In an earlier post, I argued that the historicity of Jesus was doubtful. Some religion scholars questioned one of my sources. Now, recent scholarship comes as close as possible to settling the issue.
That is not an accurate summary of the points made by the article. Besides which the default position is that he didn’t exist, it is up to the Jesus was real crowd to present their evidence. Which is basically a century later someone noticed that there was a group calling themselves Christians.
Are statements about history true because they reflect what happened or because people at a later date said so?
If argument ad populum does not work why would you use it instead of just presenting your evidence for a historical Jesus? Me personally I noticed that people lower themselves to logical fallacies when they don’t have facts.
That is not an accurate summary of the points made by the article. Besides which the default position is that he didn’t exist, it is up to the Jesus was real crowd to present their evidence. Which is basically a century later someone noticed that there was a group calling themselves Christians.
Virtually every historian of the time period, religious and secular, agree that Jesus the man did exist.
Are statements about history true because they reflect what happened or because people at a later date said so?
If argument ad populum does not work why would you use it instead of just presenting your evidence for a historical Jesus? Me personally I noticed that people lower themselves to logical fallacies when they don’t have facts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Could just answer the questions instead of depending on someone else to do the work.
Question 1: Are statements about history true because they reflect what happened or because people at a later date said so?
Question 2: If argument ad populum does not work why would you use it instead of just presenting your evidence for a historical Jesus?
Pretty simple questions, maybe just answer them.