My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...

[radorth]

In sourcing that bit (and it's author) the thing that strikes me firstly is that it was written in 1944.

Other than the discovery of even older NT copies since then, I would guess you are guessing. Details/facts would help because I could try to answer them.

Seeing David even included here very plainly shows the disadvantage this authors position in time conferred. David, in stark contrast to Hammurabi, has a grand total of two (2) pieces of what might be corroborating evidence...and the archaeological record tells a tale so different than the one recounted in the OT that it's difficult to conceive of a David that is anything less than legend, and probably approaching a great deal more (myth).

Again it would help a lot if we did not have to take your word for it. I don't need primary sources, but am willing to read the Wikipedia take on it if that works.

Socrates, well, IIRC there are more words attributed to him in plays (that we don't accept as historically accurate depictions of the man) than anywhere else. Nevertheless, the evidence for a historical socrates isn't what I would call knockdown by any stretch-with many folks simply accepting that there was some socrates..accepting that what we know of socrates may not, strictly speaking, be true of whoever the man was.

Possibly, but an awful lot of authors say the same things about his life.

I suppose I can only ask whether or not the embarrassing details in mormon scriptures are convincing to you, or the embarrassing details in norse epic?

Those are not a very good choice because they seem to lack embarrassing details, nor do they read like the Gospel record to me. But to your point, if you ask me if the embarassing/negative details in the Koran, or some of the early hadith make me believe it, yes absolutely. They were written (mostly) by people who knew Muhammed, so I accept it as essentially true for the same reasons Durant listed.

Even so, some of these "embarrassing details" are very plainly narrative devices. They serve to keep the plot moving forward-or to present the protagonist with an opportunity to do his thing, some even appear to be very clever ways of humanizing the character of christ or endearing him to us (which is important, since we need to care about this character).

You know, when you tell me fisherman can write like similies to rival Shakespeare if they feel like it, and people make up and spread stories fully aware they will be crucified, burnt to a crisp or killed, I take strong exception in the name of logic, and I might say any jury's logic. Durant doesn't mention that logical conundrum, but he should have.

Next up is the contention that the story of jesus was invented by a few simple men in one generation. I don't know what would compell the author to state this as a position of others (except, perhaps, that maybe this was the position of someone in his experience. I'm of the opinion that the christ narrative took a bit more than a single generation to put together

There is hardly any proof of that, at least for 3 of the Gospels and Paul's writings. All the critics say it, but supply no convincing proof. And when they do provide "proof" it nullfys Occum's razor. They also have to completely ignore the early fathers' writings if they go beyond 100 years, from which writings you can reconstruct probably 2/3 of the NT. They had New Testaments.

I suppose that would be a matter of opinion. I don't share the authors opinion. I don't think that the ethics described are so lofty (after all, we have a reaffirmation of thought crime and the introduction of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice/deicide - just to point out two examples), and I definitely don't think that the narrative presents me with any inspiring vision of brotherhood.

It is a matter of opinion, but H.G. Wells, Locke, Ghandi, Jefferson and a host of other non-Christian luminaries have a different opinion than yours. You might read H.G. Wells take on Jesus in "A Short History of the World," available on Bartleby.com (He was an atheist and says the same things Durant does.)

the dead rising from their graves (and I suspect that this statement has at least a touch of hyperbole to it).

You might be surprised to learn that my opinion of Matthews "walking dead" story is hearsay.

Now, I want to clarify something here. Durant (in his other works, and even on the subject of christ) was pretty reliable with regards to removing magic from the equation. So, claiming that he "believed in the gospels" is a tad disingenuous.

I did not say that, nor do I believe he believed as I do. In fact, I wrote that he denied the resurrection, claiming Jesus swooned.

But whether or nt Durant was willing to propose that there was some jesus - the man and whether he had any evidence for jesus the-man would be an entirely different proposition.

He does indeed supply other evidence, i.e. quoting records that indicate there was a great darkness on the day of Jesus' crucifixion. (There was a big dispute about that, but one should wonder why, if nothing happened.) Smoke usually = fire. You know it only takes one piece of evidence to blow an entire anti-Christian theory. Which is why Durant, Jefferson, Locke, Ghandi and a host of non-Christians would call Jesus-mythers nut balls.

Ever wonder why there is such a huge and rather cynical effort to disprove the Gospels? I can make a convincing argument that the big todo has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of proof, merely by asking you a question. If Jesus returned and healed 94% of all the terminal patients in all the hospitals of the world, would you follow him and change your mind about the wisdom and divinity of his person?