Reply to If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist. [/quote]

No one denied.  :roll: [/quote]

You opened up the probability of denial by saying there was a 1-49% chance Jesus didn’t exist. Enough of the dumb semantic games. [/quote]

No one said there was a 49% chance. I can see what the PP got frustrated with the blatant lying. Isn’t that a sin or something? Thou shall not troll?

“Most likely” exists is not denying. That *is* the most likely scenario. [b]We just don’t have definitive evidence that he lived[/b]. We only have people who heard about him from other people and then some people wrote it down based on what they heard. 
[/quote]

^ I said that above. The evidence is circumstantial, but the weight of it is pretty persuasive.

And here’s where you’re out of step with thousands of scholars, including the three above, who are convinced he definitely lived.[/quote]

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive. 
[/quote]

[b]Cite, please. Link to someone who calls the evidence “compelling but not definitive.”[/b][/quote][/quote]

I said that above, a couple of days ago. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty persuasive nonetheless.[/quote]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from.

Why are you using a specific legal term inappropriately?

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from. For example, if an assault happened on O'Connell Street at 6.15pm, you can give evidence that you saw the accused walking down O'Connell Street at 6pm. In that situation, you are giving the court circumstantial evidence. The court can draw conclusions from the fact that the accused was on O'Connell Street at 6pm, but you have not given evidence about whether the accused attacked a person.

Examples of circumstantial evidence
Common examples of circumstantial evidence include:

Evidence that establishes a motive
Evidence of an opportunity to commit the offence
Evidence of the accused’s state of mind when the offence was committed
Evidence of the accused preparing for the crime
Evidence of the accused having items that could be used to commit the offence
Evidence of identification, for example, the accused’s DNA, fingerprints or mobile phone records
Evidence that the accused committed similar crimes around the same time the alleged offence was committed
Evidence of the accused giving different versions of events

The historicity of Jesus Christ is not a legal issue being considered by a judge or jury in a court trial.

[/quote]

Not PP but I’ve also used the term on this thread. Here was the non-legal definition I was using:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/circumstantial
[i]containing information, especially about a crime, that makes you think something is true but does not completely prove it:
[/i]
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics