(November 24, 2014 at 6:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Ah, I see, you're essentially saying nothing - okay.
No, I don't think me and you are saying the same thing here...
(November 24, 2014 at 6:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What's the point of stressing something you've very accurately determined to be a non-point....as above?
The point is, if the sources are shaky, then why are so many historians, some of whom are non-Christian, saying that it is convincing enough for them?
Some of them are people who could care less about a Messiah, a cross, a Resurrection, yet they are at the very least willing to accept the fact that the man existed, based on the historical evidence.
(November 24, 2014 at 6:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ...except that you just keep "stressing it", rather than addressing criticism by any other means.
Been there, done that, and ready to move on to part 2...unless you people want to keep yapping about part 1...we can do that too.
