x
You repeatedly claim evidence, which is my qualm, then claim to faith as evidence
I insist on helping so we can get over this little hiccough.
Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Reason is not a factor
As you say "not definite proof" of Jesus, i.e. no evidence.
But feel free to say you have faith, you believe, it the simplest explanation, whatever.
Also
Acrimonious : angry and bitter.
I have several times presented the evidence, sections of scripture that point to a knowledge of some religious figure named Jesus and the basics of the story, e.g., crucified, supposedly resurrected, already being widespread before the scriptures were written. The scriptures in question show Paul adding grandiose supernatural aspects onto the story in a way intended to smooth out the rough spots. (The messiah got killed??? Huh?)
I also referred to sections of scripture (in Mark) that show the existence of early traditions about Jesus dating to well before those scriptures were written. These traditions portray an environment that was long gone when Mark wrote. The duplication of certain passages in somewhat different forms suggests that they are old enough to have evolved independently. This also argues against Mark having invented them.
While we are at it, a new thought. Mark’s problematic and anti-climactic ending – empty tomb but no Jesus in sight – sounds like it could explain the origin of the resurrection idea. Matthew’s subsequent uber-dramatic efforts to counter the stolen body stories show, by his own admission, that these stories were making the rounds. So where did those stories start?
I continue to stand by my opinion that a real historic Jesus, but a non-magical one, is the simplest explanation of the evidence.
“Reason is not a factor.” Duh. Evidence by itself is mute. Reason must be applied to make anything of it. The concept of the working hypothesis is inherent in all the sciences, including history. The simplest explanation for a variety of facts is sought and the working hypothesis developed in that way is then discussed with others, who offer specific criticisms to support the idea or not. This guides further research. This is how knowledge is reached. Your insistence that no one is allowed to even offer a working hypothesis unless accompanied by absolute incontrovertible evidence not requiring any reasoning is at variance to the way that knowledge
You continue to claim that my proposal is faith based, which is obviously nonsensical. You want to say that I have ‘faith’ in Jesus in some religious sense. I have said that Paul invented and added on key features of Christianity that were not there to begin with. I have said that Mark did not have first-hand knowledge but inherited stories and invented a few of his own for discernible purposes. In addition, his ‘resurrection’ non-story suggests grave robbery, tales of which Matthew had to loudly counteract. Sounds like an early tradition and possibly the origin of the resurrection story Paul turns into an elaborate theology. Where is this faith you speak of?
As I said elsewhere, what is the reason for your refusal to deal with my proposal itself but instead to turn the discussion aside into the alleged impossibility of ever knowing anything and the definitions of words? Why such avoidance of the issue? Could it be that you might be afraid of the possibility that a real historical Jesus might have actually existed, even if non-magical? Nah, it couldn’t be that. Could it? My rejection of Christianity was based on research and the application of reason, rather than being emotion-based as is often the case. How about you?