(January 1, 2014 at 1:49 am)Aractus Wrote:(January 1, 2014 at 12:24 am)Zen Badger Wrote: The bible is not evidence, it is the claim. Therefore not admissible.Wow, resounding circular logic.
The New Testament is a stack of evidence, and some of it is universally accepted as fact. Ie, that Jesus lived, that he called disciples, that he was baptized and that he died by crucifixion. There are no contradicting accounts on any of these from the time of the NT material, or even from any time in the 2nd century.
So the very fact that you've decided to disregard something as having evidence is your own stupidity nothing more.
Quote:Josephus merely makes reference to the brother of someone called James being called Jesus. Even if it wasn't considered a forgery it is only evidence that someone called James had a brother called Jesus. Not that the son of god walked the earth.Stop making straw man arguments. It is the consensus view that he mentions James of Jerusalem, and not just some "random person named James".
Quote:Tacticus only makes reference to the followers of a self proclaimed messiah( or chrestos). No more convincing than writing about Mormons proves that Joseph Smith read golden tablets in a hat.It proves that Christianity didn't start in the second century, again, stop making straw man arguments.
Quote:And so on and forth. These "proofs" might be convincing to you and your fellow sheep. But not to us.I'm talking about facts accepted by all serious scholars, regardless of their faith.
Now why don't you hurry up and prove the claim you made before, please.
Let me reiterate....
Even if it was true that someone called Jesus existed, it means fuck all without the resurrection. And you have no proof of that at all.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.