H-m,
1) Contemporary evidence is much better than evidence 20 years later;
2) Contemporary evidence does not cease to be contemporary because it is self referring as in writing about oneself;
3) Evidence a person exists, as in for example Paul's letters cited as proof of Paul's existence, is not proof that what the person says is so.
Now, with regard to George Washington versus Jesus in terms of probability of existence: George Washington wrote things and numerous contemporaries refer to him. He is also signatory to many contemporary documents. Little of of what is said of him requires suspension of disbelief. Therefore George Washington existed.
Jesus is referred to at best 20 years after his purported death. The first accounts of him involve supernatural visitation (Paul). Mitigating this is the fact that many fewer people wrote in the first Century AD than did in the late 1700s. But this only mitigates with regard to whether lack of evidence proves non-existence. It does nothing to provide evidence for Jesus' existence.
Noting that there is a lack of evidence is not a demand on my part that people in the past provide evidence, just a note that the fact that most men in the past didn't write and weren't written about make impossible to prove the existence of individuals who didn't write and weren't written about.
Jesus is somewhere between the situation of Washington and those anonymous people of the first century AD. He did not write. He was not written about until twenty years (at best) after his purported life. He was not written about by anyone with first hand knowledge of his life. Therefore his existence is much less likely than George Washington's and anything we know about him much less certain.
Scream and post
all you like, but the fact remains that we have no contemporary evidence of Jesus.
1) Contemporary evidence is much better than evidence 20 years later;
2) Contemporary evidence does not cease to be contemporary because it is self referring as in writing about oneself;
3) Evidence a person exists, as in for example Paul's letters cited as proof of Paul's existence, is not proof that what the person says is so.
Now, with regard to George Washington versus Jesus in terms of probability of existence: George Washington wrote things and numerous contemporaries refer to him. He is also signatory to many contemporary documents. Little of of what is said of him requires suspension of disbelief. Therefore George Washington existed.
Jesus is referred to at best 20 years after his purported death. The first accounts of him involve supernatural visitation (Paul). Mitigating this is the fact that many fewer people wrote in the first Century AD than did in the late 1700s. But this only mitigates with regard to whether lack of evidence proves non-existence. It does nothing to provide evidence for Jesus' existence.
Noting that there is a lack of evidence is not a demand on my part that people in the past provide evidence, just a note that the fact that most men in the past didn't write and weren't written about make impossible to prove the existence of individuals who didn't write and weren't written about.
Jesus is somewhere between the situation of Washington and those anonymous people of the first century AD. He did not write. He was not written about until twenty years (at best) after his purported life. He was not written about by anyone with first hand knowledge of his life. Therefore his existence is much less likely than George Washington's and anything we know about him much less certain.
Scream and post
all you like, but the fact remains that we have no contemporary evidence of Jesus.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
