Quote:
Originally posted by jluetjen
But at the end of the day, there is no DNA evidence nor a secure provenance that places George Washington in Trenton on that winter day. There are no pictures except those apocriphal images made after the fact. But yet it is widely accepted that George Washington did in fact cross the Delaware River and beat the crap out of a camp of Hessians. Why should Jesus be treated any differently?
|
Why should Jesus be treated differently? Simply because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Washington crossing the Delaware is a very ordinary claim, so ordinary proof will suffice.
And even though extraordinary proof is required, all you have is word of mouth. Not only that, but that word comes from biased individuals. Once again, shall we ask the followers of David Koresh what they thought of him, or should we get an independent opinion?
I also understand that each gospel presents a different version of the resurrection. One saw two angels, one didn’t see any, etc, etc. Now I’m sure you will say this is just verification that they all didn’t collaborate on a falsified story, or that their memory varied slightly between the events and when they wrote it down, but I say the story is far too important for there to be variations in it.