4 ms·

What are your favourite examples of this?

rospaya 4y ago
In my case it was a discussion on this site about the existance of Jesus as a historical person. Historians are fairly certain about this but people have a hard time believing it, as if it would confirm the religious aspect of it all. In more than one situation I just got "well, the historians are wrong".
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  FYI, those """historians""" who are doing "biblical history" are often (but not always) theologians in their respective religions. The bible only has like 2 actual stories that can be dragged into reality, and the other sources of those stories don't mention "Jesus", they make a vague reference, often using a completely different name, and could very well be different people. We just don't have strong historical, non-biblical evidence of THE jesus described in the bible. We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative.
  - jimmygrapes 4y ago
    > We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative. We should also be honest that there are many people heavily invested in making sure biblical narratives are not viewed as history, and not always for the purpose of true historicity. You said yourself there are only "like 2" (I forgive and appreciate the vagueness) stories in the bible (not going into translations, revisions, etc.) that can be dragged into reality. I would need to know which ones you refer to in order to counterpoint, but I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit more than like 2 stories that can be corroborated by secular means. Though I guess we'd end up quibbling over what you meant by "stories" or something if we got that far. My point is that there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, strongly desire to stifle any consideration of "the bible" (and I lowercase that on purpose) as Truth. I'm alright with that, but I wanna chat about it, too. That said, anyone got a link to a good forum or some such where I can do such chatting?

In my case it was a discussion on this site about the existance of Jesus as a historical person. Historians are fairly certain about this but people have a hard time believing it, as if it would confirm the religious aspect of it all. In more than one situation I just got "well, the historians are wrong".

mrguyorama 4y ago
FYI, those """historians""" who are doing "biblical history" are often (but not always) theologians in their respective religions. The bible only has like 2 actual stories that can be dragged into reality, and the other sources of those stories don't mention "Jesus", they make a vague reference, often using a completely different name, and could very well be different people. We just don't have strong historical, non-biblical evidence of THE jesus described in the bible. We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative.
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  > We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative. We should also be honest that there are many people heavily invested in making sure biblical narratives are not viewed as history, and not always for the purpose of true historicity. You said yourself there are only "like 2" (I forgive and appreciate the vagueness) stories in the bible (not going into translations, revisions, etc.) that can be dragged into reality. I would need to know which ones you refer to in order to counterpoint, but I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit more than like 2 stories that can be corroborated by secular means. Though I guess we'd end up quibbling over what you meant by "stories" or something if we got that far. My point is that there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, strongly desire to stifle any consideration of "the bible" (and I lowercase that on purpose) as Truth. I'm alright with that, but I wanna chat about it, too. That said, anyone got a link to a good forum or some such where I can do such chatting?