Hamas legalizes Crucifixion

[Final-Fan]

Avinash_Tyagi said:
Actually your arguments support my point, if as you say the story was spread being spread orally and not written, not only does it hurt the ability to factcheck since its being spread orally, but it also supports my point that the story would shift and blend with other stories over time.

In addition if it was important as you argued earlier and about his saviour then why wouldn't he have put it to paper fast so as to prevent it being lost if he should be killed or die, the fact that he waited if it was shows that either it wasn't that important so he wouldn't remember it into his old age, or that most likely it wasn't him who wrote it but someone else, or that it was entirely made up.

What evidence? You've given nothing and you call it evidence, none of you have supported your arguments with a shread of evidence, all you've said is that these are what is written so he must exist because there are writings of it, but when I show you that none of the writings are first hand writing, in fact that they were written by people who never met him you dismiss it because it proves you wrong, and proves my point that there is no certainty of his existence. You call my argument fringe, but i've supported it, and shown that it is uncertain, you haven't shown anything that shows that it is certain.

Oral history is obviously more susceptible to creeping changes and influences; but on the other hand your attitude seems to be that it suddenly turns into the telephone game if it's not written down, which is not a very realistic proposition IMO. 

Maybe it wasn't his idea at all -- maybe it was only when his health started to deteriorate and his followers realized "oh shit this guy might die soon" that they decided to put it all down in a book. 

What evidence?  Read this thread.  Holy shit man, you can question the authenticity of the evidence, but don't pretend that it doesn't exist.  Aside from the stuff that made it into the Bible, there are various apocrypha and Roman historical references. 

When I say fringe, I mean among actual scholars of this region and period who know the material we're discussing better than both of us.  And 99% of them* are not on your side.  As for not having shown anything that proves it is certain, I haven't seen any alternative presented that is nearly as plausible.  You have presented one alternate theory but it is not compelling because the crystallization happened too soon after the supposed events.  Aside from the sheer unlikelihood, all of the new religion's enemies who were in that region would be popping out of the woodwork saying no one had ever seen this guy. 

*Made up statistic but believe me the reality is not much better.