Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
Don't try to confuse people that I used Occam incorrectly - I used it well enough. If we know 99.9% of a story was made up, do we bother trying to resolve the last .1%? No, we don't. Yet other people are - in fact they have said in this very thread that we know most of the story is fake, but we believe some of it, so some is real. I deny that.
Jesus is claimed to have had super powers and healed many people, included a few instances of more than one person. Pretend we total this to 1,000 total miracles, not even including afterlife provided to millions. So 1 (jesus exists) divided by 1,000 (miracles) equals 1/1000. Was I close? Is that not a reasonable argument? is 99.9% of the story not made up like I suggest?
I don't know enough because I have ruled out 1,000 examples that we know are not true, and are part of the myth. I don't argue the myth, so why try to bring that back in? Why insult me? Do you feel it makes your argument stronger? Does skeptic arguments have to result in the insults?
I have no problem with people being religious, I do have a problem with religious people (or non religious) not questioning what has been given as truth. I also have a problem with people quick to insult those that disagree with them and quick to pretend not to see insults from those they agree with.
|
I'm not entirely sure that you know what you are arguing. It seems to go around in circles. I had a soft "drive by" because you seem to be seeking physical evidence of a historical Jesus. You're right there isn't any. But this isn't the 1980's. Record keeping, evidence preservation or anything of the sort was vastly different than it is today, perhaps non-existent. You know that.
You also seem unable to separate the discussion of the validity of a devine being and whether or not a guy named Jesus existed. They intertwine sure, but at the core of the discussions they are separate. This isn't a discussion about faith and Christianity, its a discussion about the histrocity of Jesus of Nazareth.
I don't pretend to have a fraction of a fraction of the understanding that Textcritic does of this stuff, but it seems that the basis of his argument is that it is much more likely that the rise of early Christianity originated with a physical Jesus of Nazareth than it is likely that it arose from a legend of a man that didn't exist. Miracles, legends, watercooler talk has nothing to do with the discussion, it is strictly about the probability of an actual man named Jesus.
Maybe you already know this. Maybe I just wasted my time typing out this nonsense. Then why not even entertain the possibility? Why is it so unlikely? Why is your line in the sand "Physical proof?"