Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[discipulus]

DeistPaladin I perceive you, more so than anyone else here that I have talked with, have the ability to present your arguments clearly and concisely. I also think you make some points that are worthy of a thoughtful response.

Is there a way that we can have a formal debate here on this forum just between you and I for all to view? If so I would like to extend a cordial invitation to you to debate on whether or not the four gospels constitute a reliable biography of Jesus of Nazareth. Think over the matter and let me know what you think.

Thank you for considering this.

I appreciate that. The others here may be a bit more short because, whether you realize it or not, these are arguments we've heard over and over. Some people tire of making the same points repeatedly and find it easier to go straight to derision or dismissal.

One way we could approach a discussion of why I find Christian arguments unconvincing or why you find them compelling is through a debate. You can pick any topic you like, though I favor a discussion of the Bible.

I debated one Christian on the topic of "whether or not the Gospels are based on a true story". Unfortunately, he thought he was debating the Jesus myth and was completely unprepared for the actual topic of discussion. I'm a "Jesus Mooter", not a "Jesus Myther". It's a subtle distinction, one lost on my then opponent who apparently abandoned the debate in frustration.

Just so I don't make the same mistake with you, I want to be clear on my view of the Bible and in particular Christian claims about Jesus. I couldn't care less whether or not there might have been some mortal man named Yeshua who was perhaps a messiah wannabe who ran afoul of either the Romans or the Jewish priests. Such a vague person slips through the cracks of our, at times, fuzzy knowledge of the ancient world. I can't prove a negative or that someone of this generic description did or did not exist.

My concern is whether or not we can know much of anything about this character. Since the only detailed accounts we have come from the Gospels (putting the controversial TF of Josephus aside for a moment), the question is whether or not we can dependably place the label "based on a true story" on all four of the Gospel accounts.

What "based on a true story" means exactly is subjective. I'm willing to be quite liberal on that phrase and even throw out the divinity and the miracles, even though doing so kind of guts the story (it would be like The Historical Clark Kent, only without the costume, super powers or alien ancestry). If we can't use this term even with the most generous of license, then the existence of a "Historical Jesus", whatever that even means, is moot.

Hence, I'm a Jesus Mooter.

Excellent! So good so far.

Before I enter into debate, I generally go over some things with my fellow debater so that we both can kind of get an idea of what each other's views are on subjects relating to the actual debate topic. Since the debate topic will be focused on the gospels and Jesus of Nazareth I think we can begin there and go over some preliminary points.

I would like to know your view on the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. My view regarding the matter can be summed up in several quotes that I have provided from from "LiveScience". The article quotes Marcus Borg a fellow of the Jesus Seminar which represents the views of the most critical biblical scholars.

The following "facts" about Jesus would be affirmed by most history scholars, Borg said:

"Jesus was born sometime just before 4 B.C. He grew up in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee, as part of the peasant class." -Marcus Borg, a retired professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University and current fellow of the Jesus Seminar. http://www.livescience.com/3482-jesus-man.html

Before I go any further do you agree with the above?