Max King of the Wild said:
Rational historians have been posted in this very thread talking about the validity of jesus. You are the one who is approaching this irrationally. Harry Potter is a fictional character. Jesus, however, is not. His story may be embelished by the writers of the bible but there is no doubt in credible historians minds of the historical jesus. Now give up. Its a losing battle for you. I already answered your question if I'm religious in an earlier post to dsgue. Even if we ignore written sources as evidence of him being the most influential you still would need to name me someone who has been more influential that we base our dates off of them |
So be repeating the generally held views by historians on Jesus I'm being irrational. Lolwut?
Dude, l2history. Second/third/n-hand accounts passed down orally are piss-poor sources of evidence. Jesus may not be fictional, but what he is claimed to have said may be. Embelished?? Try fabricated.
You are not understanding me. I am not saying Jesus did not exist. I am saying that we sure as anything cannot attribute the majority of what is written in the NT to a man named Jesus.
You are quite obviously letting religion blind you to history and the scientific method.
Let me give you an example. If I wrote a book that said that Hitler promoted love, charity and peace, history was forgotten and then 500 years later this book was found and people followed the "teachings" of Hitler, does that make him influnential? Of course not, because what was written was not what he said. This is what I am saying. Understand? Or is your faith one that you have to believe that the Bible is infallible?
