If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been . . .

[Zzyzx]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 69 by tam]

First, I did not say that I am the true christian and others are not. I did not make a claim about me at all. Someone asked me why there is so much conflict between believers. I answered that question.

Sorry, but that is essentially what I get from you from your numerous claims of "They're not listening to Christ". You say you listen to Christ, you say you hear him, and you list what you say are Christ's teachings, and then when you talk about the heretic-burners, you say about them that they are not listening to Christ.
Thus...they cannot be 'true Christians'. After all you said it yourself earlier. How can one be a Christian and yet not follow Christ's teachings?

"Bless those who curse you"... cannot be interpreted as... "Curse those who curse you."

I come not to bring peace but a sword.
He who claims to follow me but does not hate his family cannot be my disciple (sorry if I butchered this one, I typed it purely from memory).
And let's not forget that Christ is supposed to BE the God of the Old Testament as well (or his son) and that OT God was most definitely all about smiting enemies. I thus cannot fault the heretic burners for believing that Christ would have been all gung ho about continuing that practice.
At best, the verses that you mention here make Christ/God look two faced.

As a non-muslim, I can still look at Islam and see that those Muslims who behead people just for not converting to Islam

Going purely from memory...I can't recall a teaching to behead those who don't convert TO Islam. However, I do recall there to be teachings to execute those who convert FROM it. Apostasy is a capital crime in certain Muslim dominated nations.

In fact, I think there are multiple non-Christians who can see even if only from what is written, if a person is following Christ or not.

Care to explain how they might figure that out? Remember, we (meaning non-believers in Christianity/Jesus Christ or whatever terminology you prefer to use) don't know if what is written in the Bible actually IS what Jesus Christ said 2,000 years ago. We have no way of knowing. We don't know how accurate the translations are, we don't have originals, etc etc.
For all we know, Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago really did say one day "Kill my enemies" but it never got written down for some reason. Or got edited out.
So when it comes to identifying those who ARE following Christ...well, I'd have to figure out what Christ's teachings and sayings are first.

[1213]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

If Jesus didn’t say anything new, please tell who first said:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

[Zzyzx]

.

If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

If Jesus didn’t say anything new, please tell who first said:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

Are you asking who first made the whole speech? Perhaps I left too much wiggle room with “say anything new� rather than “present original and valuable ideas�.

The same idea regarding treatment of others is conveyed by the Ethic of Reciprocity (AKA Golden Rule) which is known from many ancient cultures.

Citing a supernatural entity in the sky is an ancient idea of many religions.

Perhaps even this leaves wiggle room for those who would deny knowing that both statements are true – or who might argue that the Ethic of Reciprocity doesn't specifically say it applies to enemies.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 69 by tam]

Hello, tam

Your score on understanding my position stands at a GENEROUS 1 out of 10

The only thing you got what that I said people interpret the Bible differently. It may be a TRIVIAL point, but it's a point. So you got a 1 for that.

You missed all the OTHER points.
Sorry, tam.

I call this post :

SHEESH CARAMBA!
( not sure why )

And I responded to rik's post. But I will respond also to yours.

Well, if you are trying your BEST to understand MY position, it might be best to get it from ME, rather than someone else's take on it.

Don't you THINK?

Tam, my point has been that OTHERS interpret the Bible THEIR way.. and OTHERS call themselves true Christians.. who TRULY follow Christ and so on.. Some of these other Christians were SO SURE, in fact, that they had no trouble interpreting those lovely Bible passages to mean that they could BURN PEOPLE ON THE STAKE.

Yes that is your position...

YES IT IS.. thank you for POINTING THAT OUT.

Sheesh caramba!

Do you imagine that people DIDN'T justify their burning using some Biblical justification? I think that's what religious leaders generally DO, don't YOU?

They must have had SOME religious justification, surely. They might have even explained to you how burning was the MOST loving they could be... all very Biblical, too. You could have spent HOURS having back and forth discussion about theology.

Most theological positions rather ARE debatable, aren't they?

So, yes, that IS my position. But I don't know if YOU understand it very well.. just writing "Yes, that is your position".. doesn't show me that.

I have you discussing what I might have said.. with someone else.... and you agreeing with me that something is my position. I have NO way of determining if you have a CLUE as to my actual position, tam. I'm suspecting otherwise.

If you aren't following, I wont bother going further.

Now, YOU might call those people not following Christ, but most importantly, tam, THEY might have said the very same thing of YOU.

Yep. I have never said otherwise.

See how this doesn't INDICATE to me that you understand me at all? For all I know, you might be in agreement but MISUNDERSTANDING ME, anyway. Your ability to FOLLOW what I have to say is in question.

And I have to say.. you aren't going out of your way right now to REASSURE ME, tam.

It's NO use complaining to us that THEY aren't true Christians, tam. THEY probably would have said the same about yourself.

Thankfully I am not complaining to you about that then. I am, in fact, merely responding to a question that was asked of me by someone in this thread.

GOOD COMEBACK!!

But it demonstrates a REMARKABLE lack of understanding.

If you FOCUS on the word "complaining" ... you miss the entire point. I have NO reason yet to think you are following. It's WHAT you are complaining about that matters.. You tell us that SOME Christians aren't really following what YOU consider to be Christ.

YOU FOCUSED ON ANYTHING BUT the important part of my message. Good evasion of the issue, BAD for really addressing it, or demonstrating that you GOT it, tam.

VERY BAD INDEED.

Evasion = 10
Understanding = 0

And ATHEISTS don't care about this debate.. go debate it with THEM. ATHEISTS aren't CHRISTIANS.

PGH is the member who asked me the question. I do not know if he is an atheist or not. It does not matter to me. I responded directly to a question asked of me.[/quote]

I still don't know if you are following.
This isn't looking good at all, tam.

And since you question my sincerity, I have to wonder if you aren't being clever disingenuous in your response here. You seem to NOT NOTICE that I specifically mentioned what I thought you should be debating those other Christians about.. Seems to not enter YOUR MIND.

Sorry, tam.
I don't have evidence that you are trying very hard to understand my position.

This thread was started by an atheist (or rather "a non-theist with ignostic leanings")

So obviously some do care about the debate. I do not think that you are in a position to state who is interested and who is not interested in this debate, or in the question of how to tell if one is following Christ or not. In fact, why ask the question if you are uninterested or merely wish to 'poo poo' the response?

DO YOU IMAGINE THAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT DEBATE?

What KIND of understanding is this demonstrating, tam?
I don't usually POO POO without an extremely DETAILED explanation as to WHY, tam.

Do you IMAGINE that I merely wish to POO POO arguments?
You should NOT imagine it, because I don't merely wish to do that.. it's what I call a "side benefit".

Or have you forgotten that YOU are the one who asked me how you could know the difference. You initiated this conversation between us.

Not my point, tam.

Not my point at all. I think you could really try harder to understand my point, instead of JUMPING into a defense of it. You are defending yourself about something that is TOTALLY irrelevant to my point.

I have no confidence that you understand it at all.
Sorry, tam.

Defensiveness= 10
Understanding = 0

Now, please, tam, I've tried to be as clear as possible, and a little succinct. I hope now, that you understand my point, but just in case that you still don't, I will put it in POINT FORM. It's as clear as I can make it, tam.

Excellent.

That's why I usually use point form. TO BE CLEAR AND SUCCINCT.

1. You claim to be a true Christian.. or TRULY following Christ.. and that others don''t.
2. These others can, in fact, say the very same thing of YOU.
3. Atheists are NOT in the position to decide which is which.
4. So, THEREFORE, it's USELESS to tell atheists you are the true Christian and that others aren't.

Is that clear enough?

Its clear, but I am not sure it makes sense, considering who initiated this conversation.

It's clear, but it doesn't make SENSE?

Telling me that it's clear = 10
Demonstrating that it's clear to you = 0

First, I did not say that I am the true christian and others are not. I did not make a claim about me at all.

Because not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him.

Oh then, YOU don't claim to actually know Him?.. OF COURSE YOU DO!

Come on, tam.

Playing with words = 10
Honesty = lets just say NOT 10

You jumped in and proceeded to ask me how an atheist can know the difference... and now you are telling me that atheist are uninterested in that debate, and that I should go debate with other believers about it.

When you are the one who asked me the question to begin with.

Do you understand my confusion here?

I understand that you get confused. I'm trying to help you understand. It's not all that easy. I'm not at all interested in Christian vs. Christian debates, tam. That's their affair. I would be interested in how any CLAIM to actually know "Him" can be verified.

So far, I am given BUPKIS about that.

You cannot turn around and then tell me atheist are uninterested and I should only go have that debate with other Christians.

DO HAVE your theological debates among yourselves, tam. Im not going to have it with you, I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN.

Have your squabble about who is a true Christian or not with those who CARE. ATHEISTS don't CARE who claims to be a true Christian.. We don't happen to think ANY OF YOU have true beliefs. Your complaint about other Christians is MEANINGLESS, and quite fallacious. I'm just pointing it out.

It's USELESS to mention that in YOUR opinion, they ARE WRONG, and that you ARE RIGHT.

You'd have to DEMONSTRATE why you are right and they wrong, tam. If you use the Bible, so do THEY, if you have a special revelation, so might THEY. And NOBODY can go check your special revelations.

My point is that your answer was COMPLETELY USELESS..

Now your point seems to be that people have their own interpretations and you (or atheists) cannot tell which interpretation is correct or not? So it is pointless to have debates like that with atheists?

Is that correct?

ALMOST, but no cigar yet,tam.

People have ALL kinds of interpretations of what the Bible "means". That part you got right. But you completely missed the more important part about how ONE reasonable INTERPRETATION is as good as any OTHER reasonable INTERPRETATION.

We all have our own interpretations. That's the PROBLEM.
But SOME people claim to have an ACTUALLY CORRECT ONE.

I think you IMPLY that you do.. it's this "love" thing. Anything that doesn't match what you think that HAPPENS TO BE.. doesn't ACTUALLY know Christ, is that correct? Because I think you go out of your WAY to tell us that.. over and over and over again, tam. That's you, isn't it?

The love business?
Well, they might have ANOTHER idea about love, these other people. They might think that BURNING PEOPLE is love. You might think that calling yourself a SLAVE is love. Who KNOWS what Christians think love is?

But we atheists can easily DETECT when someone is using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, tam. And that's what you are doing, even if it's a little bit DISGUISED at first.
We would have to fill PAGES AND PAGES to get you to admit it, though. Your lack of being able to "follow" would make it ALL the more difficult.

But others can plainly SEE what I'm talking about.
You claim to have an ACTUAL relationship with Christ, and claim that OTHERS do NOT.

That's the No True Scotsman fallacy, tam.

When YOU CLAIM that only YOUR interpretation is correct, that's UNJUSTIFIED.

I asked you HOW you KNOW that yours is better than anyone else's, and then HILARITY ensued.

People can defend just about ANY proposition using the Bible and they HAVE.. from slavery to child abuse to burning people at the stake and going to holy wars and so on. But my point isn't that it's POINTLESS to debate Christians about this.. my POINT was that YOUR RESPONSE was pointless.. meaningless, and WRONG.

Wrong on many levels, but you don't even UNDERSTAND my criticisms. Even NOW, you get it twisted up.

My VERY CLEAR CRITICISM of your response is :

1. Cherry picking the Bible to mean whatever it is you imagine it to be.
2. You support that Biblical authority by invoking Christ's authority.
3. You also take the Bible as the EXACT WORDS of Christ, even though you also say that it's REPUTEDLY only, contradicting yourself.
4. You imply that any Christian who doesn't agree with you aren't the REAL followers of Christ, although they claim to be, and thereby, using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
5. YOU YOURSELF claim to be a real follower of Christ.
6. And that on top of all of that, it's pretty PLAIN that you have trouble following the logic of OTHERS. You jump to DEFENSE way before you fully know what you are defending yourself about.

It's POINTLESS to PRETEND to us that you happen to have the CORRECT interpretation, tam. You'd have to try to DEFEND that idea. You only do by quoting the Bible, like people who DON'T agree with you do, and by invoking your quite mysterious connection to Christ, which is ALSO meaningless.

So, yes, your response was MEANINGLESS.
You might as well have been babbling, tam.

I'm pointing that out, and I'm explaining WHY.
I'm sorry if you can't follow.

If you really don't understand something, ask me what I mean.. you don't have to JUMP to a quite useless and meaningless defense right away. Try to find out what the problem IS before you attempt to fix it. Im always responding to your NON SEQUITUR answers, tam.

From one leap of logic to another.

If that is what you think, then why would you engage me in a conversation on it?

I'm pointing out how MEANINGLESS your response was.
You do a lot of writing in here. I am CHALLENGING your reasoning.

It's QUITE fallacious.

Why would you ask me a question as to how you could know? I answered thinking you were asking a sincere question.

You don't have to stoop so low as to insult my sincerity, tam.
Low blow.

When I point out that your response is MEANINGLESS, I am being QUITE sincere about it. When I point out that using a word like SLAVE is incredibly offensive I am being QUITE SINCERE, tam.

Perhaps YOUR sincerity should be questioned.

If you say you cannot tell what is correct or not, then who am I to dispute that? Maybe you cannot, but some other atheist/agnostic/ignostic/or even a fellow believer will find the information helpful?

Yes, and PERHAPS, tam, just perhaps, when I point out that your response is MEANINGLESS, they might understand why its NOT HELPFUL AT ALL.

Understanding how your answer was MEANINGLESS is useful to others. Deconstructing messy logic isn't always that EASY. It's a MESS.. and it's very typical. On the surface it's all very nice. You talk about love, what's wrong with that.. and so on. But if we TEASE IT APART.. and ask a few questions, we easily UNMASK the atrocious logic.

I certainly dispute the point that it is impossible to tell who is or is not listening to Christ, if only on specific matters:

"Bless those who curse you"... cannot be interpreted as... "Curse those who curse you."

You'd be surprised how clever some Christians can be with their interpretations, tam.
I'm sure we could pull out Bible verses that could be construed in ALL MANNER of creative ways.

You might have HEARD of "cherry picking"?

It's a "thing".

Do not welcome 'them' (heretics) into your home; love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; shake the dust off your feet and leave that house/town; etc, etc... cannot be interpreted as... 'burn em at the stake.'

Cannot?... You'd be SURPRISED TAM.
Just because YOU cannot doesn't mean that OTHERS cant.

Do you agree or disagree?

I could do BOTH, tam. I assure you that I am QUITE creative that way.

You pull out two verses that match your belief. We could play Bible tag all day long, tam. You know that.

I don't really like the game.
I don't really take anything in the Bible as RELIABLE... it's just stories to me, tam. And MANY stories tell a quite different tale than LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.

I happen to know of QUITE A FEW Christians who use the SAME Bible to support OTHER kinds of views. Not ALL of them are all that "loving" quotes.

I gave you two examples. Non-believers will burn in hell.
That needs some INTERPRETATION, don't you think?

As a non-muslim, I can still look at Islam and see that those Muslims who behead people just for not converting to Islam... they are not following their prophet or their holy book.

TO THE ONES WHO CUT OFF HEADS.. it's quite the other way around, tam.

We have TWO SETS OF INTERPRETATIONS:

1. Head cutting is Quran...
2. Head cutting isn't.

1. Burn at the stake isn't Biblical
2. It is.

THERE IS A DEBATE about those, tam. ( maybe not burning anymore.. the Christians STOPPED that , but historically, tam, they USTA. )

Because the Quran gives specific instruction that a Muslim is only to give warning, and nothing more.

I don't have to be a Muslim to see that. I can just read the holy book for myself.

To the head cutters, you aren't reading it well.

If I can do that as a non-muslim, why can't some do that as a non-christian?

Because atheists don't NEED to protect ISLAM or CHRISTIANITY. I see both as morally chaotic and dangerous. I don't HAVE an Abrahamic religion to defend. That's YOUR job, tam.

Good luck.

In fact, I think there are multiple non-Christians who can see even if only from what is written, if a person is following Christ or not. Some of them are on this forum. We might not always be right, but that is where discussion can be useful; to talk it out.

In order to have a RATIONAL discussion, we need to UNDERSTAND one another. I don't think you STILL understand mine, and here is WHY;

1. You went back to using your offensive signature. That's a bad SIGN, tam. I went out of my WAY to tell you that it was great that you had dropped the word. Now, I doubt the sincerity of that gesture. For all I know, it was probably a mistake on your part when you left it out. So, that olive branch went into the trash pretty fast. I just had time to acknowledge it, and it was REMOVED. BAD MOVE, tam. Peace is GREAT. Slavery NOT. That you choose to offend me and the MILLIONS of real slaves doesn't show a LICK of understanding, tam.
2.You have demonstrated a very PARTIAL understanding of my actual position. I think you completely MISSED the part about true Christians and how we can TELL THEM APART. When you bring up burning people, you forget that it was CHRISTIANS who did that. So, invoking Christ or the Bible doesn't help with that... THEY USED THAT TOO.
3. You don't seem to be able to focus on MY position is before you JUMP INTO your defense. Your haste to defend yourself does NOT demonstrate an understanding, but something else, instead.

Sorry, tam.
Try, try again, right?

[tam]

[Replying to post 74 by Blastcat]

Oh, I got your point, BC. You are all over the map, bringing up things from other threads that have nothing to do with anything I said on this thread. But I have said all of this already; and just in case you missed the post, I do not intend to continue any further discussion on matters unrelated to the topic at hand.

Not on this thread at least.

Peace to you still,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy (and how I sign off on various posts has nothing to do with you, or with any gesture you might think I am or am not making)

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 70 by tam]


Hi tam

Glad to oblige.

( I call this post "Glad to oblige 1" )

If you, Blastcat or Rik, wish to continue to discuss matters unrelated to the topic at hand, please begin a new thread and provide me with a link (if you want make sure I see it).

Here you go, tam:

A new thread entitled: "Not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him"

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=30254

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 68 by Zzyzx]

Your own OP has "didn't" which is in the past tense.

So all of your replies which ask about Jesus' deeds here and now are puzzling to me...they seem inconsistent with the OP.


As for past deeds, I think you and I will end up in the same argument which leads into a stalemate. I believe history is a valid science and that we can ascertain quite a bit from the historical documents. After all, what Julius Caesar am I to ask about Julius Caesar's assassination? You however discount history as a science (at least that is the impression I have gotten again and again from the way you word things).

Until you and I can come to an agreement on the science of history, there is no point in talking about the past.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to tam]

There is absolutely nothing you have stated that can validate that you know or listen to Christ ..........to any other believer who makes the very same claim and yet the two of you might happen to disagree with each other on some of these claimed personal revelations when you share them with each other......

I'm afraid if you actually think you hear for real or metaphorically a spiritual voice for some external divine source you are deluding yourself in the comfort and assurance as you perceive of it.....

But that doesn't make any of your claims part of reality.......

[Zzyzx]

.

Your own OP has "didn't" which is in the past tense.

So all of your replies which ask about Jesus' deeds here and now are puzzling to me...they seem inconsistent with the OP.

It is my understanding that Christendom considers Jesus as past, present and future – and phrase comments and questions with that in mind (not that I agree with the position).

As for past deeds, I think you and I will end up in the same argument which leads into a stalemate. I believe history is a valid science and that we can ascertain quite a bit from the historical documents.

I do not disagree – we can learn “quite a bit from historical documents�. However, I recognize that there are limitations on what we can learn from documents available.

After all, what Julius Caesar am I to ask about Julius Caesar's assassination?

I do not base any decisions on the assassination of Caesar. Therefore, exactly what happened is of no great concern. The same applies to most of history. It may be useful to know in understanding how things developed – but not critical information for real world modern decisions.

We don't even know what Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address. There are several versions, all slightly different, that are attributed to Lincoln himself. So what? I don't base any real life decisions on the exact wording.

In the case of words attributed to Jesus or God in Bible stories, much emphasis is often placed upon exact words – and they ARE used as a basis for modern decisions (by some). They are quoted as though verbatim accurate in these debates.

You however discount history as a science (at least that is the impression I have gotten again and again from the way you word things).

I regard as science that which can apply the Scientific Method (specifics below). If an historical study can be shown to use the Scientific Method I will consider it scientific.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word scientia, which is knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California. Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science.
The scientific method

When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. “Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach.
An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.

http://www.livescience.com/20896-scienc ... ethod.html

Bold added to a most critical point.

Until you and I can come to an agreement on the science of history, there is no point in talking about the past.

It makes no difference to me. I present ideas for readers to consider, evaluate, and compare to opposition presentations.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 79 by Zzyzx]

I do not disagree – we can learn “quite a bit from historical documents�. However, I recognize that there are limitations on what we can learn from documents available.

liamconnor wrote:

After all, what Julius Caesar am I to ask about Julius Caesar's assassination?

I do not base any decisions on the assassination of Caesar. Therefore, exactly what happened is of no great concern. The same applies to most of history. It may be useful to know in understanding how things developed – but not critical information for real world modern decisions.

I view that as a cop out, which can be put broadly, "We can learn a lot from history! of course! ah, but so long as the results of historical research do not interfere with my present life. Once a historical event is brought up whose historicity would have enormous implications for my life and conduct and say, my reputation on this forum, and indeed all avenues of life....well, then I will raise up skeptical defenses. Of course I admit they are Skeptical defenses which no historical claim could stand up to, whether it be about Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. And of course I, Z, contradict myself, for I just said above that we can learn a lot from history. But I only meant, we can learn a lot of stuff which has no real impact on me."


That is how you come across.


My challenge to you Z is to treat all history the same, which means:

1) study how history is done in general; then apply the same methods to the N.T. Show where its claims differ from other documents of the same period. i.e. tell me why you are willing to accept Plutarch regarding Alexander the Great, but not Luke regarding Jesus. And of course give REASONABLE reasons. Are they philosophical? Then own up and commit yourself to philosophical disputes.

or

2) Publicly announce ALL history as hogwash. Become Pyrrho. That is, say "We cannot know, indeed have no reason to even make a statement, about the past. Jesus, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great....all of them just phantoms of our imagination, equally dubious. Every criticism made against one is legitimately made against another."


what you seem to be doing is, well, 4/8ths donkey.