I mentioned Napoleon, who is a much more recent historical figure, in passing. You took it and ran with it.Kenny wrote:Kenny wrote:Truth be told; I know very little about Alexander the Great. When Napoleon invaded Russia, the details of that war are consistent with what is believed in Russia even today; even with the many wars he had with Britain or other countries; as a matter of fact, the entire world agrees on the details of the wars Napoleon was involved in, as well as the signed documents that resulted from his accomplishments and failures.
The same can’t be said about Jesus; depending on who you ask you will get a totally different story of his death. Ask a Muslim, you get one thing; ask a Jew; another. Ask a Christian; you get something elseThere may be some historians who believe Jesus was a historical figure, but they don't agree he rose from the dead after 3 days. There isn't even an agreement with religious folk; only the Christians believe that claim. Ask a Muslim and they will tell you he never even died, that Allah took him directly to Heaven after the religious leaders of that time conspired against him to have him killedByblos wrote: Actually there's a remarkable concordance among historians on the the historicity of Jesus, and many are non-Christian (if theists at all).
Kenny wrote:How do I know those are his actual signatures? I have no actual proof, but I see no reason to assume they are frauds the countries of the entire world are in on.Byblos wrote: PS, how exactly do you know those documents bear Napoleon's actual signature?Byblos wrote: It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, maybe a simple myth perpetuated by the followers of Napoleon and believed by the entire world. You believe that's exactly what happened with Jesus (even though many historians actually disagree with you).
Most of the people who agree on Napoleon were not his followers. In 1812 Russia was invaded. the leader of the enemy forces was Napoleon. What happened during that war is a part of Russia and French history. the same for when he invaded Spain, Britain, and all the other countries he was involved in
The idea of a military leader doing what military leaders do does not take a leap of faith; the idea of a religious leader regularly committing actions outside the laws of nature does. As they say, astronomical claims requires an astronomical amount of evidence
Are you seriously trying to make that argument? Are you seriously trying to compare the historical accounts of Jesus with the historical accounts of Napoleon?Byblos wrote: Bottom line is you choose to believe one way or the other according to your whims, not according to what history shows or according to some rationally consistent method. It certainly is your prerogative to do so but you can't come here and peddle it as some sort of common sense approach.
Napoleon was a military leader who went to war with a lot of countries. He never did anything outside the laws of nature, all of his success and failures were documented during the event and have been in the archives of those particular countries from the time it happened to current day.
Jesus was a religious leader who taught, and was eventually killed. He never wrote anything down, he never instructed his followers to write anything down, then years after his death various people began to write what they could remember of him. Then many, many years later a group of religious leaders (Cannon) came together and voted on which of these ancient writings should be considered authentic and which ones should be dismissed in order to make the Bible.
Why on Earth would you expect a non-religious person to see these historical claims as equal?
Forget everything I said about Napoleon, replace it with any other supposedly contemporaneous historical figure like Alexander the Great or Julias Cesar, neither of whom wrote anything about themselves. There's just as much, if not more, historical accounts (both biblical - which at a minimum ought to be considered as historical accounts, and extra-biblical) for Jesus. You have no issue considering the accounts of those figures as historical while denying that for Jesus. That's the point I'm making.