RE: Historicity of Jesus
December 23, 2014 at 8:34 pm
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2014 at 8:36 pm by Simon Moon.)
I'm kind of a 'Jesus historicity' agnostic.
I tend to lean toward the Biblical character probably being a composite of several 1st century itinerant messianic Rabbis named Y'shua.
But then, I haven't read Richard Carrier's newest book, "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt", where he applies Bayes' Theorem to the subject. It might sway me.
But even if he did exist, that does not offer any evidence for any of the supernatural and god claims for him. Just like Mohamed's historical existence does not offer any evidence that he flew to heaven on a winged creature, or was dictated the Koran in a cave by and angel named Gabriel.
I tend to lean toward the Biblical character probably being a composite of several 1st century itinerant messianic Rabbis named Y'shua.
But then, I haven't read Richard Carrier's newest book, "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt", where he applies Bayes' Theorem to the subject. It might sway me.
But even if he did exist, that does not offer any evidence for any of the supernatural and god claims for him. Just like Mohamed's historical existence does not offer any evidence that he flew to heaven on a winged creature, or was dictated the Koran in a cave by and angel named Gabriel.
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.
