Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

OP: citing the Bible agreeing with the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true is what we call Circular Logic. Why do you believe it? Because it's true! Why do you think it's true? Because I believe it! And so on, and so on.

That's an incorrect assesment. NT Biblical books cite each other before they became bound together and accepted as scripture. They are written by a number of different authors - at least 8, and as many as 11.

There is NOT, as apologists like to claim, a welter of evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. There just isn't. This was a period in history in which records WERE kept, and NOWHERE other than in the Bible is the Jesus story mentioned. Sorry. Yes, there is apparently a mention of a rabbi named Yeshua in the writings of Josephus, but a. the authenticity of this passage is far from established (some historians dismiss it as having been inserted into the text some centuries later by Christian propagandists ) and b. so what? That's like historians 2000 years from now reading articles about BRUCE Springsteen and concluding that since there really were people called Bruce, then Batman was a historical character.

Oh please. The life and death of Jesus is very well documented. Compare this to Pontius Pilate - we found nothing at all written about him outside of the Bible, and yet he was supposed to be an important governor at the time of Jesus? The "Pilate Stone" was excavated in 1961 and was the first piece of evidence ever found, outside of the Biblical texts, that he was a real person.

Here's a short list of facts that virtually all historians who study this area agree on: 1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist., 2. He had disciples, 3. He was crucified, 4. Some of his disciples were martyred. If you're seriously going to disagree with any one of those 4 basic points, then you are going to have to provide sources because you'd be well outside of the general consensus among scholars and historians.

So no, we DON'T all concur that there really was a Jesus - although there may well have been - nor do we concur that he claimed divinity - though again, he may well have done. We're not dismissing these propositions out of hand but if you're seeking to class them as FACTS from which you can extrapolate other facts, then no. Sorry.

Of course, this is probably futile since the probability is that like most theist OPs on this forum, you won't return to discuss the objections to your proposition.

Oh really? The fact that you failed to raise a valid objection in the first place, makes me all the more certain that you can not back up your claim that Jesus never existed, can you?

---

"Probably" won't cut it lad. His supposed ministry was witnessed by thousands. And yet nothing survived, not even official Roman records.

Until you have some actual evidence, saying "probably" doesn't mean a damn thing.

No official Roman records of Pontius Pilate survived either, a fact I mentioned above, what's the difference?

---

Jesus makes a number of commands, most notably, sell all you have and give to the poor. Yet most self described Christians ignore the many verses that command that and don't follow Jesus.

Really? Where in the Bible does it say this?