How to tell a real freethinker

[radorth]

That depends on what the goalposts you originally had were: Are you trying to argue that Jesus was the son of god, or that he was a good person? Only if you were strictly trying to prove the latter would my argument be moving the goalposts, and frankly, I'd be mystified if you were only trying to argue that point to begin with.

The whole reason for the Durant quote was to show the rational basis for belief the the Gospels are true. Adding "it doesn't matter even if it's true" is certainly moving the posts because you then demand Durant prove his divinity as well as the veracity of the Gospels. Durant suggests that Jesus "swooned" BTW, and thought he had risen from the dead. Durant's theory is a bit of a stretch I'm afraid. "Yeah it's all true including the ressurrection stories, but maybe Jesus just swooned, fooling even himself."

Depends: can you prove that your special brand of christianity is correct, and all the other denominations, and all the other religions, are wrong?

That's not my job. It's yours. If you actually wanted to know, you would compare what Jesus taught with which Christians best follow it.

Think of it this way: if something is truly divinely inspired, it shouldn't have any falsities in it, should it?

I am saying you get to decide which part is divinely inspired yourself, and you have ways of doing that. I didn't believe half of it when I was taken up to what I believe is the third heaven. I believe more than I used to but not all of it. I further claim that if one book is true, it's your job to diligently determine which one, and God will draw near to you if you try. That said, could the narrators have innocently made mistakes or reported hearsay? Sure. But juries allow for that in fact-finding and even allow for hyperbole. They are mainly interested in what motives people telling a story have to lie. In the case of the Gospel writers, no one has made any convincing argument they had anything to gain but persecution, jail or death. That's powerful evidence they are telling the truth as best they know it. No one has ever explained how a few fishermen could have written similies like Shakespeare, or "the most sublime an benevolent code of morals ever recorded."

And let's extend this jury thing: should I as a juror take a witness seriously if he's proven to have lied under oath over and over and never retracted or corrected a single word of those falsehoods?

Ah so you do accuse them of lying. At least you are honest. I just got a lecture on how another commentator accused no one of lying. Actually he did, logically. I see your point, except it is once again your job to show the Gospel commentators are liars. That burden is ethically and legally on you.