(December 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Jenny A Wrote: So far the goal post isn't moving. If you want to prove a man existed, especially about whom nothing is told that isn't bound up in the supernatural, you need much better evidence than second hand reports
The story of the Gospels were told by eyewitnesses, how whether those eyewitnesses were the actual authors (which I believe at least one was), or the authors were friends of the eyewitnesses, either way, an eyewitness had its hand in it.
(December 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Jenny A Wrote: written decades later
The central belief in Christianity was already viral well before it was written about. It doesn't matter how much you cling on to the whole "written decades later" factor, I will continue to point out to you that it doesn't matter how long it took for the story to go on paper, as long as the belief was already spread.
(December 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Jenny A Wrote: , especially if those reports are not told in the style of history and do not reveal any awareness of the comparative value of sources.
Again, as I pointed out to you...a point that you conveniently ignored..I mean, it would have been nice for you to have at least address the point that I made....the fact that you continue to say that the reports are not in "the style of history...which is nonsense considering the fact that we have Matt 2:1 stating shit like "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the TIME OF King Herod".....do you see that? "During the time".
Time = history.
Luke 2:1 "In those days...."
In those days = periods of time...which = history.
So your objections are completely false, and conveniently ignoring that fact won't change it.
(December 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Your arguments that the Gospels were somehow well researched, resulting from eyewitness accounts, or a sudden urge 30 years later on the part of eyewitness to write it all down, are absurd. They remain absurd. Far fetched perhapsing, won't get you anywhere.
The Resurrection account was already spread before anything was written down, Jenny.
(December 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I repeat:
The fact that you or anyone else can come up with reasons why we don't have evidence, does not create evidence. To prove something you need real evidence, not just an explanation for why you don't have it.
If your critique is the fact that nothing was written down about an event, and the explanation to why it wasn't written down was because people COULDN'T WRITE...I would think that is a good reason why it wasn't written down.
(December 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Jenny A Wrote: What does that have to do with how fast Christianity spread? You claimed it spread rapidly, I present evidence that we don't know that it did. You respond, well Jerusalem was still Jewish. WTF?
WTF? Your quote was "Had there been that many converts in Jerusalem, it would have been the first Christian city, since there probably were no more than twenty thousand inhabitants at this time"
And I said JERUSALEM WAS STILL PREDOMINATELY A JEWISH POPULATION.
And you are right, we are talking about how fast Christianity spread...and as I said previously, a point that you still didn't address yet: Paul was writing to the Church in Corinth around 20 years after the cross...and Corinth is almost 2,000 miles from Jerusalem by road, where the belief originated. That is the equivalent to traveling from Phoenix, AZ to Detroit, MI...long before cars and airplanes...and long before the internet, television, and social media to spread the word.
So it traveled fast, far, and wide.
http://www.distance-cities.com/search?fr...%2C+Israel
