(September 15, 2016 at 7:21 am)Arkilogue Wrote:(September 15, 2016 at 5:50 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Do you honestly think that a story which didn't appear until, at best, two gerenations after Yeshua's claimed execution (and for which we've no direct evidence of it's existence for yet another 100 years), and which didn't achieve its canonical form for more than two hundred years more (and even at that the gospels had significant alterations appended. For example Nicaean Mark had no resurrection, it ended on the empty tomb, the ressurection was added to make it agree with the later gospels), is any standard of evidence at all?
For the sake of this question I'm temporarily setting aside that quoting the bible is restating the claim, not providing evidence, as that a whole other can of worms in your theology you're not willing to confront.
And this is why context is so important:
Yes the context that you've just essentially admitted that you believe in christian doctrine because bullshit. You don't have an answer for the fact that the bible is at best a third hand hearsay account that has been significantly altered over the c. 18 centuries since the first extant examples of it, in order to better reflect the political mores and needs of the powerful at various times in history (for example KJV was written mainly to bolster Charles VI & I's* claim to have a divine right to rule absolutely, and was deliberately written in archaic English in order to try and disguise the fact that the book had been significantly altered from previous English translations).
*In previous threads I gave credit to his sun Charles VII & II in error. I was placing the book after the Civil War not before.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home