Sheshbazzar

Oh say, Thucydides, 'History of the Peloponnesian War'

It recounting past events (to the extent the writer was aware) in natural terms, and not being filled with, and assigned to any religious mumbo-jumbo 'prophetic' garbage.

ApostateAbe

That's a good choice. There are many ancient texts that, unfortunately, do contain plenty of religious mumbo-jumbo and prophetic garbage (almost all ancient texts, in fact), like Plutarch's biography of Alexander the Great. How would you treat that ancient text?

Sheshbazzar

Gingerly. Much of its content is uncorroborated, and its figures claims and speeches are idealized and quite contrived to fit and conform to Plutarch's philosophical agenda.
Dropping names with imaginatively invented personalities and dialog does not make for a trustworthy source of history.

aa5874

Again, Jesus of the NT was actually described as the Son of a Ghost. That is Mythology.

No-one here made up Matthew 1,18, Luke 1.26-35, Mark 6.48, Mark 9.2, John 1 and Galatians 1.1-12.

Jesus was actually described as the non-human product of a Ghost.

Why do you believe Jesus was a man???

Paul claimed his Jesus was NOT a man and was God's own Son.

Ignatius claimed his Jesus was God.

Justin claimed Jesus was born without sexual union.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

Tertullian claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

Origen claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

Who told you Jesus was human??

The NT is a compilation of 2nd century Myth Fables of the Son of a Ghost who was crucified and resurrected for the Sins of Mankind.

The Greeks and Romans would NOT have worshiped a dead Jew as a God when he was crucified by the very Romans.

A human Jesus does NOT make any sense in the Bible.

A human Jesus cannot resurrect.

The Pauline writings only make sense if they were composed very late.

Sheshbazzar

In a similar vein I would not be much inclined to depend upon 'biography's' or accounts of America's 'history' as composed by the likes of Norman Geisler, or Kenneth Copeland.

ApostateAbe

We are in agreement. Would you not approach the gospels in a similar vein?

Sheshbazzar

The question in the case of this individual would not, and does not apply.
From early childhood I trustingly approached and embraced the Gospels as being the inspired, accurate, and factual accounts of real events.
Any trace of skepticism regarding the Bible or the Gospel accounts simply did not exist for me.

In 1976 a co-worker, formerly a total stranger spoke to me a few words regarding the words of the Bible.
Things that I have had no choice but to believe heart and soul. And in the space of that single day my understanding, thoughts, and beliefs underwent a dramatic transformation. One that can never be undone.
Not even becoming an atheist can ever erase this knowledge or the conviction that it brings.

My views regarding the Bible, ALL human writings, and the role of Christianity are, and will remain incomprehensible to anyone who does not operate on that same bit of key information that was imparted to me on that day.
Don't bother asking, as this is neither the time nor place.

Yet if you would know, pray, ask and seek, and who knows but that ha Elohim will choose in what way to reveal the matter.

ששבצר העברי
Sheshbazzar The Hebrew

outhouse

which Elohim would be the choice of the day?


the multiple deities of judaism can be as tricky as jesus in relationship to historicity.

El or Yahweh, Baal or Asherah, choose your Elohim wisely

Sheshbazzar

Then pray to, and ask the blessing of whatever, or whomever you will. ....or don't.
Your choice, your words. Whatever yanks your crank. Choose wisely.

"As for me and my house...."

The battles fought, the books have long since been written, The Name named, and The Answer evident.

outhouse

Elohim was redacted to Yahwism, and to ditch the deity El worshipped by Israelites.




I was kind of curious if you followed El or Yahweh ? or the compilation?