MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Jenny A]

"Because perhaps" . . is that really the best you can do?

. . .


But I think we do have evidence. All you want to do is move the goal post. The goal post is at 30 yards, and I kick the football through the goalposts...then you move the goal post back 45 yards, I kick the football through the goal post, then you move to the 50 yard line, and I kick the football through the goal post...but that time, it was more difficult because it is further...the further you move it back, the more difficult time I will have to kick it through.

So far the goal post isn't moving. If you want to prove a man existed, especially about whom nothing is told that isn't bound up in the supernatural, you need much better evidence than second hand reports written decades later, especially if those reports are not told in the style of history and do not reveal any awareness of the comparative value of sources.

Your arguments that the Gospels were somehow well researched, resulting from eyewitness accounts, or a sudden urge 30 years later on the part of eyewitness to write it all down, are absurd. They remain absurd. Far fetched perhapsing, won't get you anywhere.

I repeat:

The fact that you or anyone else can come up with reasons why we don't have evidence, does not create evidence. To prove something you need real evidence, not just an explanation for why you don't have it.

Well first of all, you would expect Christianity to spread rapidly immediately, if that were the case. But there's no real evidence it did.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=95

Jerusalem was still predominately a Jewish city, Jenny.

What does that have to do with how fast Christianity spread? You claimed it spread rapidly, I present evidence that we don't know that it did. You respond, well Jerusalem was still Jewish. WTF?