RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 1:08 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Brucer Wrote:(December 21, 2014 at 12:16 pm)dyresand Wrote: No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias.
None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.
Source:: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ::
A long massive argument from silence is still not evidence. In fact, every last speculative/persuasive argument and argument from silence in here fails the test of reason, as not one of them is legitimate.
Have you overlooked the fact that it was written in red? Around here that is the color of Admin-hat-on speech. As such it could be considered authoritative. Just saying.