My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I don't have to guess, printers put dates on the things they print.......1944.

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.

Don't take my word for it, research it yourself.

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

Say what things?

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.

They don't lack embarrassing details, and they were -modeled- after the gospels. I'd say that you're entirely too gullible, there are embarrassing details about hercules as well. "I'm sure it was essentially true that he hunted the Hind."

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.

I'm sure that there's probably a decent author somewhere that was a fisherman, but whether or not the gospels are comparable to the works of shakespeare would be a matter of opinion. Opinion..mind you, about prose...... I don't see it, personally. The whole burnt to a crisp and or killed bit, just more myth, sorry, bubbles been burst.

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.

Hardly any proof of what? That the gospels we have today weren't written by a couple of guys in a single generation? I'm not even sure where to begin.

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.)

[
That's the nice thing about opinions, we all have them, but what would any of our differing opinions have to say about the subject of whether or not the narrative is a factual recounting of any event, or whether or not some godman walked the earth? Nothing.

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

You probably won't be surprised that my opinion of christianity is that it is hearsay. You draw a line where it's important to you, but once you invoke mega-fairy the walking dead are a walk in the park.

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.

Which is quaint, to which I respond "jesus who"?

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.

I'd call Ghandi a nutball, but who cares? Again, "jesus who"? What crucifixion, what day of darkness?

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?

No, I wouldn't. I'd say "damn nice of jesus, good on him". Proof is not evidence, evidence is not proof. There is neither proof nor evidence for any jesus. It;s true that we have a similar situation for other figures we imagine to have been nestled somewhere in history, but it matters very little in their case. They either lived, or they did not. Stories of a life, or a life of stories. The only way I could sign on with the jesus crowd is if the stories stood on their own without any jesus - or (as is the case we have) if jesus effectively renounced the entirety of both your magic books.

If you had any evidence for this I doubt you'd spend so much time referring to the opinions of others. You're fishing for some figure I might respect, good luck with that. Locke said it, durant said it, ghandi said it, jefferson said it. Who cares? Cut to the chase and present me with the evidence.