(July 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm)SteveII Wrote:(July 6, 2016 at 12:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You have a bunch of circumstantial evidence. So do they. Both cases are weak. I've yet to see a difference.
You are comparing apples and oranges.I don't think it is reasonable to think the NT authors were simply mistaken (as there is ample reasons to think UFO people are)--especially with the additional evidence of the existing churches. The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception. That would have been quite an undertaken and I think we would need to answer the question why?
How is a of third person hearsay (the new testament) better evidence than first person belief (ufo "abductees")? At least the ufo people can talk about what they think happen to them, the best you can say for a few books of the new testament is that they are based off letters wriiten by a man who never met his religious leader, thirty years after that leader's death, while at doctrinal odds (in his own words) with those who knew this leader. And then you've got the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy.
Ufology has more going for it in evidential terms than christianity.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home