Thanks vorlon13 on info about falsifying evidence for Mormons, but that doesn't help perfectly here.
Thanks ronedee on the fact of likely factual information being lost/removed is reasonable.
Thanks Minimalist can you please paste or describe here how you feel the evidence this was added 400 years later is stronger than never heard of this event under Nero or it was in fact true or not.
So far, it is MORE reasonable that Christus existed, not because of ronedee's lack of evidence nor because of vorlon13's falsifying evidence nor because of Minimalist's supposive addition of fabricated evidence without substantial evidence!
The Christian's argument is as valid as an atheist's argument with the same (obviously opposite) evidence.
And therefore the Christian must win by default as he at least supplied evidence! Remembering of course I am atheist.
It is reasonable to state evidence is all we need, unless it is falsified, so far no. On the contrary it seems that according to ronedee the fact that this information came from the 4th century or only a few years after the crucifixion shows that it is strong evidence to out last the ages, especially with Romans against Christians scum
Can you help further on this? Otherwise I'm willing to state the Christian is correct (you understand the difficulty is such a concept, it may stop me speaking ever again!
)
Thanks ronedee on the fact of likely factual information being lost/removed is reasonable.
Thanks Minimalist can you please paste or describe here how you feel the evidence this was added 400 years later is stronger than never heard of this event under Nero or it was in fact true or not.
So far, it is MORE reasonable that Christus existed, not because of ronedee's lack of evidence nor because of vorlon13's falsifying evidence nor because of Minimalist's supposive addition of fabricated evidence without substantial evidence!
The Christian's argument is as valid as an atheist's argument with the same (obviously opposite) evidence.
And therefore the Christian must win by default as he at least supplied evidence! Remembering of course I am atheist.
It is reasonable to state evidence is all we need, unless it is falsified, so far no. On the contrary it seems that according to ronedee the fact that this information came from the 4th century or only a few years after the crucifixion shows that it is strong evidence to out last the ages, especially with Romans against Christians scum
Can you help further on this? Otherwise I'm willing to state the Christian is correct (you understand the difficulty is such a concept, it may stop me speaking ever again!
)
