(November 22, 2014 at 11:11 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Dude, what the hell are you talking about? All knowledge we have on historical figures are based on individuals that are "referred to".You sound like a damn fool.
Complete rubbish.
Historians use a lot of different evidence for the existence of historical figures.
They proportion their belief in the existence of a historical figure based on the types of evidence for them.
Reports from non-eyewitnesses decades or more after the person is said to exist is the weakest kind of evidence.
Take Alexander the Great. We have writings from his enemies, coinage from the exact time he was said to exist with his portrait found in some of the cities he was said to have conquered, a city named after him at the exact time he was said to exist, and more.
Nothing even close to this kind of evidence exists for Jesus.
What a shock, you know almost as little about the Historical Method as you do about science.
Are you proud of your willing ignorance?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
