I'm less concerned with that, or about any of the personal flaws of the messengers, than the truth of what was said as regards those teaching i hold in high regard.
I guess what I mean is that something like the Golden Rule or love thy neighbor doesn't require the backing of a perfect or supernatural moral authority for me to recognize it as a good thing. I'm already sold on that. My own reason and judgement tells me that, just as it rejects certain elements of that same Sermon on the Mount as incompatible with my concept of morality.
I can't accept the miraculous claims because I see no convincing evidence to suspend my acceptance of natural, objective reality. But whether the claims of miracles were invented or added here or there, or for what reason, or by whom, is less important to me than the good of the message.
After all, I don't (and neither do you) believe for one minute the idea that Buddha ascended into a higher plane because of his Enlightenment, but there are many things in Buddhist teachings we both regard as true and good. I don't believe for a minute (nor do you) that Mohammed was the spokesman for any god, but here and there in the Qu'ran are self-evident and good truths.
That's where I'm coming from on this. Hope that wasn't too wordy. Just trying to be clear.
I wholeheartedly agree. There are many self-evident truths recognized by people from all epochs and backgrounds.
I guess I'm just approaching this from the perspective that historical events are also truths. Christianity is not just a set of right principles. The disciples were making a truth claim that a man who was executed came out of his grave alive. That truth claim is either true or false. What happened to the body? The answer to that question concerns a phenomenon of space/time history that must be taken into account if one wants to apprehend truth more fully. Gotama Buddha lies still moldering in his grave.