About other gods-question for theists

[orangebox21]

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

By asking me to assume jesus? Surely you jest.

By asking me to assume no Jesus, surely you jest.

We all use our experiences to defend our positions or criticize the positions of others. It's not really something that we can avoid.
Your not remaining consistent here. To criticize people for using their experiences as a criticism of others a then to say this is something that we can't avoid

Here, allow me to apply my experience to the offering above - even though it probably doesn't cut it as objective grounds - and that will become immediately clear.

-Fictional characters do not require a line of descent, nor, if the author chooses to give them one, do they need to be accurate -even within the narrative-. Textual dilemma that doesn't bother me in the least, solved - thank me later.

I agree that fictional charaters do not require a line of descent. However, you've fallen prey to your own criticism. In asking me for an objective proposition, you've set a standard your above statement doesn't follow. Rather than objectively investigating the truth claim that Jesus' geneaologies are as stated, you've assumed He is a fictional character. You've assumed an unargued philisophical bias (Jesus is a fictional character) and then used your 'experience' to conclude that fictional characters don't require a line of descent. Then you've held that your 'experience' is true while mine is not. Why hold others to a standard you are unwilling to keep yourself?

With the minor caveat that any truth found there can only go so far as one's own mind, of course.
Is that statement a truth found only in your mind and thus has no bearring upon my mind?

Are you proposing the proposition that: truth is found only within a mind, and therefore has no bearing upon an outside mind?

Simultaneously handicapping truth to whatever might be understood by a human mind (my mind, in fact). Something I'm sure neither of us would really find all that useful. Thus, the spectre or shadow of solipsism. All of our postulates about what may exist beyond our own minds (including each others minds - and the sensory data upon which we rely) are - on some level - baseless.

Are you asserting the last sentence as true or false?

Are the genealogies factual within the explanation given?

Yep. The genealogies clearly are stated to be of Joseph, not Mary, and they do not match. Further, Joseph was not, according to the Bible, Jesus' father.

Was Heli the name of Mary's father?

Joseph was Jesus' father legally though as you have stated not biologically.

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

Certainly not. But for many Biblical contradictions there not only isn't complete consensus, there is complete disarray.

By complete disarray are you proposing that no two theologians/apologists agree on any issue?

If there were a good answers, surely in the almost 2000 years since the gospels were written, some kind of a consensus would have emerged.

Why?