@MOM --
Care to share these verifications with us, because I've looked extensively and not found a single one.
Well, except for the Garden of Eden, and the flood, and the Kingdom of David, and the lives of the prophets, and Herod's slaughter, and the resurrection of Jesus. You know, except for those theologically vital stories. Those have remained unverified since they cropped up.
Oh yes, because everything on the internet is so reliable. I already know that you don't know how to fact check or verify sources, so what makes you think that your internet sources are valid sources? You've already displayed a truly breathtaking ignorance of human nature and history(claiming that forty years is too quick of a legend to form, please), given such displays of ignorance, why should we trust your sources?
As to your link. The article you cite has no reputable sources. Nothing peer reviewed and virtually everything privately published. That is not a valid source. Oh, and the "takes less faith" bit was precious in a naive and childlike way. It was cute but definitely not true. Believing in something with no evidence, and you have no evidence, always takes the same kind of faith. In fact, since you're so up on faith and often very down on science, perhaps you should just stick to faith. You're much better at that than you are at science.
1. No, they don't.
2. Even if they did this would not establish your religion's claims of the divinity of Christ.
3. Josephus is demonstrably not a contemporaneous source, and he's the "earliest extrabiblical" mention of Jesus.
Three major faults, and you're not going to address any of them, you're merely going to dismiss them without giving any justification.
@arauca --
How many times do we have to go over this? Arguing that popular testimony is evidence is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum and an argument from verbosity. Two logical fallacies in one sentence, good job.
Care to share these verifications with us, because I've looked extensively and not found a single one.
Well, except for the Garden of Eden, and the flood, and the Kingdom of David, and the lives of the prophets, and Herod's slaughter, and the resurrection of Jesus. You know, except for those theologically vital stories. Those have remained unverified since they cropped up.
Oh yes, because everything on the internet is so reliable. I already know that you don't know how to fact check or verify sources, so what makes you think that your internet sources are valid sources? You've already displayed a truly breathtaking ignorance of human nature and history(claiming that forty years is too quick of a legend to form, please), given such displays of ignorance, why should we trust your sources?
As to your link. The article you cite has no reputable sources. Nothing peer reviewed and virtually everything privately published. That is not a valid source. Oh, and the "takes less faith" bit was precious in a naive and childlike way. It was cute but definitely not true. Believing in something with no evidence, and you have no evidence, always takes the same kind of faith. In fact, since you're so up on faith and often very down on science, perhaps you should just stick to faith. You're much better at that than you are at science.
1. No, they don't.
2. Even if they did this would not establish your religion's claims of the divinity of Christ.
3. Josephus is demonstrably not a contemporaneous source, and he's the "earliest extrabiblical" mention of Jesus.
Three major faults, and you're not going to address any of them, you're merely going to dismiss them without giving any justification.
@arauca --
How many times do we have to go over this? Arguing that popular testimony is evidence is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum and an argument from verbosity. Two logical fallacies in one sentence, good job.
