aa5874

If you use the Bible for facts then Jesus walked on the sea of Galilee, transfigured, was resurrected and commissioned his disciples AFTER he was dead.

The Bible is a strong element for Mythology.

outhouse

I find it contradictory you post his review, for your own personal reasons, and then disagree with it.

Toto

:facepalm:

It is a review with a lot of substance that advances the discussion. Those are my "personal" reasons.

Diogenes the Cynic

Toto routinely adds a lot of links and sources just to add to and update discussions and give a broader spectrum of views. It doesn't necessarily mean she's personally endorsing everything she links.

MrMacSon

It is Not a fact - there are no sources from the time: no verifying contemporary primary sources.

The alleged crucifixion of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth is simply part of a narrative that is part of a theological story - what theology is fact??!

To claim it is 'a fact' is mendacious.

outhouse

I don't have a problem with that as much as I do the constant labeling of most all credible scholars in that same category of apologetic thinking because she disagrees with the majority.

outhouse

Will you attack wikis credibility because it claims the Baptism and crucifixion as fact?


And if it is so wrong, one should easily be able to change this, if the information supplied is in such blatant error.

MrMacSon

I have been an editor on wikipedia, but not in the areas of of religion, theology, or early christian history. I have seen these areas increasing edited to take out what you call fringe-positions: positions & references challenging the accepted dogma.

Even editing supposedly non-controversial areas creates frustrating argument.

I bet there are dozens of Christian apologists editing wikipedia to favour an apologist position.

One example is/was Stalin's religion leaning - all references to it have been edited out of wikipedia, including testimony by his own daughter (who lived in the USA for the last 50 yrs: she died in Nov 2011) and biographers that he remained religious all his life. I have the older wiki entries on a hard drive somewhere. There is now dogmatic references to him being an atheist which there never were 2-3 yrs ago.

Toto

I do not do this. Please provide your examples of labeling scholars as apologetic, or withdraw that charge.

outhouse

Here in this thread, in regard to Anthony.

Unless you can find bias in his work. your remark is unsubstantiated.