Quote:Risk is not the same thing. Osama Bin Laden was killed, but he didn't choose to strap a bomb to himself and personally go and die blowing something up. It's also not the same thing, since those are examples of obscene violence (suicide bombings)Obscene violence being something i'm sure you're very well acquainted with, given that the bible is literally littered with it. The final method of death does not diminish the potential for death as a result of one's actions. Bin Laden could have been killed on many occassions, and he did see front-line violence as a millitant commander, which could have led to his death (on many occasions, just to really emphasise that point). If an individual displays a willingness to perish for their belief, and frequently engages in behaviour that involves imminent fatal risk, then that IS essentially martyrdom, or the desire for martyrdom. Jesus himself didn't die during an act of obscene suicide-bombing violence, but he did die for religious dogma, which can be closely parallelled to many Islamic millitants, white supremacists and cult leaders throughout time, many of whom died for what they believed in, on or during violent and nonviolent acts.
Quote:Start again, and this time phrase your question properly.
Ok I shan't post a rush-response this time. You can re-read my post and pretend I didn't use a few jockular phrases if you like, but you haven't addressed the Islamic question I put to you at all.
Quote:As I've already pointed out to you, we have contemporary writings of Jesus - and that's something we do not have for most other historical persons outside of the New Testament. So you're making an assumption that what we have is bad evidence, when it's not and it's very good evidence.
We have contemporary writings for a great many historical characters outside of the new testament, from many corners of the globe. The new testament isn't unique in that sense at all. The early Roman republic was heavily documented, from within and outside. Most external corroroboration comes from the 2nd century onwards and much of that is by church elders whose objectivity must be called in to question (just like the authors of the new testement, may I add). There is a paragraph from Josephus from approx 95 CE, which most secular scholars now believe is bogus. Philo-Judaeus, who was reporting hot off the ground when Jesus supposedly marched in to Jerusalem and did everything you believe that he did. Philo outlived Jesus but mentions him not. Justus (of Tiberius) through Photius mentions nothing of Jesus. Many are convinced that the relevant writings of the messianic jew Flavius Josephus to be either completely fabricated or heavily edited (Josephus would not refer to Jesus as Christ or Truth if clearly he did not believe him to be such, and indeed remained a messianic jew). Everything from the 2nd century onwards is getting a little too late for something that is purportedly to have had an immediate and outstanding impact during his (Jesus') lifetime. Not even Pliny (the younger) had a lot to say about Jesus, or indeed Christianity at all.
Even though your objectivity is indeed highly questionable, as is that of the authors of the new testement, you are still prepared to readily assert both the importance of historical investigation AND the certainty of all the supernatural elements of these historical stories. Most secular scholars, who agree that Jesus probably existed, are however not convinced that the new testement is infallible. You on the other hand take it at 100% face value. This is strange as any serious historian, emphasising the importance of reading a range of sources to arrive at an objective and rational conclusion, would not take the new testement at 100% face value. Indeed even you have made an appeal for reason in several posts now (why would so and so do X if Y, or why would god do Z if Y). It is this very appeal to reason that has led the vast majority of historians to conclude that Jesus was NOT the literal embodiment of a deity. Not because they're filthy atheist swine, but because they aren't convinced of your fringe views, which you try to pass off here as objective historical fact. The three main reasons why most serious historians are not taking the bible at 100% face value are:
1. There are natural alternative explanations for the potty events described (that's in the new testement by the way, the old testement contains more quack than a duck reserve)
2. There are serious contradictions running through old and new testements, both in logic outlines of deity attributes and in the teachings of the the various characters.
3. If the bible is 100% the word of god, it has been completely unsuccessful in providing a consistent framework for moral guidance, as not even christians can agree on half of the contents.
The third point is particularly elucidating. This one book to end all books has spawned thousands of different movements, who to this day only bicker on with issues of women's rights, homosexuality, capital punishment....right down to really mundane things such as what sort of cup to use in church, or what kind of disgusting, materialistic adornments the pope should sport. If this is the work of a deity, via revelation/transferrence to his son and then hearsay to the writers of the new testement, then it has been completely unconvincing, morally vague/ambiguous, and virtually impossible to decode; not even christians can reach a consensus, on anything.
That alone is enough to convince most serious historians that there is some useful information in the bible, but a whole heap of unuseful stuff that can't even be interpreted by its own competing followers, let alone dirty non theist shit-gibbons such as myself. This is how you manage to not so much straddle the line between, but rather make the gigantic irrational leap between pragmatic bible historian and, i'll put this in the nicest possible way, impressionable and incredibly un-objective religious crank. If there is a deity and he has a plan for us, he's yet to present it in such a way that even a tiny minority can decode his ambiguous camel shit, let alone the entire population of the non-desert dwelling tribes of 21st century earth.
I could go on......................so I will.
Seeing as you offered a few appeals to reason, i'll offer a few of my own, in the same condescending manner that you assert your thesis with (to be fair there's a lot of condescending stuff on here, so i'll give you credit for your sarcasm if nothing else).
. Why does Jesus issue rules on how to beat slaves rather than condemning slavery outright?
. Who was Joseph's dad?
. Why did Jesus smite a fig tree for the crime of bearing no fruit?
. Given that reliable and objective Paul is so well acquainted with the son of god, why is there so little written on the actual human history of Jesus, ie the life and times of? Childhood, teenage years, the woodwork business etc?
. Given that John probably wrote in isolation, whereas Mathew and Luke pinch things from Mark, and the three come up with a very different tale to John, is this not evidence in itself that little sects get carried away with their own fabrications and own versions of the hearsay?
. How come nobody other than Matthew talks about the huge 'kill the firstborn' operation launched by Herod, which would have required enormous coordination and manpower?
. Why does god always reveal his plan to one chosen prophet, like by inscribing 10 shoddy commandments in stone to moses on a mountain when nobody else is watching, or by revealing it to Mohammed in some cave, whilst he's on his own and nobody else is watching, or to the brain of his son Jesus, so nobody else can hear it directly, thus making the big leap from revelation to hearsay?
. Why is the old testement full of really inane crap, like villagers murdering a man collecting sticks on the sabbath, and shit loads of genocide?
. Why would anyone want to teach their child the disgusting idea of inherited sin, and that sin can be redeemed by someone else taking the burden of responsibility even though they had nothing to do with the original events?
. Given your dedication to historic academic rigour, and your emphasis on really reading that stuff thoroughly, are you not convinced of any number of other creation myths? And while we're at it, why don't you dedicate the same amount of time to reading balanced sources on related topics, such as journals on genetic science, fossil records and everything else that shows humans don't tend to live to the age of 200 and 32 years, or that humans, whilst a little bit aquatic (well, we can swim any way), don't walk on water, etc....
