On "Scholarly Consensus"

[Beta Ray Bill]

There are a multitude of sources that contribute to the "doubt" of Jesus, from the lack of historical verifiability to the breakdown of where the NT got its inspirations from. You have one errancy-filled book, loaded with unfulfilled prophecies to back up your faith. Sounds like a good reason to doubt him to me.

Are you talking about doubting Christ’s divinity or doubting his existence? Let’s not conflate the two. You have provided no reason to doubt his existence.

What world do you live on? Science is not perfect, and yeah, a lot of it deals in theories, but it proves far more than the Bible does. Scientific theories make guesses using confirmable information. Religious theories try to explain everything supernaturally, which cannot be verified Why is there no geological evidence of a great flood? Why is there no historical record of the Jews ever existing in Egypt? Science has a lot more proof to it than religion. You need to go back to school. You've forgotten what a "fact" is.

On the contrary, what world do you live in? Science is based upon inductive reasoning; it therefore does not deal with proof. Only logic and mathematics deal in the realm of proof. You cannot scientifically prove anything; to think that you can is nothing more than a layman’s misconception.

Read up!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...ific-proof

Um, I'm not going to spend all day spewing evidence that Jesus wasn't historically significant or even divine until the Gospels interpolated Pagan ideals into their little cult. I don't have enough time to tell you all those things. Doubt me? Look them up on a site that isn't religiously biased.

And, basically, science is reasoning and logic, not blind speculation like religion is. Next time you are stumped with a problem, remember that you have two choices: use reasoning and logic to find the answer, or just pray to God for the answer. Which one do you think will get you a better result?

Interesting how you totally ignored my questions...