Religion , truth and exclusivity

Originally posted by knightmeister
That's a different argument. Maybe , he did say it , maybe he didn't , but the argument around exclusivity and truth remains. Please do try and have one debate at a time, if you want to start debating the historical truth of the Gospels and whether he said certain things or not then start a new thread.

You find christianity to be "repulsively compelling" based on what Jesus is purported to have said. If it can be demonstrated that he didn't say those things, or that there's no reason to believe he said them, then christianity suddenly becomes quite a bit less compelling. It's directly relevant to your argument.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't know how accurate the NY Times is. Do you?

Are you suggesting I have as much reason to believe non-contemporaneous accounts of a carpenter's son turning water into wine as I have to believe that Wal-Mart has transformed the sedate rural community of Bentonville, Ark., into a teeming mini-metropolis?

Originally posted by dottewell
Are you suggesting I have as much reason to believe non-contemporaneous accounts of a carpenter's son turning water into wine as I have to believe that Wal-Mart has transformed the sedate rural community of Bentonville, Ark., into a teeming mini-metropolis?

You're wasting your time in the rag trade, sir.

Originally posted by dottewell
Are you suggesting I have as much reason to believe non-contemporaneous accounts of a carpenter's son turning water into wine as I have to believe that Wal-Mart has transformed the sedate rural community of Bentonville, Ark., into a teeming mini-metropolis?

I'm saying that the criteria for evaluation of secondary sources is the same, whether it be the Gospels or the New York Times.

And how much does non-contemporaneity matter? Are you going to consider today's NY Times more factually accurate than a NY Times report 50 years ago? 100 years ago?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And how much does non-contemporaneity matter? Are you going to consider today's NY Times more factually accurate than a NY Times report 50 years ago? 100 years ago?

You misunderstand. Were the Gospel accounts of Jesus' death written the same day as the event?

Originally posted by dottewell
You misunderstand. Were the Gospel accounts of Jesus' death written the same day as the event?

Highly unlikely. 🙂

But, with the exception of John, the Gospels were written within a generation or so after Christ.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Highly unlikely. 🙂

But, with the exception of John, the Gospels were written within a generation or so after Christ.

Fair enough.

Would have liked to have seen the headline in the Galilee Herald the day after the resurrection.

LOCAL MAN RISES FROM THE DEAD

Bet that would have shifted a few copies...

Originally posted by dottewell
Fair enough.

Would have liked to have seen the headline in the Galilee Herald the day after the resurrection.

LOCAL MAN RISES FROM THE DEAD

Bet that would have shifted a few copies...

More like

DISCIPLES OF CRUCIFIED RABBI CLAIM HE IS RISEN FROM THE DEAD

followed by

"The Sanhedrin's office has dismissed all reports of the resurrection of Jesus-bar-Joseph as 'fraudulent' and 'pernicious'. The Governor's office has refused to comment".

Originally posted by rwingett
You find christianity to be "repulsively compelling" based on what Jesus is purported to have said. If it can be demonstrated that he didn't say those things, or that there's no reason to believe he said them, then christianity suddenly becomes quite a bit less compelling. It's directly relevant to your argument.

Obviously my argument is based upon the idea that he did infact say these things. So hypothetically it is taken as read. If we say that he did say these things then the argument follows from there. If I was discussing the merits of 1.e4 for white you might say "ah but what if you were playing black" which is relevant but if you continually said this then you would never ever have a discussion about e4. If all you want me to do is acknowledge that he may or may not have said these things then fine , I acknowledge it. Now let's get back to e4 shall we , playing black is a different line of thought and you know it.