Surely no one is suggesting a reputable source does not depend on information, except those in denial along with Jem of course. Why would you suggest otherwise?Quote from traderwann:
Whether a source is reputable depends on the information, not the other way around. So you can't say "there are no REPUTABLE sources" because that implies that any one source is beyond question, that this one source can be depended on instead of depending on the CONTENT.
There is no reputable source and there are no reputable sources, means - there is NOTHING, no source, no content, no information, NOTHING stands up that can be validated, can be confirmed, as reliable - as historical evidence.
So then the content and information in and of any source is not reaching the ordinary criterion required for establishing existence historically.
That is the case with Jesus and many other biblical characters.
You appear to be confused. The point being made was not about the bible as source for making Jesus non-fictional. The point was about ancient text supposed to be valid as historical evidence because it was falsely claimed to be from a reliable source.Quote from traderwann:
The content makes the source reputable. Moreover, the subject matter of the bible is not solely to make Jesus into a non-fictional character. So your point is mute. If that was the PRIMARY puprose of scripture, you would be correct. Since it is not, you are incorrect and are "babbling" just like you falsely accuse me of. Instread, I have accused you and proven it. Please respond in kind and with equal honesty.
I have not accused you of "babbling". You are confusing me with someone else. Please try to follow properly who is saying what here.
Don't you want your comments to be factually sourced, based on valid and reliable information!?
When the claim is made that Jesus is non-fictional because of a supposed reliable source of information - which so happened not to be a bible source (apparently something you missed), and not reliable, too obscure and miniscule in comparison to what it should be, and most likely forged anyway as other such references have been proved to be - the point is EXACTLY whether the claim being made comes from a reliable valid source.Quote from traderwann:
Moving on, the point isn't whether the sources "turn" him ficional or non-fictional, the point is that WHAT IS SAID does not depend on WHO said it. It does not depend on whether the person is fictional or real. If there is a story, and if there is a moral/point to the story, that moral/point remains regardless if it is a myth or if it is real.
Moral stories are a completely separate point.
How you get a moral point across , whether through myth, story telling, or by humanitarian values alone - is an entirely different topic.Quote from traderwann:
What I am saying is: focus on what is said, not who said it and if they were real or imagined, the moral/point being made can be equally true if the story is made up or real, it's the lesson learned that counts, not the spoken words
What I mean is, even if I speak complete gibberish and yet someone still learns the lesson, the job is complete. So if I speak of a fictional character and the lesson is learned, the job is complete. If I speak of a real character and the lesson is learned, the job is complete.
But I will just say if the Bible is a good source for representing moral value, then so is Mein Kampf.