Posted: May 08, 2012 5:06 am
by dejuror
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:...This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc. We have some biographical details about Jesus in Pauline epistles and in non-Christian accounts that are simply dismissed by these methods with insufficient evidence, sometimes no evidence at all. Material in the gospels that is poorly explained by an invented figure is nevertheless explained away. Aside that, it would require that around one hundred years ago either the overwhelming majority of relevantly trained scholars suddenly stopped asking a question that was posed before that time or developed a very strong bias against Mythicism. What we have there is not the simpler hypothesis, but an unsound hypothesis that is laden with extensive and dubious claims.

Occam's Razor argues AGAINST HJ.

First of all the HJ argument requires AD HOC explanations NOT found in the evidence.

For example HJers claim HJ was Obscure. There is NO source of antiquity that make such a claim.

HJers state in their argument that THEIR Jesus was Embellished but FAIL TO PROVIDE any source of antiquity about their Jesus that is without embellishment.

HJers claim their HJ was NOT Christ but use sources about a character that was called Christ and WELL-KNOWN.

HJers cannot find a source which identifies a human father for their Jesus.

HJers cannot Identify any REAL person outside the Canon who became a Christian and MET Jesus personally and wrote about it.

In the Canon the supposed contemporaries of Jesus, Paul and the author of Acts, based on the assumed writings, did NOT meet or see a real Jesus.

No DATED Text by Paleography or scientific means about the Jesus stories and the Pauline letters are from the 1st century.

Dated Texts from the 1st century do NOT mention an OBSCURE preacher called Jesus.

Occams Razor DESTROYS HJ.