OK, well this whole HJ defence has long since become utterly absurd, and 100% devoid on any evidence for Jesus whatsoever.
As far as any battle of Thermopylae is concerned, or ANY such event or person in history, then the answer (which is patently obvious) is -
- if all that you have for that event/person, is the same sort of "evidence" claimed for Jesus, then absolutely you should not accept that the event or person is probably true.
If all that you have as evidence of Thermopylae is -
- self-interested ancient devotional writing from anonymous writers
- who obtained their stories from other unknown anonymous people
- who were thought to have believed that other people in the past had once seen the events
- but where not one of those people is known or ever available to confirm a single thing
- where the event had been anticipated & preached as a certainty of religious prophecy from at least 500-1000 years before
- where numerous parts of the claimed events have been found to be copied from religious prophecy written centuries before
- and where there is not one spec of physical evidence to confirm any part of it
- and where all the most essential claims have turned out to be "proven" fiction
then, yes, you absolutely should not believe that accounts like that are true without reliable credible external evidence which can be checked and confirmed.
You have zero evidence of Jesus. If you cannot produce any evidence then you don’t have a credible case (lots of evidence against the Jesus stories of course).
And the legally valid test of what constitutes evidence admissible as credible, reliable and relevant, is most definitely 100% applicable here (as it is everywhere ... that's why it's established in law).
Cut the crap - produce the evidence.
Excuse me, but I think that is you whho has 'craped' badly for I ask you a thing and you answer to another.
I ask you if you believe the battle of Thermopylae could pass the requirements for evidence in a court and you answer me that the existence of Jesus would not pass the requirements of evidence in a court. Ein?
I will try to focus the topic:
I chose the battle of Thermopylae randomly, as a typical example of an event in ancient history.
A competent judge would find the following 'evidences':
-A manuscript of the fifteenth century -IIRC- that refers to an event that took place in the fifth century bCE.
-The manuscript is anonymous.
-The manuscript purports to be a copy of another manuscript that is not in hands of the court.
-It would be written by one so called Herodotus.
-Is not proven who the person claiming to be Herodotus actually is.
-He is not an eyewitness of the events.
-No eyewitness is presented to the court.
-There is no physical evidence of what happened.
-There is no documented evidence of the exact scene of the event.
-There is not
corpus delicti.
The sentence is unavoidable: there is no place for the prosecution of the case. The case is closed; please do not make lose the time of this court with nonsensical stuffs. [
vigorous hammering].
Conclusion: Most of the facts we know as ancient history would not pass the test of legal evidence of a modern court. Either we ignore this criterion or we use it and send the Ancient History to hell.
If you want to compare the degree of evidence of the battle of Thermopylae and the death of Jesus, this is another subject. But, as I have shown now and before, the legal standard does not help at all because it would invalidate both of them. We should look for other criteria more in line with the methods of history used by historians.
