"Christianity is 100% true"

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Nonsense. The artificial categorization of the ancient writings in the Bible and Apochrypha, etc. as somehow separate from any of the other contemporaneous writings is completely bogus. The fact that they are USED to promote religions does not in any way alter their provenance as ancient contemporaneous writings. The claims made in them can be questioned and subject to debate . . . but to reject them outright as contemporaneous sources about the people and events of that era is bogus.

You mentioned the Apocrypha. So what about the Apocrypha? Are they not therefore a contemporaneous source of ancient writings which should not be categorized separately from the works which are included in the Bible? Because even most passionately devout Christian scholars consider the Apocrypha to be little more than bogus flights of fancy and make believe. Which tells us very clearly that ancient writers were perfectly capable of manufacturing pure nonsense. But we knew that already, since ancient mythology is filled with tales of amazing events and various monstrous one eyed giants and the like. Ancient people were every bit as imaginative as we are today. And perfectly capable of inventing lies, making up stories, and spreading false rumors. So how do we today separate out the fact from the fiction to reach a consensus of actual probable historical fact? One way is to cross reference details of ancient events from as many ancient sources as possible, whenever possible, to reach a consensus view. Another is to simply exclude claims which conflict with what we know today to be impossible, or which defy all plausibility. Which is why modern historical opinion is devoid of ANY events or claims which are based on the claim of a supernatural occurrence.

Another problem to be pondered is the question of just what is to be considered contemporary? Do you consider yourself to be a contemporary of Warren G. Harding, simply because you happen to live during the same century? Those who were literally contemporaries of Jesus, those who actually lived and worked around him, wrote nothing about him at all when he was yet alive. And Jesus wrote nothing himself. Jesus made NO history while he was living. The very earliest historical record of Jesus ever does not occur until the letters of Paul, beginning about a quarter of a century or so after Jesus was supposed to have been executed. And by Paul's own accounting, Paul never knew Jesus, nor was he present for any of the events detailed in the Gospels. And the Gospels themselves would not be written for decades yet when Paul was writing his letters. So what do you consider to be contemporary? If you were to write a biography of Warren G. Harding today, would you consider that to be a contemporary account?