, wait, the eternal Hell thing.

These are no-brainer moral issues that modern civilization is solving while Biblical morals fail miserably.

False dichotomy? You decide. You are the most familiar with logical fallacies, you seem to think. I offered a perfectlly rational third way of looking at the problem I think.

Your "third way" is to dismiss Marcion by the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well. You said:

Why should I care what some heretic said

Classic dismissal by Poisoning the Well. Well done!

John Locke , probably way smarter than us, sees nothing to doubt in the NT

Another Appeal to Authority. Bravo!

Back then, there were many more versions of the story and many wild variations of "Christianity".

Yeah, written in the second century or later for the most part.

Evidently not, based on 1John 4:1-3 or 2John 1:7.