Photizo,
The independent historical evidence though sketchy is available to those without an agenda.
Sketchy is perhaps a stretch.
That said, I'm of the opinion that independent historical evidence is not necessary, being generally in agreement with the contents of this paper found here:
(
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/indconf.html )
And as I said earlier the Q research did not conclude that a teacher of some form, perhaps called Jesus, existed at the times needed. What cannot be shown is whether the extraordinary claims for such a person are in anyway true and a deeper study of the gospels shows their inherent mythical quality.
The testimony of the Gospel/Epistle accounts are sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Why? These are not direct witness accounts but are all hearsay all having being written down decades after the alleged Jesus would have died. Even today with modern recording devices we often have doubt about exactly was said or meant from a few decades ago, mainly due to significant editing. We also know that the early Church fathers were extremely “versatile” with the texts they selected and edited for final inclusion in the NT.
Paul for example never met the alleged Jesus, so hardly an eye-witness. But Paul was essentially the founder of Christianity, not Jesus. The concept of a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life came from Paul based on his beliefs of the various mystery religions that existed at that time i.e. the violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. This is where the mythology of Christianity began, i.e. simple plagiarism.
The Church Fathers also provide testimony to His existence.
You must be joking. These were the editors who decided what the religion was to be, and that occurred centuries after the Jesus lifetime. Not eye-witnesses and of course they would agree with what they had edited and created – doh!
Furthermore, reasons to trust the authenticity and reliability of the NT documents abound of which a few can be found here:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/history.html
LOL, Hardly authoritative. These are somewhat naïve quotes targeted at beginners. It took about 10 seconds to see the first factual error – “The apostle Matthew wrote the first of the NT gospels, followed by Mark (Peter's interpreter).” The facts - Mark came first during the 2nd century CE, and Mathew about a decade later which was essentially an imaginative enhanced version of Mark. John and Luke came shortly thereafter and similarly heavily adapted mark – the many authors for all the gospels are unknown and almost certainly were a plethora of myth makers turning an increasingly popular folk tale of hero worship into a religion.
Based upon this fact, the majority of testimony concerning Christ found in the NT is certainly not hearsay.
How so when the first gospel was written decades after the alleged Jesus was meant to have died and that life spans in those times were only 3-4 decades. And remember Paul never met Jesus so all his letters do not count. There are no reliably quoted eye-witness accounts of the life of the alleged Jesus, and certainly there can be no way that any of the detailed quotes of what he is claimed to have said and done can be deemed authentic.
One arrives at faith through an honest, realistic appraisal of their abilities...in other words, the magnitude/complexity encountered without dwarfs/shames that which is encountered within. Faith is a gift...given to anyone humble enough to receive it.
Why? What would be wrong with a real god showing actual evidence so there would be no doubt? Why leave people guessing? If real evidence is available faith is never required. Faith is only insisted upon out of desperation by disingenuous sales folk.
This nonsense--> "The stories reflect the myths, superstitions and political motivations of the ignorant times in which they were written. Ascribing them to the desires of a deity is unsupported" is patently false according to what the Apostle Peter declares under inspiration of the Holy Ghost: (2 Peter 1:16-21).
You’ll need to prove that a Holy Ghost exists and is possible if you want anyone to believe a fantasy over the more credible perspective that it is mythical.
Lastly,--> "...continuing to assert it so does not raise any credibility for whatever else you say." LOL! Whether you--or anyone--find me credible doesn't concern me in the least. Especially in light of your viewpoint concerning the Word of God.
Then you are not serious about debating since the accepted approach to debate is to attempt to convince others that you have a believable reasoned argument and by so doing gain credibility. If your intent is merely to preach and make unsupported assertions then you will be quickly ignored as a waste of time.
I respectfully disagree as my experience has been precisely the opposite. As a member here (
http://www.epiqsociety.org/ ) I assure you, I am quite the rational person,
How then is it possible for you to argue in favor of faith over reason. That is the epitome of irrationality. Your assurance and logical fallacy by a reference to authority, fails at the outset.
having indeed studied the Bible "alongside knowledge of history and an understanding of the times in which the texts were written, and with an understanding of the political needs in those ancient times"--and that for many years. Not once have I ever seen a single shred of your "tapestry".
So you disagree with the conclusions of Q then? What are your objections?
