I have no basis to judge the accuracy of that statement,
***There is plenty of basis, starting from common sense (when 2 opposing sides agree on a fact, it is reliable) to looking at the science behind historicity of events. Denying the historicity of this event is a show of disrespect for the science behind the claim.
nor do I have any interest in validating the claim, to be honest.
***Then what exactly is your purpose in coming onto a thread like this? This is a strange attitude to exhibit, ducking one’s head in the sand.
“There is plenty of basis, starting from common sense”
Common sense is not a basis to judge the truth of a 2,000 year old claim.
“(when 2 opposing sides agree on a fact, it is reliable) to looking at the science behind historicity of events.”
Again, history is not science. People agreeing is also not scientific. And what are the sides you are dividing everyone into?
“Denying the historicity of this event is a show of disrespect for the science behind the claim.”
No, it shows that I have no basis to judge the accuracy of that statement, nor do I have any interest in validating the claim.
“Then what exactly is your purpose in coming onto a thread like this? This is a strange attitude to exhibit, ducking one’s head in the sand.”
Missed that on the first reply. My purpose was to join in. How that translates to having to answer every silly question thrown my way eludes me.