Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can have an honest discussion, Baptist. Can you? If I start a thread "Christians, give us your best non-Biblical, non faith-based historical evidence for Jesus are you up for discussing it? Put your money where your fingers are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
The koran.
Ummmmm!
'...give us your best non-Biblical, non faith-based historical evidence for Jesus.'
Ummmmm! '...give us your best non-Biblical, non-faith-based historical evidence for Jesus.'
The spurious denigration of ancient historical writings JUST BECAUSE they were adopted and used as the basis for religions is silly. As far as the writers' purpose at the time, they were ALL historical and important recordings for future use. Any pretense that they were not is unwarranted prejudice based on ignorance of the mindsets of their specific eras. Literacy was rare and writing was a tedious affair that limited most efforts to important tasks, NOT fiction. Applying today's or basically even early modern era standards of historical writings to those earlier eras is just bogus.
Maybe....just MAYBE instead of trying to look good we're simply trying to expose the lies and corruption that Christianity has thrived on for two millennia at the expense of innocent seekers of truth who they tortured in unspeakable manners before burning them. Ever look at it that way, amigo, or is the truth completely off your radar?
Think about it.
Creating straw men is so much easier than thinking, though.
I can have an honest discussion, Baptist. Can you? If I start a thread "Christians, give us your best non-Biblical, non faith-based historical evidence for Jesus are you up for discussing it? Put your money where your fingers are.
Why, you know you will only get the usual suspects.
The spurious denigration of ancient historical writings JUST BECAUSE they were adopted and used as the basis for religions is silly.
They were not adopted and used, they were created by the religious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
As far as the writers' purpose at the time, they were ALL historical and important recordings for future use. Any pretense that they were not is unwarranted prejudice based on ignorance of the mindsets of their specific eras.
They all historical records of what those people believed, they are not historical records of the people in the actual texts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Literacy was rare and writing was a tedious affair that limited most efforts to important tasks, NOT fiction.
There was a wealth of fiction from around that time. Stop inventing history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Applying today's or basically even early modern era standards of historical writings to those earlier eras is just bogus.
Indeed. That is why historians avoid doing this. that is how they know works like the gospels were not written in a format used for histories, that they were written as hagiographies.
I can have an honest discussion, Baptist. Can you? If I start a thread "Christians, give us your best non-Biblical, non faith-based historical evidence for Jesus are you up for discussing it? Put your money where your fingers are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
I have no ax to grind with the koran, jones. My beef is with the Bible. And I know quite a bit about its sinister history. Want to take me on?
I guess BaptistFundie and jones weren't interested in losing a debate so they backed off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.