[allmendream]

If you base your faith on the physical/historic evidence of Jesus life, like I said, you are basing it on scant evidence. The Sanhedrin records of Jesus’ trial have not survived, we only have accounts of it from the Gospels. What if non-Christian sources never wrote about Jesus at all, or their records never survived? Would your faith be lessened as a result?

History is not Science. Science is not Religion. Counting manuscripts, contemporaneous or not, is not ‘sturdy Science’ it is Historic analysis. One cannot approach issues of history from a Scientific perspective because there is no experiment, no null hypothesis, no control group. Scientific experimentation can be done to attempt to date artifacts, but that is, as I have said, not nearly the same thing.

And I am not at all trying to be antagonistic. Faith is faith. Science is not based upon faith but upon evidence. This makes Science more transitory and of less permanence, as Scripture states....

“So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18).

Hebrews 11
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[Kevmo]

As I posted to you in #116, At this point it bears out that we are spending a lot of attention on something that is outside of the purview of this thread. If you want to continue down this line of discussion, open your own thread on the historicity of Christ and invite me to it.