You are always welcome to suggest another one. Please give me the details. I am very much willing to entertain your suggestions.
Well, remember that the issue here is the question of whether there’s some point at which we look at an intransigent person and say “stop being difficult; it’s obvious you’re just refusing to admit what’s clear to any reasonable person to see!” I don’t think “beyond any reasonable doubt” – as in the standard by which criminal trials operate – is that standard. And, of course, this isn’t intended to be the only standard by which we judge things, right? It’s just that, when many (most?) say that there’s something going on, is there a threshold beyond which we admit that
something’s happening. So… what would that standard be?
This does not apply here. The texts all have been edited, re-written, translated - several times. The “authors” were all unknown people, and textual analysis shows that every gospel was written by several authors. They are all hearsay testimonies - several times over.
I disagree. The texts have been translated, all right, but we don’t have evidence that they’ve been substantially “re-written”, as you suggest. Moreover, the authors
are known – contemporary writers, in the early days of the Church, identify them definitively. Moreover, if they were
truly anonymous, then why would all the copies identify the works by the same names for the same Gospels? (See Petri’s “The Case for Jesus” for more details of why the “anonymous Gospels” idea fails to hold up to scrutiny.)
I’d like to see the works that assert, as you claim, that “every Gospel was written by several authors.” Would you mind providing a citation… or three?
On the face of it, your claims that “they are all hearsay testimonies” doesn’t really hold up – unless you have anything to substantiate your claim.
History might be interesting, but cannot be accepted as a substitutes for first hand information.
So, when you’re dead and gone, and nothing but dust in a box, will we then be forced to suggest that you’re only “interesting”, but not real?
Suggest a different one. I understand it as being historically correct, properly describing the actual events.
In the context of Scriptural exegesis, the term “literal sense” means “the intent of the inspired author.” This
may – or
may not – be the intent to convey a historical narrative. Nevertheless, the intent is to convey the truth of the inspiration given by God.
The same as you would assert the biblical texts… divinely inspired - whatever that might mean. Historically correct, verbatim, precise. Pick your word.
If you want to suggest that the writings of other religious traditions are potentially “divinely inspired”, then you’d have to produce evidence for that claim. Christians point to Jesus’ predictions (which have come true) as well as His resurrection, as evidence of the truth of the proposition that He is divine.