How strong is the evidence that Jesus existed?
20 Dec 2011, 2:05 am
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
And what are the answers?
The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.
Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.
These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.
Wrong. They knew very well what they were writing.
Now come up with a mythicist answer that collectively answers the above better than a historical Jesus.
20 Dec 2011, 2:07 am
Lecks wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
What it shows is that these men wrote years after the fact, when exact memory would have faded. Also, it's possible that the Gospels were written by students of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John who chose to credit their teachers, and thus the differences could be attributed to second hand information. There is no great key to disproving the Gospels in the very Gospels.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So then why would anything in the Gospels be attributed any historical value? (genuinely curious)
Have a go at the questions I asked and see which position makes more sense.
20 Dec 2011, 2:14 am
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
And what are the answers?
The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.
Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.
These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.
Wrong. They knew very well what they were writing.
Now come up with a mythicist answer that collectively answers the above better than a historical Jesus.
How do you know they knew what they were doing? Were you looking over their shoulder? You don't even know for sure they wrote it.
A mythisist need not give an answer to those specific points, a mythicist has plenty of other points to use for their case. If you went through any of the gospels and took away all the supernatural paragraphs, you would end up with a handful of sentences. So the mythicists have far more "evidence" than historians.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Dec 2011, 2:17 am
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
And what are the answers?
The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.
Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.
These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.
Wrong. They knew very well what they were writing.
Now come up with a mythicist answer that collectively answers the above better than a historical Jesus.
How do you know they knew what they were doing? Were you looking over their shoulder? You don't even know for sure they wrote it.
A mythisist need not give an answer to those specific points, a mythicist has plenty of other points to use for their case. If you went through any of the gospels and took away all the supernatural paragraphs, you would end up with a handful of sentences. So the mythicists have far more "evidence" than historians.
I like to think you know professional historians deserve more credit than that.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
20 Dec 2011, 2:22 am
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
And what are the answers?
The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.
Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.
In Return of the Jedi, Princess Leia tells Luke she has memories of her mother. However, in the Revenge of the Sith film her mother dies during her birth. That is a discrepency. Does that give us the right to say these stories are true?
That is the argument you are using.
20 Dec 2011, 2:25 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
And what are the answers?
The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.
Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.
These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.
Wrong. They knew very well what they were writing.
Now come up with a mythicist answer that collectively answers the above better than a historical Jesus.
How do you know they knew what they were doing? Were you looking over their shoulder? You don't even know for sure they wrote it.
A mythisist need not give an answer to those specific points, a mythicist has plenty of other points to use for their case. If you went through any of the gospels and took away all the supernatural paragraphs, you would end up with a handful of sentences. So the mythicists have far more "evidence" than historians.
I like to think you know professional historians deserve more credit than that.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
They are clutching at straws, for some reason they are desperate to cling onto the idea that the gospels may have some truth. But they are chasing rainbows. It is a waste of effort and I hope no taxpayers money is used for this.
20 Dec 2011, 2:26 am
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
And what are the answers?
The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.
Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.
These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.
Wrong. They knew very well what they were writing.
Now come up with a mythicist answer that collectively answers the above better than a historical Jesus.
How do you know they knew what they were doing? Were you looking over their shoulder? You don't even know for sure they wrote it.
A mythisist need not give an answer to those specific points, a mythicist has plenty of other points to use for their case. If you went through any of the gospels and took away all the supernatural paragraphs, you would end up with a handful of sentences. So the mythicists have far more "evidence" than historians.
1. I'm certain Paul wrote most of the Epistles.
2. Whoever the actual authors of the Gospels, it still doesn't chane my argument one bit.
3. Using your argument, we can't be sure Alexander the Great ever existed. After all, it is said he was born of a snake ...
4. You're not a historian, and yet you disagree with the expert consensus on this matter. Who should we trust? Your amateurish opinion void of evidence?
5. The Gospel writers knew what they were writing. Why do you think the authors of Matthew and Luke (for example) each had to come up with his own account of Jesus being born in Bethlehem? Because they were being clever and were aware there was a certain prophecy in the OT that wasn't fulfilled in the writings of Mark and Q.
20 Dec 2011, 2:30 am
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
And what are the answers?
The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.
Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.
These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.
Wrong. They knew very well what they were writing.
Now come up with a mythicist answer that collectively answers the above better than a historical Jesus.
How do you know they knew what they were doing? Were you looking over their shoulder? You don't even know for sure they wrote it.
A mythisist need not give an answer to those specific points, a mythicist has plenty of other points to use for their case. If you went through any of the gospels and took away all the supernatural paragraphs, you would end up with a handful of sentences. So the mythicists have far more "evidence" than historians.
1. I'm certain Paul wrote most of the Epistles.
2. Whoever the actual authors of the Gospels, it still doesn't chane my argument one bit.
3. Using your argument, we can't be sure Alexander the Great ever existed. After all, it is said he was born of a snake ...
4. You're not a historian, and yet you disagree with the expert consensus on this matter. Who should we trust? Your amateurish opinion void of evidence?
5. The Gospel writers knew what they were writing. Why do you think the authors of Matthew and Luke (for example) each had to come up with his own account of Jesus being born in Bethlehem? Because they were being clever and were aware there was a certain prophecy in the OT that wasn't fulfilled in the writings of Mark and Q.
1 - I am more certain that JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter.
2 - Your argument has been destroyed
3 - No we cannot be sure Alexander the Great existed
4 - I do not need evidence to show someone did not exist, the "experts" have no evidence and they are the ones who need it.
5 - The gospels show inconsistency
20 Dec 2011, 2:33 am
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
And what are the answers?
The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.
Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.
These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.
Wrong. They knew very well what they were writing.
Now come up with a mythicist answer that collectively answers the above better than a historical Jesus.
How do you know they knew what they were doing? Were you looking over their shoulder? You don't even know for sure they wrote it.
A mythisist need not give an answer to those specific points, a mythicist has plenty of other points to use for their case. If you went through any of the gospels and took away all the supernatural paragraphs, you would end up with a handful of sentences. So the mythicists have far more "evidence" than historians.
1. I'm certain Paul wrote most of the Epistles.
2. Whoever the actual authors of the Gospels, it still doesn't chane my argument one bit.
3. Using your argument, we can't be sure Alexander the Great ever existed. After all, it is said he was born of a snake ...
4. You're not a historian, and yet you disagree with the expert consensus on this matter. Who should we trust? Your amateurish opinion void of evidence?
5. The Gospel writers knew what they were writing. Why do you think the authors of Matthew and Luke (for example) each had to come up with his own account of Jesus being born in Bethlehem? Because they were being clever and were aware there was a certain prophecy in the OT that wasn't fulfilled in the writings of Mark and Q.
1 - I am more certain that JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter.
2 - Your argument has been destroyed
3 - No we cannot be sure Alexander the Great existed
4 - I do not need evidence to show someone did not exist, the "experts" have no evidence and they are the ones who need it.
5 - The gospels show inconsistency
Your "answers" show it all. You don't give one s**t about evidence and facts.
Go on and keep following your goddess and cult leader, Acharya S.
You showed your true mythicist colors by the way by contradicting what you said earlier about you saying you had no problem with Jesus existing.
20 Dec 2011, 2:35 am
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
And what are the answers?
The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.
Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.
These issues are not evidence for an historical jesus. They are evidence that Mathew, Mark and Paul and John and Luke didn't know what they were writing. It shows they failed to compare their stories to earlier stories. It is scraping the barrel if historians have to pick out a few minor points amongst all the obviously made up stuff to claim evidence for a real person.
Wrong. They knew very well what they were writing.
Now come up with a mythicist answer that collectively answers the above better than a historical Jesus.
How do you know they knew what they were doing? Were you looking over their shoulder? You don't even know for sure they wrote it.
A mythisist need not give an answer to those specific points, a mythicist has plenty of other points to use for their case. If you went through any of the gospels and took away all the supernatural paragraphs, you would end up with a handful of sentences. So the mythicists have far more "evidence" than historians.
1. I'm certain Paul wrote most of the Epistles.
2. Whoever the actual authors of the Gospels, it still doesn't chane my argument one bit.
3. Using your argument, we can't be sure Alexander the Great ever existed. After all, it is said he was born of a snake ...
4. You're not a historian, and yet you disagree with the expert consensus on this matter. Who should we trust? Your amateurish opinion void of evidence?
5. The Gospel writers knew what they were writing. Why do you think the authors of Matthew and Luke (for example) each had to come up with his own account of Jesus being born in Bethlehem? Because they were being clever and were aware there was a certain prophecy in the OT that wasn't fulfilled in the writings of Mark and Q.
1 - I am more certain that JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter.
2 - Your argument has been destroyed
3 - No we cannot be sure Alexander the Great existed
4 - I do not need evidence to show someone did not exist, the "experts" have no evidence and they are the ones who need it.
5 - The gospels show inconsistency
Your "answers" show it all. You don't give one sh** about evidence and facts.
Go on and keep following your goddess and cult leader, Acharya S.
You showed your true mythicist colors by the way by contradicting what you said earlier about you saying you had no problem with Jesus existing.
I don't care one way or the other. You have no evidence. Who is Acharya S?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Dec 2011, 2:43 am
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Some of the questions that a historical approach to Jesus answers better than any known mythicist answer are as follows:
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
Why have Jesus be from Nazareth (instead of Bethlehem) if Bethlehem was mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah in the Old Testament?
Why have Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if he was supposedly greater than John the Baptist?
Why have Jesus fail to do miracles in his hometown if he is the one whom God sent as the Messiah?
Why have Jesus be crucified and f***ing fail? Why the need for a death and then resurrection story if this was all made up?
And what are the answers?
The historical Jesus answer. These things couldn't have likely been made up.
Or else you'd get a story of Jesus from Bethlehem escaping crucifixion and ascending to heaven just to come back in a few years' time to save the Jews from the Romans.
In Return of the Jedi, Princess Leia tells Luke she has memories of her mother. However, in the Revenge of the Sith film her mother dies during her birth. That is a discrepency. Does that give us the right to say these stories are true?
That is the argument you are using.
Because the force runs strongly through the Skywalker family, and thus Leia remembers her mother, though only fleetingly.
But seriously - you think there's no evidence that Alexander the Great existed? Really? REALLY?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
20 Dec 2011, 2:46 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
But seriously - you think there's no evidence that Alexander the Great existed? Really? REALLY?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
There are several independent ancient sources that consistently tell of Alexander and his conquests. One of the sources is Aristotle, himself who tutored Alexander when he was a teen age brat.
What you are bringing up is the general problem of second hand evidence. How do we evaluate second and third hand sources of events, particularly events that took place far in the past? Once we get back before photographs, motion pictures and sound recordings, we have to settle for written accounts and artifacts and various combinations thereof.
Here is a general hint. Any account of a past person that does not invoke miracles or breaches of natural laws is inherently more reliable than "miracle" or "wonder" or "mystery" accounts. Things like virgin births, for example, are grounds for doubt. Things like the parting of the Sea of Reeds require a natural explanation. Fortunately, there are several plausible natural hypothesis that could account for a passage over the Sea of Reeds for the ancient Israelites
Even in modern times, the fortunate evacuation of the British and French troops from Dunquirke is quasi-miraculous. A break in the weather occurred just at the "right" time. Is this luck? Or is it the Hand of God? Who knows?
ruveyn
Last edited by ruveyn on 20 Dec 2011, 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
