Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Statler Waldorf]

Show me the facts that convinces the scholars then.

Four times as many authors mention Jesus within the first 150 years of his life than mention Caesar Tiberius, that’s overwhelming support for Jesus’ existence- unless of course you do not believe Tiberius existed either (which at this point wouldn’t really surprise me).

EDIT TO ADD: And nice dodge, by the way. I think we both know why.

Yes, we both know it was the fallacy of the red herring. There is no reason to compare a scientific theory to historical facts. Secondly, I do not reject evolution because of any “lack of evidence”, I reject it because of evidence to the contrary. You have provided no such evidence proving Jesus never existed, so you are unjustified in your denial of the accepted position.

Maybe someday we'll live in a truly rational world where referring to religious mythology as "historical documents" will get you laughed out of the room.

Actually in today’s rational world referring to historical documents as religious mythology will get you laughed out of any room full of historians. I find much joy in knowing that we do not take holocaust deniers seriously.

Do historians like Ehrman also consider the Iliad to be a historical document or are Christian myths being given special treatment?

The Iliad never claims to be historically accurate, is written by one author, and is not well attested to at all (earliest manuscripts we have date to 500 years after the original and we have fewer than 700 of them, compared with over 24,000 of the NT). Got anything else you’d like to toss out and see if it sticks?

The problem is not one of association. The problem is one of the nature of the source material. Mythology isn't history.

Stop with the question-begging epithets, we’re not talking about mythology. It’s obvious what this comes down to is, “DP doesn’t like the claims of the NT; therefore the NT is not historically accurate.” That is irrational and not how we do scholarship. Bart Ehrman does not like the claims of the NT either, but he still views it as the best attested work of antiquity we have.

I'm not concerned who is laughing at whom. I'm concerned with the facts. Show me the facts and I will believe.

You’ve already been shown the facts. There’s a reason he laughs at people like you, you do not care about the facts.

What you believe about me or don't believe is not important. What can you prove?

When dealing with someone as biased as you are it’s not about what I can prove, it’s about what proof you’ll arbitrarily reject.

Richard Dawkins can believe whatever he wants. If he wants to convince others, he needs to provide reasons.

He doesn’t need to convince others, everyone else agrees with him. You can always find a small minority of the population who will deny historical facts like the moon landing, holocaust, and the existence of Jesus. No amount of proof will ever convince them because they’re not rational people.

I don't believe in evolution because Richard Dawkins says so. I accept evolution because of the evidence.

You’re knowledgeable of all of the evidence in regards to common descent? I doubt that. You’re still relying upon the testimony of experts. You merely approve of what the experts claim in regards to evolution.

No, it's not and I've already explained why.

You’ve never directly seen any of this evidence, you’re relying upon the testimony of experts that any of it even exists.

What manuscripts?

You seriously do not know which manuscripts support the existence of Jesus?

They grew up hearing that "all scholars" believe in jesus - obviously, only in the West. Then it becomes, "all reputable scholars" which, by definition means that anyone who questions their happy horseshit can't be "reputable."

Blowing smoke as usual I see. Name some scholars with advanced degrees in the appropriate field who claim Jesus never existed…..

Only two of the gospels mention the virgin birth so apparently there wasn't a consensus on this or it wasn't considered a big enough deal to mention.

Your logic doesn’t follow there.

The original Hebrew prophecy refers a "young woman" rather than specifying her as a virgin.

Young Jewish women were virgins. The readers would have understood this.

And also virgin births of various great historical figures in the ancient world and the odd god were apparently quite common.

That’s actually a myth perpetuated by the internet. They were not common at all.

Not even WLC would try to rationally/historically defend the virgin birth he would just say he believes it as a Christian.

Since when did rationality presuppose naturalism and why?