ChadWooters Wrote:We should respect the idea that each person has to decide for themselves what degree of evidence is needed to move forward with whatever they use for their working hypothesis. I recall one post that said something like, "provide any evidence outside the NT that Jesus even existed." That's not even reasonable. It's like saying, "provide evidence outside the Platonic dialogs that Socrates existed." Just because I am willing to accept the Gospel accounts as acceptible evidence that a Jewish carpenter named Jesus once walked the earth does not make me any less rational than anyone else on this forum.I think that was my post, or it's something that I would say anyways. I'll clarify why I think it's reasonable to expect credible sources beyond the NT.
Jesus was portrayed as a miracle worker. He would heal people on the streets i.e. in public meaning that there were witnesses left and right of him. The people that he healed 'in private' he told afterwards to keep quiet about his identity. What are we told that the person would do after? Run out with joy spreading the news. There wasn't a shortage of people that knew Jesus.
What are we left with today as a consequence of his existence? The same amount of credible evidence as a philosopher's [imaginary] friend. Yes, it's debatable whether Socrates existed but how is it possible that Jesus gets about the same degree of evidence for his existence? People had no more to say about God incarnate than Socrates. Now what is the probability that Jesus was the Son of God but his impact missed all the historians of the time? Low I would think.. Which is why I would have expected religious and secular texts alike to mention him.
I think it's reasonable to expect more from the Son of God than a philosopher's friend. Maybe I'm commiting some sort of fallacy, I'm not sure to be honest.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
