(September 27, 2015 at 9:40 pm)Aractus Wrote:(September 27, 2015 at 12:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Yes I know, but she also mentioned that his existence was not universally accepted.Quote:Right so the case for Socrates is not universally accepted, but the case for Jesus is. What's your point?
That there is doubt.
(September 27, 2015 at 12:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: But you cant prove it, just make a case. this is the point.
Quote:I have said that many times. It has been established beyond the doubt of the vast majority of modern scholars.
And yet doubt remains. The evidence for jesus is weak, I may have mentioned this before.
(September 27, 2015 at 12:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I disagree. The evidence I have seen for Jesus seems to be weak. But then I must repeat my position that I think there probably was a historical jesus, but this is just my opinion and I could not support his existence to my satisfatction.
Quote:Well you are not a historian and cannot decide whether the case for his existence is strong or weak.
Well actually a lot of history is sepculation. Best guesses if you will. The case for a historical is made with weak evidence
Quote:Let's take James and his clear references to the sayings of Jesus - each taken individually it isn't a particularly strong or convincing reason to believe the sayings have pre-existed. But the fact he does it so many times makes the case extremely strong.
It is a case for the sayings being said that is all.
(September 27, 2015 at 12:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Someone else.
Who? And how is James referencing it before it was invented and written down 35 years later (according to your point of view)?
Could have made it up, could be something he heard down the pub there are a vast number of possibilities I'm sure you could think of a few dozen if you put your mind to it.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
