One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

If it did we would then accept it as historical?

No, we would then begin applying the other criteria to it, but since it does not claim to be factual we do not even have to go there.

Historians accept the siege of Troy as historical but they don't accept the Greek gods being there.

That is more likely because they do not accept the Iliad as historical.

We accept the general events of the Iliad seeing as archaeology backs it up but they don't accept the gods being there. This just the general academic standard applied to everything. A modern example would be the Roswell incident, there was a historical incident, there was a government cover up and weren't any aliens. The aliens just got added in there. Anything like that, it's gone.

I am not seeing your point. Secular historians accept that there was a man named Jesus who was executed by the Romans because of the Jewish leadership whose followers believed he was the Messiah and did many miracles. Whether you think those miracles were real miracles or not is irrelevant; that does not mean Jesus should be rejected as a historical figure.

She would have been caught in the pyrocalstic flow and turn/encased into a pumice or something. But this is the problem you think there are supernatural beings who historically cause volcanoes to happen and turn people into salt. To get the real history you must extract all supernatural elements. There's no other way to do this, if there's anything funny going on look for a natural or mythological source.

So you are merely tossing out any evidence that does not agree with your naturalism? A Christian conceptual scheme makes far more sense of all of the evidence.

The standard you apply to all other religious texts, the Quran, Hadiths, Vedas, the Norse Eddas the Book of Mormon etc must also apply equally to the Old and New Testament. You can't make exceptions it has to be 100% right through.

I do apply the same standard for all other texts, I do not assume naturalism.

None of the writers of the New Testament ever knew Jesus personally neither did their sources they got their information from.

I am sorry, but that’s just flat out wrong. John, Peter (through Mark’s gospel), Matthew and Jude all knew Christ personally. Luke was a contemporary of Christ and based his accounts on eye witnesses to Christ. Paul was a contemporary of Christ and knew Christ’s family. We really have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to contemporary sources for Christ.

Someone had an interesting experience, probably not supernatural we'll assume it wasn't a waking dream/hallucination of Jesus after his death or something. And this was verbally spread initially and the people it was spread to made it slightly more interesting, and then it was spread some more and the story got more and more interesting and supernatural until it was recorded down. The people involved likely all believed it was real much like the people involved in the Roswell Incident.

How do you know any of this?

You can only be reasonable by eliminating all traces of the supernatural from any historical account.

According to whom? I do not get where you are getting this standard from.

Im sure he did exist but not so sure anymore how "divine" he was

Finally! A rational person!

It's called "history" you fucking moron. Something you know nothing about.

Every time I begin to forget just how bad you are at debating you take it upon yourself to remind me. Thank you.

How do you know that Quirinius first governing Syria in 6 AD is part of “history”?

Now you are just being a liar....which is not unusual.

A blog? My original claim stands.

As for Caesar and your fictional godboy,

[url]http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html[/url

Jesusneverexisted.com? Seriously? It’s amazing just how sloppy your scholarship becomes when arguing for something you really really want to be true.

Go fuck yourself.

Classy Gramps