(November 22, 2014 at 11:46 am)Simon Moon Wrote: Reports from non-eyewitnesses decades or more after the person is said to exist is the weakest kind of evidence.
We do have eye witness accounts...and the belief in the Resurrection was not a belief that was held decades after the event. You are talking about when the biographies were written...but the general BELIEF in the Resurrection was something that was held shortly after the cross.
(November 22, 2014 at 11:46 am)Simon Moon Wrote: 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.
None of that stuff means anything...because I can easily find a way to explain away everything. How do you know the existence of Alexander the Great wasn't one big giant hoax and he never existed?? Maybe the people of Macedon were proud people who wanted their legacy to live forever so they created a man named Alexander the Great and spread heroic stories about his alleged conquests and great feats?
How do you know that everything you were told isn't a big lie? That is the same crap you are pulling on Christianity.
(November 22, 2014 at 11:46 am)Simon Moon Wrote: What a shock, you know almost as little about the Historical Method as you do about science.
What a shock, virtually all historians agree that Jesus Christ existed in human history. So apparently, the "Historical Method" that you refer to is enough to convince the majority of all historians.
As far as science is concerning...you already been spanked in that regard...when those wounds heal, then holla at me.
(November 22, 2014 at 11:46 am)Simon Moon Wrote: Are you proud of your willing ignorance?
No, but I am proud of the willful spankings that you will continue to receive as long as being whooped doesn't bother you.
