(November 25, 2014 at 2:10 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(November 25, 2014 at 2:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The vast majority of historians, some who aren't friendly to Christianity at all, is willing to accept the sources that I provided as historical evidence that Jesus the man existed...the vast majority, and there are many out there.
You just keep repeating that over and over as if it's evidence for your point. You already agreed that the fact that a number of historians agree does not make it true, so stop using that statement as if it does.
Well, if included in that majority are individuals that are not Christians, I would think that would make there interpretations of the evidence legitmate...I know how you people like to say "those sources were by people that already believed in Christianity"....no, that isn't the case here. Notice when I say ''majority", I also point out that some are non-Christian as well.
The vast majority of all historians apply some historical methodology...the same methodology that they apply to any other historical person/historical claim in history, and they draw the conclusion that Jesus "the man", existed.
Point blank, period.
