3 ms·
I don't doubt that record keeping was incomplete and that with great time passage, that any existing documentation may have been lost. That being said, since t
by malvosenior 8y ago
I don't doubt that record keeping was incomplete and that with great time passage, that any existing documentation may have been lost.
That being said, since there is no known evidence of Jesus existing, it seems really strange and anti-academic to assume that he did.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> That being said, since there is no known evidence of Jesus existing That's untrue. There is plenty of evidence; there is no known contemporary (in the narrowest sense of “produced during his lifetime”) documentation, but that's not the only kind of evidence of a historical figure, and lots of historical figures are accepted as such without that form of evidence. > it seems really strange and anti-academic to assume that he did. It is really strange and anti-academic to adopt a higher standard of proof for the existence of Jesus than other ancient figures.
- owens99 8y ago> There is plenty of evidence Such as? > but that's not the only kind of evidence of a historical figure, and lots of historical figures are accepted as such without that form of evidence This argument has been debunked pretty well: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 > It is really strange and anti-academic to adopt a higher standard of proof for the existence of Jesus than other ancient figures. See above.