On religion (in particular Christianity), rationality, and this forum - are we allowed to discuss it?

[Ixthos]

if, for example, Jesus's life as described in the Gospels was Rashomon style accurate, including dying and resurrecting and ascending to Heaven, would that be enough? How many data points do you need?

More than King Arthur.

To be clear, are you saying you think Jesus has more evidence than King Arthur, or that you think Jesus would need more evidence than King Arthur?

Basically. King Arthur is basically my yardstick of "disputed historical personage", partially because few people are likely to be offended by someone saying "King Arthur is fictional" and partially because it makes the continuum from "King Arthur isn't real" to "King Arthur is an amalgam of various real people" to "There was a guy named Arthur in Briton who fought the Saxons" to "Geoffery of Monmouth wrote history" pretty clear.

Ahhh, that makes sense. Though remember the existence of Jesus is almost universally accepted even among atheist scholars mainly due to the existence of secular texts that mention or allude to Him, its just whether or not He did what He is claimed to have done and said what He is claimed to have said that is disputed. Hopefully in about a week I can post some data on this, I'm swamped with other things to do at the moment.

(Also on the topic of Arthur, I find it funny and sad in that Henry 8'th brother was named Arthur, and so if he hadn't died England would have had a historically verifiable King Arthur.

Have you seen OSP's video on Arthurian legends and how the story has been added to over time?)

[Madner Kami]

Though remember the existence of Jesus is almost universally accepted even among atheist scholars mainly due to the existence of secular texts that mention or allude to Him

Citation needed.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

What? nobody contests that was a real person.

[Ixthos]

Though remember the existence of Jesus is almost universally accepted even among atheist scholars mainly due to the existence of secular texts that mention or allude to Him

Citation needed.

Citation provided: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writin ... the-bible/

Also, just to check, do you believe Jesus didn't exist?

What? nobody contests that was a real person.

As painful as it is to say this there are those who don't. As bizarre as this sounds there are many things which the majority believes which a subset of the population doesn't. If we live on a planet that, despite being proven to be round, some people think is flat, or that crop circles are from aliens, just about anything could be doubted by someone.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

As painful as it is to say this there are those who don't. As bizarre as this sounds there are many things which the majority believes which a subset of the population doesn't. If we live on a planet that, despite being proven to be round, some people think is flat, or that crop circles are from aliens, just about anything could be doubted by someone.

Wow. Trump was bad, but now this?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

For the record, I believe King Arthur was real, it's just his supporting cast wasn't. The evidence is pretty sound for me and the feats he did manage were impressive enough.

[McAvoy]

As far as the Great Flood.

It's definitely possible it was a localized event since there is plenty of evidence of something like that may have happened. I mean it will happen when you live near a major water source. All ancient civilizations built their towns or cities near one. Afterall, you need water.

Was there a man who realized something was wrong when there was alot of raining and the local natural dam to a major water source was leaking? Then he built a boat or had one on hand to save his family? Probably. Never will know.

My point, is that the Great Flood is the sort of thing no one should take literal and take mental gymnastics in figuring it out. There is alot of things wrong with it. And alot of things wrong with the 'evidence' for those who do try to prove it.

Dissecting what is and what is not history would take too long.

Those are good points though I disagree with your assessment. Still, you are very fixated on the Flood. How much of what the Bible recounts would you need to be convinced of in order to believe - if, for example, Jesus's life as described in the Gospels was Rashomon style accurate, including dying and resurrecting and ascending to Heaven, would that be enough? How many data points do you need?

It's one example. It's one example of people who take the Bible as literal have to contend with to figure out how it would work.

Did you know there are three seperate versions of Jesus's resurrection?

For me to believe in what the Bible says is true is for God to say it is. In person.

[McAvoy]

What? nobody contests that was a real person.

Well for one the name Jesus would never have existed.

But that there was an angry Jew at that time fed up with how their elite was treating the general Jew population? Sure there was. There was alot of them in fact. That there was a Jew teaching something different then from the mainstream Jewish teachings? Sure. Probably happening.

It's not like this happened out of nowhere.

[Ixthos]

As painful as it is to say this there are those who don't. As bizarre as this sounds there are many things which the majority believes which a subset of the population doesn't. If we live on a planet that, despite being proven to be round, some people think is flat, or that crop circles are from aliens, just about anything could be doubted by someone.

Wow. Trump was bad, but now this?

Let's not bring politics or anything politics related into the discussion - its already a very sensitive topic as it is

For the record, I believe King Arthur was real, it's just his supporting cast wasn't. The evidence is pretty sound for me and the feats he did manage were impressive enough.

I'd be interested to hear more The only evidence I know of is if I recall is an early document referencing both Arthur and Mordred, but not saying if they were fighting one another or fighting together. Which events do you believe happened?

As far as the Great Flood.

It's definitely possible it was a localized event since there is plenty of evidence of something like that may have happened. I mean it will happen when you live near a major water source. All ancient civilizations built their towns or cities near one. Afterall, you need water.

Was there a man who realized something was wrong when there was alot of raining and the local natural dam to a major water source was leaking? Then he built a boat or had one on hand to save his family? Probably. Never will know.

My point, is that the Great Flood is the sort of thing no one should take literal and take mental gymnastics in figuring it out. There is alot of things wrong with it. And alot of things wrong with the 'evidence' for those who do try to prove it.

Dissecting what is and what is not history would take too long.

Those are good points though I disagree with your assessment. Still, you are very fixated on the Flood. How much of what the Bible recounts would you need to be convinced of in order to believe - if, for example, Jesus's life as described in the Gospels was Rashomon style accurate, including dying and resurrecting and ascending to Heaven, would that be enough? How many data points do you need?

It's one example. It's one example of people who take the Bible as literal have to contend with to figure out how it would work.

Did you know there are three seperate versions of Jesus's resurrection?

For me to believe in what the Bible says is true is for God to say it is. In person.

There are parts that are literal - such as describing someone's life - and are either completely true or are true based on the writers understanding, and there are the figurative, and the text usually makes clear which is which. Looking at one part that might be one or the other isn't enough to dismiss the rest.

Could you elaborate on those three examples, and how they differ - please cite the quotes also to show the differences. There are superficial differences (i.e. there is agreement Jesus was offered a drink on a sponge, and someone closer would see He didn't drink, while someone further away would think that He did; someone further away or only listening at the beginning would hear both men crucified next to Jesus would hear them both mock Him, but someone listening from a closer distance or later would hear more details of the one who defended Jesus against the others mockery.) Do you mean those differences?

That seems an extreme position - do you apply it to other claims?

What? nobody contests that was a real person.

Well for one the name Jesus would never have existed.

But that there was an angry Jew at that time fed up with how their elite was treating the general Jew population? Sure there was. There was alot of them in fact. That there was a Jew teaching something different then from the mainstream Jewish teachings? Sure. Probably happening.

It's not like this happened out of nowhere.

Out of curiosity why do you believe the angry part, but not the message part?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Let's say at the very least I believe in an Arthur-like figure. Most of my convictions come from an audio-lecture series which I am struggling to relocate.