Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Statler Waldorf]

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

We’re not talking about Evolution. We’re talking about historical facts and your rejection of them in the face of overwhelming scholarly consensus to the contrary on the matter.

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".

Do you know why even Bart Ehrman cites scriptures in order to justify Jesus’ existence? Because he knows that the New Testament is the best attested works we have from antiquity and it is absurd to rule out using it in reference to Jesus. To say that a historian is not allowed to reference Christian writings to establish the existence of Jesus is like saying we cannot reference Tacitus and Suetonius in order to establish facts about ancient Rome simply because they were Roman. Ehrman has no motive whatsoever to believe Jesus existed and yet he laughs at people like you, why is that?

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".

I used to believe you were fairly open-minded, but after learning that you ascribe to the Jesus Myth, I now know you’re not. Even someone as biased as Richard Dawkins admits that Jesus existed.

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.

It doesn’t matter; you’re appealing to the testimony on experts with one but rejecting the testimony of experts on the other. It’s inconsistent.

Great. What evidence convinces them?

The same evidence that convinces them that other historical figures existed- just more of it, ancient manuscripts.

You don't consider the Bible a primary source?

It is, but you linked me to a YouTube video, which is not a primary source. I’ve watched your videos before, they are so condescending that they are unbearable- so I would prefer you just reference scripture directly in your posts. Thank you.

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.

I am not sure that is the case, I watched your video on Josephus and Jesus, and all I heard was a lot of condescension, ridicule, and assertions. I’d prefer to address your posts, not your videos.