(November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: No, you didn't. You linked to one entry in a wikipedia bibliography, the information in which consisted of title, author, publisher, and ISBN. There was no indication that the book containted a study, and there was no information that I had asked for.
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/wa...real.shtml
http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm
The same shit I gave Jenny. There are agnostics and atheists on the list, and if they are confirming that the historical weight is on the side of Jesus' existence, then we should listen to them.
(November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Stating that you satisfied my request is dishonest on your part. But it's cool, I've already figured out that you're a liar. I'm just elucidating it for anyone else reading this thread.
I am already winning, so to lie WHILE I am winning would just be an overkill..not to mention the fact that I am not a liar, anyway...and I don't need to mislead anyone regarding anything on here...since I am on the winning side of things and when you are winning, there is no need to cheat.
As I said before, do a freakin google search if you are not satisfied with what I am giving you, instead of just sitting on your ass and waiting to be hand fed information.
(November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Except, that isn't the topic here, now is it? The topic is, you are going to demonstrate Christ's existence.
Which I did, which convinces not only me, but the broader spectrum of actual historians.
(November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: You're failing miserably, and desperately tossing out any critique, real or imagined, you can think of in order to smokescreen your utter inability to deliver the goods.
Yet, historians agree with me?
(November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Rather than admit that your faith is Jesus is faith, you're driven to cloak it in academic respectability.
Were you there when George Washington became President of the United States? No? Then you accept by faith that he was. Do you believe historians when they tell you we have contemporary accounts of GW? No. Then you accept by faith that the accounts are true.
So, admit that your belief in GW is faith. You...were...not...there. All you know is what people told you, and they could have been lying.
(November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I used to be surprised at how many believers are absolutely ashamed to admit that their beliefs are faith, but no more.
You used to be surprised? Well, I am currently surprised at how non-believers think that believers are the only ones playing the faith game...as if they are ignorant of the fact that the entire field of history is one big faith game. None of us were there...the only thing we can determine, or TRY to determine is what...based on the evidence, PROBABLY happened.
And historians just aren't divided on this issue, Parkers. The majority of all historians believe that based on the evidence, Jesus Christ existed.
I've provided both quotes and videos to back up my side of things...and I challenge you to find me one video or otherwise of someone stating a "majority historical opinion" on the con side of the question of Jesus of Nazareth' existence. And guarandamntee you would be able to do so...because that it just isn't there.
(November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: From the perspective of a nonbeliever, there are only two reasons for you to gussy up your faith in the trappings of science: you either wish to convince me, or you wish to convince yourself.
Whether or not I can convince you is questionable...but what isn't questionable is whether or not I will combat opposing views regarding Jesus Christ...that isn't questionable...and btw, I don't need to convince myself. I'm already convinced that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, and I will die believing that.
(November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: And if you wish to convince me, your dishonesty is going to torpedo that effort.
I don't think you want to be convinced that Jesus or God exists. If you wanted to be convinced, you wouldn't be arguing the notion of whether life can come from nonlife, and whether consciousness can come from unconsciousness...and you also would not be in denial about something as so simple as the existence of a man whom the world's largest religion originated from.
When you continue to argue against common sense, you are light years away from being convinced. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.
(November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: That's not methodolgy. That is data. Data which you have proved reticent to provide. Hell, if I had something as rock-solid as you claim to have, I'd be beating your face in with my numbers. The fact that you're hiding these numbers means that either they don't support your claim, or you just pulled your claim out of thin air. Which is it?
I never said I have statistical numbers, but I do a lot of research, a lot of reading, and time and time again I see the same thing from different people regarding Jesus...almost everyone is saying that the man existed. There is no historian (that I'm aware of) that speaks in broad terms to the left of this subject. All of these men, both believers and non-believers are saying that the vast majority of people within their fields of study believe that Jesus existed, and they wouldn't be making these kinds of statements if that isn't what the majority consensus is within the field.
(November 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: No. You've asserted that you can demonstrate the historicity of Jesus. In pursuing that intent, you've asserted that the "vast majority" of historians regard his existence as historical. I have asked you for supporting data.
Again, I never said I have stats...I am going by what those that are in the field are saying. Again, this is not saying that just because the majority believes it, it is true...this is saying that the majority of those in the field are persuaded by the sources that I provided...since you guys were attacking the sources.
