Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

My only quibble is that there is evidence for dark matter. There is just no direct evidence.Dark energy though has at this time no evidence for its existence.https://www.sciencedaily.com/...ses/2015/02/150209113046.htm

I highly suggest the book Paranormality: Why We Believe the Impossible. It was published in the US with the subtitle Why We See What Isn't There. The author is Professor Richard Wiseman
Paranormal - Wikipedia(book)It is a very readable look at the science behind the idea of the paranormal. It is not hard science but discusses the science very well. More books that delve into how the brain creates its own reality are any by Oliver Sacks.
Oliver Sacks - WikipediaI think anyone actually reading these books with an open mind and actual appreciation of science, will actually rethink their belief in the supernatural or paranormal. Then again people that have such beliefs tend to have a need for those beliefs.

Lol. Whatever.

So all texts written as historical, whether religious or not, should be given equal weight?

History does not deal in truths, it deal in facts. What is a historical truth? So books that deal with and present historical facts that can be corroborated are not as important books that claim to present history, but can be shown to have no corroborating evidence?

The fact is there is no independent corroborating historical evidence of the existence of a Jesus Christ outside of the bible. All future mentions of this character are tied the gospels. Nowhere else in the historical record does this person exist. The character is as much a myth as Prester John and William Tell.
Even Paul does not seem to have known anything about a historical Jesus. Then again why would he know anything about the gospels as his writings(or maybe more accurately, the writings attributed to him) were written decades before the gospels.
If a document is to be accepted as legitimate historically, then the provenance of the document must be verified. Not only can the provenance of the gospels not be verified, there is no evidence of who even authored them. The conflicts and inconsistencies between them show that nothing in them can be relied on as being factual.

The first part of your response does not even address anything I said.
What are historical "truths"?Of course different sides will have different I interpretations, but these different versions will in fact corroborate the basic underlying facts. Nothing corroborates your bible. My response is a plain reading of what you stated. If you feel it is twisted maybe you should revisit what you wrote. Good and evil is a loaded phrase. Full of judgement. I agree a lot of people put more stock in religious texts. I disagree that that is a good thing also it does not make them more "true".

Not true and I think you know it is not true. You have been on this forum long enough to know that this has been argued ad nauseum. None of the people who wrote down the gospel stories or Paul(and those that pretended they were Paul) were eyewitnesses. That being said Ringo was not talking about that. He was talking about the dishonest and manipulative biblical "scholars". You do realize that the vast majority of biblical "scholars" do not have any higher level education outside of biblical studies. They are not trained as historians or linguists or textual analysts. All they are trained in is apologetics. All fields of scholarship and science are in a constant state of change and flux as new information emerges. Biblical "scholarship" remains rooted in the past with almost no change.Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling and punctuation

Replied to wrong postEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

I never did get an explanation about what a historical "truth" is. Any chance you could define it and give some examples? I would like to run this whole historical "truth" thing by some people I know that are professionals in the field. See their take, but I have to know what it means.

I just mean what I write. You should not read any more or any less into anything I write.Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling

Nothing you wrote debunks what I stated. Seemed more like just random statements than an argument.

Care to provide sources and actual data, rather than just assertion.
Prester John was a myth, doesn't matter where the idea came from he was a myth.
Paul was not an eyewitness to any Jesus character and never claimed to. He does not even treat the Jesus if his teachings as a historical character.

No and no. There is no evidence of this. Paul makes comments of brother of Jesus, but this probably meant like it does in some churches now. Where people are brother and sister in Christ. Also, just because people make a claim it does not make it true. There is no corroborating evidence of this meeting or that this James had a brother who was Jesus Christ. No they do not. How can someone be witness to something that happened before they were born? Even if it is original Josephus and not an interpolation, it is just Josephus relaying stories. Unlike the vast majority of Josephus the jesus parts have no corroboration. Josephus is not and cannot be used as evidence of the historicity of the jesus christ character.
There is no contemporary, first hand evidence for the existence of this character. Paul, in all personas, never talks about the actual life of the character or that there was a historical existence

Josephus had no first hand knowledge of Jesus or a brother James. There is no corroborating information for anything in the works of Josephus about Jesus or James.I am not confused, I just require standards to be followed for all historical claims.