Originally posted by scottishinnzRead my (second) statement again - I never said it was your POV. You're simply assuming that the term "entirely fictional" automatically implies "scottishinnz' view" because that was what I said the first time a few pages back. This time I didn't - so you're attributing to me something I didn't state.
Quite right. You just made a fallacious statement about my point of view, that I had earlier dismissed.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, must have been the way that you were responding to my post, making an assumption that I had already discredited as my position, that gave me that impression.
Read my (second) statement again - I never said it was your POV. You're simply assuming that the term "entirely fictional" automatically implies "scottishinnz' view" because that was what I said the first time a few pages back. This time I didn't - so you're attributing to me something I didn't state.
Ahh, what the heck, I don't care - I just love watching you backpedal.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf that's what you like to believe, so be it.
Yes, must have been the way that you were responding to my post, making an assumption that I had already discredited as my position, that gave me that impression.
Ahh, what the heck, I don't care - I just love watching you backpedal.
Btw, are you happy that most historians would be quite satisfied (as they are) with the NT documents as evidence of a historical Jesus?
Originally posted by lucifershammeras I say, I have no position of whether a historical figure called Jesus actually existed. If you were to press me, I'd probably say yes, there probably was, but I draw the line at the whole son of god bit.
If that's what you like to believe, so be it.
Btw, are you happy that most historians would be quite satisfied (as they are) with the NT documents as evidence of a historical Jesus?
Originally posted by scottishinnzFair enough. 'Son of God' is probably a matter for the Spirituality Forum, not the Debates Forum.
as I say, I have no position of whether a historical figure called Jesus actually existed. If you were to press me, I'd probably say yes, there probably was, but I draw the line at the whole son of god bit.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou might find this article interesting:
Is the Illiad considered by historians as evidence of a historical Achilles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Iliad
Nevertheless, the two situations are not analoguous. Homer's composition (dispute over Homer's identity aside) happened nearly five centuries after the events in the Iliad supposedly took place. The Gospels took less than five decades.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd that is relevant how? Couldn't the same be said about Moses and Abraham in the Old Testament?
You might find this article interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Iliad
Nevertheless, the two situations are not analoguous. Homer's composition (dispute over Homer's identity aside) happened nearly five centuries after the events in the Iliad supposedly took place. The Gospels took less than five decades.