Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?

[Mudhammam]

Are you denying that the facts I mentioned are accurate?

WHAT FACTS HAVE YOU MENTIONED AS BEING ACCURATE?

I'm waiting for even a short list.

---

He's an atheist, stop with this childish "your bible" crap and act like an adult for once.

Doesn't seem like one.

Are you trying to come across as a POE or is it unintentional?

---

Maybe we should all agree on a definition of fact?
For example, there are references in the gospels to the culture, geography, architecture, etc. Some of those references can be tested against other written accounts, modern archaeological knowledge, etc.
It seems like you are looking for facts about Jesus - not just facts?

You have to remember that for most believers, "fact" means "what I believe".  They don't really care if their beliefs are true, they'll just desperately twist and turn things to try to justify believing in it.  They always have a double standard in play.  I've pointed out that credible historians demand multiple independent accounts for historical tales. Christians don't have that, therefore they just ignore it and pretend that they can get away with whatever they do have because, in their minds, they simply cannot be wrong.  There are standards for a reason, they cannot meet the standards, but neither can they admit that their belief system fails in any test.

Remember, the discussion is not about Christian belief. I think that has been repeated about a dozen times.

---

Are you denying that the facts I mentioned are accurate? Or are you admitting that the Bible contains factually accurate information sometimes, but only like "Gone With The Wind" does, even though you just assert this because, well, who knows? What's your evidence that a single author (not to mention the dozens we actually have to work with) only intended to write a novel? It would be nice if you could start to present that evidence or just admit that you take an extreme view of dismissing everything in the Bible because it was not written from a modern perspective that clearly distinguishes history and fiction for the people too lazy to do the hard work of scholarship.

Just because the Bible gives factually accurate information sometimes doesn't mean that all information it contains is factually accurate.  Do you think the creation story is factually accurate?  Do you think the flood story is factually accurate?  Do you think the miracle stories of Jesus are factually accurate?  There are things in the Qur'an that are accurate too. Does that make the whole thing accurate?

Nobody cares about the Bible, they care about the evidence.  Historians operate by using multiple independent historical sources.  Where are your multiple independent historical sources for the things claimed in the Bible?  Let us know when you find some.

LOL. First, nobody said "all information it contains is factually accurate." So, what are you talking about? Second, those other examples aren't relevant. There is no historian who treats those events as historical per biblical criticism, for one, because we know the creation and flood stories went through thousands of years of development and second, the documents were written much, much later than the events they purport to describe. And miracles can't be judged on the basis of the methods employed by historians. Everyone knows this. Literally. Go buy a book on history or spend about five minutes on the internet doing research so I don't have to explain common knowledge, please, and thank you. Third, as everyone also knows, the Bible is not one document. It's a collection of manuscripts, of various genres, by various writers. There's your multiple, independent sources, not including Josephus and Tacitus or extra-biblical material. Anything else?

---

Please, everyone, try to use your brains just a little here. It would save me a lot of unnecessary correction.