anethema

No, I just saw that the arguments were taking on an interdemoninational slant vis a vis prot vs RCC vs Jew etc. It was just alittle unsettling. Not that I have any dog in that kind of fight.

Toto

There is only one poster here who takes that "slant."

Since we try to embrace free speech, we put up with a lot that would be deleted on a more scholarly or well moderated board.

spin

It's not quite clear what the purpose of your thread is to me. I don't know what you mean when you ask "is [denominalationism] rational?" Is the question "Can anyone talk rationally and "know" anything?" a general philosophical question or is it somehow specific to your thoughts about being agnostic on the question [which I presume is about the existence of Jesus]?

If your questioning centers on the existence of Jesus, the greatest problem in the issue is to be able to separate beliefs from logical analysis. Ehrman for example hasn't shown that he can make such a separation and it appears his insistence on the existence of Jesus doesn't actually have any facts behind it, hence it's a belief. But then to me Doherty's position seems to be a belief as well. Agnosticism is not a problem. It's wiser to not decide, giving you more opportunity to do so in the future. Those who have already decided quite often have difficulty changing their minds later.

There's a lot of jockeying and confusion in the discussions. Usually those who know less are more strident. There are lots of fixed positions from which there is not a crowbar large enough to move them or to pry out sufficient understanding of why they are so fixed. There are those who snipe at everything from behind the barracades of obscure views, that are never aired, so never can be analyzed.

Talking rationally in this forum is always possible with those whose views are transparent and based on clearly stated grounds. You mightn't agree, but there can be reasonable discussion. Knowing things is a bit harder, though I'm sure there's little conflict over the existence of Julius Caesar or Herod or Cyrus. The best thing to know here is that you don't have to decide, despite what people tell you.

aa5874

It is the evidence that decides what we "know". Faith is the complete opposite. People believe things about the Jesus BEFORE they have any evidence.

Please, get familiar with the evidence first and then you will know whether or not it can be argued that Jesus was human.

anethema

Yes you've captured my predicament. There are very heated discussions involving the Amarnan period in AEgyptian history but the biases are usually quite transparent. The argument of evidence is pretty straightforward , if not obtuse. I just worry from an historical perspective I and others will never be able to make any type of informed decision, due to what I see as almost "Borgian implant" type presuppositions we all bring to the argument. It is still fascinating, and exhilerating that some people in this world will still attempt logical-rational argument.