(March 10, 2014 at 10:15 pm)discipulus Wrote:(March 10, 2014 at 10:02 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: No, it's not more probable that Jesus rose from the dead, etc. If you apply Occam's Razor properly, you end up with a fairly mundane and uncontroversial conclusion: Paul and his cohorts were remarkably successful at proselytizing Gentiles -- hence the presence of Christians in Rome circa 64. A successful salesman -- big fucking deal. We're still no closer to having good reasons for believing any of the supernatural hokum in the Gospels or believing that Jesus was anything other than a person who had a following and met a very bad end.
Also, this isn't necessarily about whether Jesus's followers lied (though it can't be ruled out). Good god, man! As much as you like to hector everyone else about logic and philosophy, you really can't think of another (or several other) possibilities aside from a spin on Lewis's "Lord, lunatic, or liar" spiel? There were Christians in Rome about thirty years after the execution and therefore, according to the principle of parsimony (according to you anyway), Jesus rose from the dead? Sorry, it doesn't follow.
It will soon.
1,984-ish years and counting.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza