Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Not so KasZ, what you are stating is that there are many who accept the theory that he exists but theory isn't necessarily fact |
Just like evolution?
Find me a credible expert who disbeleives in the evolution of man.
Then i'll believe there is a credible expert who disbelieves in the existence of jesus.
The problem is your definition of a "certantity" is untenable.
There is no reasonable reason to believe jesus did not exist.
I mean, i may as well claim there is no proof anyone exists.
|
Evolution is different, you can see the evidence in the fossil record, the genetics, and even some species and how they adapt
You have not shown me any bones, any records, or even first hand accounts of christ, nothing that supports his existence outside of second hand writings
|
Oh? You have first hand bones of humans evolving from apes? I thought it was called "The missing link" for a reason.
|
You also have genetic evidence of our relationship to apes, in addition you can see other species, like finches and insects adapting to environmental changes
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.
No more unrealistic than a guy who is in his 90's writing the Gospel, and i'm not saying that it necessarily turned into a game of telephone, but oral tradiction is not one that can be easily checked to confirm whether it is accurate or not, and it is susceptible to change from speaker to speaker, much moreso than written documents, so arguing that they never breathed a word or that it somehow didnt get altered over that time is arguing without evidece, you don't know what change were and were not made.
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 Aside from the stuff that made it into the Bible, there are various apocrypha and Roman historical references.
And none of it is first hand, I have read this thread and you haven't given any evidence, all you've given is second hand writings, whcih anyone can do, I could do a second hand writing, are you going to say my creation is fact, without hard evidence to support my writing?
Why didn't they put it into the book earlier, again you're arguing without evidence on this point, why would they wait until he was near death and likely unable to remember as well?
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.
I seriously doubt its anywhere near 99%, and most of those who do think he was real would probably admit that they aren't 100% certain, which is what I have been arguing, you've been arguing 100% certainty without evidence.
I'm not saying the alternate theory is any more likely, you asked for an alternate I gave one to you, I neither care which is right, both may be totally wrong, my point is merely accuracy in that the hisotricity of christ is uncertain
|
