Replies

My question remains unanswered: if you truly don’t wish to impose your own personal super-natural explanations on natural-science, then what exactly is your problem with science?
***In past debates and even current ones

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3098291/posts?page=554#554

it is the atheist contingent which is showing a severe disrespect for science. In particular, the science behind historicity of one of the best attested events in all of history: That Jesus was put to death for the blasphemy of claiming equality with God. Even his enemies acknowledge the claim. There is no miracle to deny here, just simple history. But atheists with incredible idealogical blinders refuse to acknowledge a simple historical fact.

Kevmo referring to an exchange with donmeaker: "it is the atheist contingent which is showing a severe disrespect for science.
In particular, the science behind historicity of one of the best attested events in all of history: That Jesus was put to death for the blasphemy of claiming equality with God."

FRiend, I would make a strong distinction between the words "history" and "science".
They are not the same thing.

History is all about developing an accurate narrative of past events, based on the best data available, including archaeology, but beginning with eyewitness reports from that time.
Indeed, the very term "prehistoric" refers to any time before written accounts were produced.

So, by standards of most ancient history, the crucifixion and even resurrection of Jesus are rather well attested.
This makes them historical "facts".
However, by more exacting scientific standards -- such as you might find in any C.S.I. episode -- there's no serious evidence to "prove" any of it.
Indeed, the closest I've ever heard of is the Shroud of Turin, and that is still a long way from being scientific "proof".

FRiend, I've not yet read Bill O'Reilly's book, Killing Jesus, but I did read four original accounts, plus many epistles and other commentaries on it -- but the point of O'Reilly's book is to emphasize the historicity of the event, and perhaps includes facts that not everyone is familiar with.

My only point here is: please to do not confuse "facts" of ancient-history with other more scientific data.
Those who say it's a historical fact are correct.
Those who say there's no scientific proof are also correct.