You are hoping to provide evidence for some claim or another regarding Jesus. The truth is, you do not have any evidence, but rely on faith alone. (Don't copy paste just yet, keep reading.) So in your attempt to procure evidence, you push the requirement for faith back one more step. Now, instead of having faith in what the bible says about Jesus, you are instead having faith in what the Talmud says about what the bible says about Jesus. A blind acceptance of a piece of evidence such as the Talmud is called faith. If you accept it without examining it, that is called faith.
The FRE do not pardon you from the rules of logic. You can refer to them all you want, but there is nothing required here more advanced than logic. By bringing the FRE into the mix, you’re only complicating the issue and attempting to add an air of authority to your faith. Your evidence fails for logical reasons. If you think the FRE supports your position in spite of this logic, then we need to contact the federal government and show them that their Federal Rules violate logic. I’m sure this is something that they would wish to know.
However, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not in fact support your position. I hadn't even read them before accepting them, since I understand that our legal rules are based on logic. Therefore logic is all I'd need. It turns out, this was correct reasoning on my part. You are claiming that simply by admitting evidence, it is also therefore considered true. The FRE says nothing of the sort. Here is a quote that is relevant from
Wikipedia:
"By admitting an ancient document into evidence, it is presumed only that the document is what it purports to be, but there are no presumptions about the truth of the document's contents. A jury can still decide that the author of the document was lying or mistaken when the author wrote it."
Which means, in light of the adversary structure you claim is our legal system, you conveniently ignore the jury. They deliberate over the truthfulness of the submitted evidence. The evidence is not by default considered to be true. That’s all you’ve done is submitted the evidence, and since it’s ancient, we cannot dismiss it as hearsay. We have not yet examined it for it's truthfulness.
Let’s see where else your reasoning would take us, if we follow it in all aspects of epistemology. You are assuming that simply because a document is ancient, it is also true. That is called faith. The consequence would be that every ancient document is true. Is this a consequence that you support? All that is needed to show this consequence to be false is to show an ancient document which is false. If you cannot think of an ancient document that is also false, perhaps we should find one so that you understand why you're wrong.
Stahrwe, this is simple stuff. I’m not saying this to be rude or condescending. It truly is simple. Now can we please move on and examine your piece of evidence from the Talmud? If you refuse to, then we need to bring in a third party as a jury, since that is precisely what we’re missing in this case. Then, you and I both submit our cases as to the veracity of your evidence, and the jury can decide. If you are an honest person, you should see that we do not need a jury. You would see that your evidence in fact must be supported if you wish for it to support some other claim.
Is this getting through to you yet?
