(July 9, 2015 at 11:43 am)pocaracas Wrote:(July 9, 2015 at 9:11 am)Easy Guns Wrote: The thing about the existence of a man named Jesus living and preaching in the Middle East 2000 years ago is, it's not outlandish to think it could possibly be true. The less extraordinary a claim is, the less extraordinary your evidence needs to be to convince people of its truth.
Was there a man named Jesus? Probably. Millions and millions of people have been named Jesus. There is plenty of evidence to support this.
Did a man named Jesus preach Christianity? Probably. Millions and millions of people have preached Christianity. There is plenty of evidence to support this.
Did a man named Jesus perform miracles? Probably not. There is no evidence to support these miracles ever occurred.
Was a man named Jesus born of a virgin mother? Probably not. There is no evidence to suggest conception can occur without insemination.
Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead? Probably not. There is no evidence to suggest that a man can be dead for 3 days and then rise to life again.
Religious scholars come from many nationalities and religious backgrounds. The only ones who don't agree with the above statements are the Christian scholars. I suppose that's just a coincidence? No, that's what we call good old fashioned BIAS.
If all you plan to do is pull facts out of your behind without any citation or evidence to support your claims, then don't bother. Come back when you have something of substance to add.
There's a report about a "teacher or righteousness", dated to before 50BC, which sort of describes such a person...
Addressed by Tim O'Neill in this forum in old threads.
Quote:Randy, is it not conceivable that such a leader of people could have existed and sparked the christian myth, which then evolved, passing several people, several retellings, until you get Paul?
No, poca. And the reason is really straightforward: we know how the oral tradition of the Early Church was handed down and enscripturated.
Quote:As for a brother called James, aren't all members of a sect "brothers" amongst themselves?
Possibly. But that does not mean that Jesus didn't have a real "kinsman" named James.
