(November 24, 2014 at 6:21 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You tell us. Why do you find them convincing, apart from the dubious fact that other people do as well?
Because the sources seem honest, and modest....and not just a little modest, but VERY modest.
(November 24, 2014 at 6:21 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You're still cloaking this in a thinly-veiled argument from authority whether you realize it or not. We all understand what historians believe these sources tell us. What's missing is WHY they think that, and HOW they came to those conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_..._criticism They all go by some sort of a historical method...and if you apply the historical method for Jesus, then you will draw the conclusion that it is likely that the MAN existed. Now of course, this is still far away from a Resurrected Jesus, but the man existed, nevertheless.
Hell, even Bart Erhman, who is a very highly skeptical Bible critic and new testament scholar...even he believes the historical evidence supports Jesus of Nazareth.
Now again, now one is saying that just because they believe it, it must be true...but the fact that even non-Christians can look pass their biases and admit "Well, the evidence does seem to point in that direction"...I think that speaks volumes.
