(October 3, 2016 at 11:32 am)Rhythm Wrote: Which is easy. What we have are a collection of myths, taken..in the sense of belief, by some to be legends. We don;t have a jesus. We don;t have historical records of -that guy-. We -do- have the gospels, as we see them today, stories about a demi-god who saves the world with his magical blood. We -do- have historical evidence of the beliefs of various christian sects. What we have, is the history of the assumption of a belief that jesus was a man long after the purported events which the narrative describes, and out of a corpus in which he was not described -as such-. What we -have- is the history of one christian sect declaring the others heretical (notably, for the very belief that jesus was neither a man nor the god of the OT) while blatantly ripping their foundational myths, or legends......depending upon whether or not you or anyone else can -ever- drop some historical evidence on that table.
Thank you for the effort, however this appears to be much more narrative than anything else. How did you come to these conclusions or what are you basing this knowledge on? Where you do give details, I would disagree, and think it shows that you are not very well informed about the subject. For instance, the statement that "jesus was a man long after the purported events which the narrative describes, and out of a corpus in which he was not described -as such" I would ask you to clarify here, and provide the reasons for this belief. Also, the statement about different sects declaring the other heretical, I would ask you to clarify, to know exactly what you are speaking about. I think that you have a misunderstanding here as well; also, some context and the reasons behind the claims may be important from a historical prospective.
