(July 8, 2015 at 5:34 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:(July 7, 2015 at 8:23 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Then you need to read it again. It does not make nearly the case you claim it does. It merely makes the case that most scholars (most of whom are theologians) believe early Christians thought they'd seen Jesus.
That would be the claim yes. But it's not proof of anything. It's an account written 70 years later by who knows who.
We have no evidence that they were except for a book written 70 years after the events by who knows who.
Sufficient means sufficient to make the claim more probable than not.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordina...y_evidence
Take the time time to read the hidden material. Sufficient evidence is far, far more than what you are offering here. Sufficient evidence is the evidence necessary to make the claim more probable than not. So far you are still light years from there.
Jenny-
Mark was not written 70 years later. If that were the case, it would have been after the turn of the century.
No one accepts that date. You shouldn't either. Mark was written very early as I have shown in another thread.
Maybe one reason why you are having a hard time finally coming to a faith position is that you are working with bad data.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Assuming we've given you good data, what is stopping you from abandoning your 'faith' and taking a logical view?
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
