Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[DeistPaladin]

*Takes note that DP values scholarly consensus when it is convenient to his position but not concerning the inconvenient reality of Christ’s existence.

Can I assume you do the same with evolution? Or do you accept evolution?

In my case, I have faith in peer review unless I have reason to doubt it. Even scholars must present reasons why they have concluded what they have. Having looked into "historists" arguments, all they come up with is (paraphrased for brevity) "there must be some historical core here but we're not sure what". Ehrman in particular staunchly believes there is a "historical Jesus" but I've never heard him either justify it without citing scripture nor have I heard him offer what exactly that historical Jesus is beyond a vague "some kind of religious teacher".

I intend to read his latest book on the topic. Who knows, maybe he'll present evidence that will convince me. I'm always open-minded. All I'm asking is "show me the money".

On the other hand, translating languages is more cut-and-dried than searching for a historical figure behind a legend/myth and a lot easier to justify a conclusion.

Oxford scholars agree that Jesus existed.

Great. What evidence convinces them?

That's all I'm asking.

I was not asking you. Secondly, I need primary sources, not homemade YouTube videos.

You don't consider the Bible a primary source?

If you'd watched the videos, you'd see I do more than make assertions. In fact, I spend a lot of time taking Christian claims at face value and showing how the story still doesn't add up.