The theory is total speculation with no basis in scientifc possibilties. Whereas, we have written accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, and His ressurection, done by either eyewitnesses themselves or written from interviews with eyewitnesses (I'm more inclined to the former), which you claim to not be extraordinary enough evidence.... In a court of law, which theory would be more acceptable as per the full and total evidence, if looked at with no bias?
11 comments
Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable even seconds after the event, let alone when they've been (mis)translated many times over two thousand years.
Furthermore, your opening sentence is utter trash. Just because you say that is the case doesn't make it so, and look so many other fundies you have no idea what the word "theory" actually means in a scientific sense. I'll give you a clue - it isn't a blind guess. Quite the opposite, it requires the greatest degree of certainty.
How come then, that the ONLY descriptions of the existence of Jesus is found in the Bible? The Romans have nothing, even though they have just about every execution they ever performed on record.
In a court of law? Just ask the judge of the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, why don't you? I believe he was appointed by your High Priest Dumbya Bush.
As swede pointed out, it was looked out in court by a right-wing judge who, hobbled with his duties of recognizing facts had to find science beats out religion because only science has evidence.
In the case of your Jesus story he'd be forced to recognize that Jesus has no contempory evidence and that the Bible accounts are 70 years older than suggested event. Historians have collaborated records of that time and Jesus isn't mentioned even by the Romans.
Sorry, no, we only have the Bible stating that Jesus lived. If that counts as "written accounts", it's about twice as likely that Harry Potter lives and was resurrected.
The Bible wasn't written down until 300 years after Jesus supposedly lived. A lot of interviews during that time...
Check out the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial to see which would be more acceptable in a court of law. Pro-tip; it's not in your favor, honey.
“Whereas, we have written accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, and His ressurection, done by either eyewitnesses themselves or written from interviews with eyewitnesses”
"which you claim to not be extraordinary enough evidence....”
“In a court of law, which theory would be more acceptable as per the full and total evidence, if looked at with no bias?”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
