Do you think jesus christ existed

[Aractus]

When are you going to get it in your head that the bible is not evidence. It is the claim.

No the claim is that Jesus is an historical person.

When are you going to understand that you, Zen, do not get to decide what is and isn't evidence. You can't just arbitrarily say something isn't evidence, which is all you do, troll, troll troll.

It's because of fucking simple-minded morons like you that can't resist posting in threads like this that intelligent discussion can't take place. Thus, this is my last reply to you on this topic - indefinitely whatever thread, since all you do on these topics is troll and never offer intelligent or informed comment. You're a fucking nuisance.

Since you continually fucking post the same bullshit, I'll respond one final time now, and you can have my silence for the rest of the time you troll these discussions.

"You are basically saying that the bible is true because the bible says"

That's not what I'm saying at all you fuckwit - don't misquote me. Don't make fucking straw man arguments they are the bane of existence. Creating straw man arguments, Zen, is a well known form of trolling. I've asked you time and time again not to do it.

The Bible is not meant to be proof for itself. I never said it was. It's not meant to provide you with convincing proof of God either, nor did I say that it did.

Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God. If you don't believe this, then what do you have? For the New Testament you have 27 individual "books" written by 8 - 11 different authors. So you have a broad range of independently written material. There are more than 5,800 copies in the original Greek, and as such due to textual criticism we are sure we have the original wording for those books for approximately 99.5%. For the remaining 0.5% most variations either do not matter or don't alter the meaning. For the few passages where the wording does alter the meaning (eg, the number of the beast is 616) although it alters the meaning of the original text to some extent it doesn't do so in any way that raises serious questions about what the broader meaning is.

Some of the 27 Books (most of them in fact) contain verifiable historical information, which lends credibility to its historical accuracy. That's not to say everything can be verified though. For this reason you have historical documents with verified historical events recorded within them, and the independently written documents verify some of the information. For instance, the Last Supper is in Matthew/Mark/Luke AND 1 Corinthians, so it was written down 4 times. What's significant though is that while Matthew and Mark share the same version, Luke and Paul wrote theirs independently. Paul's is similar to Luke's, but not identical, and the way in which it is written shows he has an understanding of this event and isn't copying from a written source. Since Luke doesn't copy his from Matthew/Mark, we have at least 3 independent accounts of the same event.

That's how evidence works, Zen. That's why events like these are accepted by the most sceptical of scholars because it's written down and recorded independently and separately 3 times.

That's the end of my discussion with you.