About other gods-question for theists

[orangebox21]

I fail to see how anyone could establish genealogies by means of text. That doesn't cut it for us, today. You've already asked me to assume that their was even a "jesus" to bother with describing a genealogy for.

I'm just giving you a non-experiential proposition as a 'common ground or objective point from which to reason.' Something you've requested.

But, in the context of some disagreement over genealogies (assuming that either one of them is accurate in the first place) I don't think that my objection would apply. As I said, one route of many. Of course, I'm not sure how you might go about "arguing for god" by means of "jesus" pro/sup-posed genealogy - as I'll remind you that it's human beings who have genealogies to begin with.

I'm not using genealogies to argue for God. I'm seeking to test your proposition that apologists use 'experience' to defend their position, without allowing you to use your experience.

I can see someone defining "rationalism" that way, perhaps a bit mistakenly. Chances are whomever defined it that way had a hard time defeating the spectre of solipsism, and that's understandable.

If rationalism is the philosophy that truth is found in the mind, and solipsism states all that can be proven to exist is the mind, it follows that they are cut from the same cloth. If all that can be proven to exist is the mind, then if truth exists, it would be found there.

I don't think they are merely "alleged discrepancies." Most of them were not discovered by atheists but by theologians during the middle ages. So it's clear that anyone reading the Bible can see them. So? Are they explained by the apologists? I don't think so. Mostly the apologists require us to take a highly unlikely or convoluted reading of the text to arrive at that determination.

Are the genealogies factual within the explanation given?

Besides, if the solution were obvious because there was no contradiction, then the apologists ought to agree on the solution. But, alas they do not agree.

Is your viewpoint that truth is defined only by complete consensus?