Having lost the argument you lose the plot completely and move to excremental and the absurd. I'm not telling you anything except the truth. The NT is a political and religious and historical document. It is a primary source for the historicity of Jesus irrespective of your prejudices.We accept some secondary historical documents as there is nothing more concrete to contradict them George. When there is something far more concrete that suggests they're a load of shite, we dismiss them as unreliable. If the bible is the primary source for Jesus' life, then it's a pretty poor one. The bible, New or Old Testament, is a political and religious document, not a historical one. You'll be telling us Moses could control water with his mind next and there's historical evidence for it (despite there being no evidence of (i) Moses ever existing (ii) the Jews being put into slavery in Egypt (iii) the Jews ever being in Egypt.)
Having lost the argument you lose the plot completely and move to excremental and the absurd. I'm not telling you anything except the truth. The NT is a political and religious and historical document. It is a primary source for the historicity of Jesus irrespective of your prejudices.
This is getting embarrassing. Of course there is controversy, that's the nature of academic debate and there are plenty of bits that don't fit the chronology etc. You can dredge up inconsistencies and contradictions in any historical investigation and of course the traditions are preserved for a particular purpose. Are you after a first century Newsnight Special or Chilcott Enquiry to provide a reliable source?
I repeat myself simply because you are making the same erroneous claim and you've just done it again. The NT is obviously an historical document and contains primary sources for the life of Jesus. You are simply wrong to assert it isn't and wholly incorrect in saying it has virtually no corresponding or correlating documents to back it up. It has many and if it didn't have any that would not invalidate it as a primary source. Your understanding of what constitutes primary and secondary historical sources is just ignorant or deliberately perverse. What are these coherent points you have made which I have omitted to address? You want me to prove Moses existed, account for his parting the sea, certify where the Jews were at various ancient times, show if the various NT miracle stories actually happened and if they did explain them in terms of in natural processes as currently understood?It's not a historical document. It has virtually no corresponding or correlating documents to back it up. It's primarily a political document and secondly a religious one. I don't know why you're accusing me of losing the plot when all you've done in your last few posts is repeat yourself and not answer a single point I've made.
I repeat myself simply because you are making the same erroneous claim and you've just done it again. The NT is obviously an historical document and contains primary sources for the life of Jesus. You are simply wrong to assert it isn't and wholly incorrect in saying it has virtually no corresponding or correlating documents to back it up. It has many and if it didn't have any that would not invalidate it as a primary source. Your understanding of what constitutes primary and secondary historical sources is just ignorant or deliberately perverse. What are these coherent points have you made which I have omitted to address? You want me to prove Moses existed, account for his parting the sea, certify where the Jews were at various ancient times, show if the various NT miracle stories actually happened and if they did explain them in terms of in natural processes as currently understood?
I'm off to the game now so you'll maybe have to wait a while for me to come up with the goods.
The ones who witnessed the events were illiterate, impossible for them to provide a written account.A primary source is one written by someone who witnessed the events bud, most of the gospels were written by people born after the death of Jesus. It's not a primary source.
The ones who witnessed the events were illiterate, impossible for them to provide a written account.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
I mean even Brian Clough could do that so its nothing to brag about !!!what is embarrassing is immaculate conception, feeding of the 5000, lazarus,water into wine,walking on water