Atheists: How do you explain this Irrefutable PROOF of Christianity?

[Rev. Rye]

I'm guessing you didn't even watch this worthless video as the only thing this guy even tries to prove is that the NT was written before 70 A.D., which says nothing of the validity of Christianity. It's nine minutes of rambling about how testimony is somehow proof with the occasional jab at liberals for good measure. If this is what proof is to you then there is proof of aliens, bigfoot, ghosts, and a whole host of other garbage only the delusional believe in. I'm guessing this poster just dropped in to dump a moronic video and will never be heard from again, which is probably a good thing for the theists here because this guy's giving you a bad name.

Lately it seems like the crazy train to Jesus town crashed and everybody on board is coming here.

I mean, the fact that none of the books flat-out mentions a future event, but merely alludes to it doesn't prove jack. Any work of historical fiction can allude to a future event with the use of hindsight.
For instance, in the musical and film 1776, John Adams tries to defend an anti-slavery clause in the Declaration of Independence by saying that "posterity would never forgive us [if we don't keep it]," likely an allusion to the fact that in the next few centuries, we as people have come to view slavery as abhorrent. In another scene, he laments that he will probably be ignored by the history books for his pivotal role in gaining independence in favor of Ben Franklin, Washington, and his horse. This, in the two centuries after the signing of the Declaration, did come to pass. Of course, none of these instances flat-out say that these events really happened. Does this mean that the musical was written before the moral zeitgeist against slavery or John Adams getting the shaft by historians? No, it's just a literary device to simultaneously make a reference to "future" events that already happened by the time it was written, and retain the illusion of being in another time. The fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned because it takes place long after the story proper stops. u

I mean, seriously, the NT manuscripts are authentic because the authors followed the basic conventions of historical fiction? Suddenly "tide goes in, tide goes out," and Ray Comfort's arguments seem positively cogent.