My Defense of Christianity.

[CBA222]

Look, I'm not gonna explain how the Historian got, cause does it really matter? It says it right there, the modern world agrees that Jesus exists. All the historians agree, so it's pretty much indisputable. I don't know much. But I do the majority of historians agree that Jesus exists. And I do know they aren't stupid with their research and they do their job correctly, plus it's a majority. You see, it doesn't matter HOW they got it, if they all say it is I'm pretty sure it's fact. Perhaps you got your facts wrong? Seriously the wiki article says it right there "Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted."

[Gambit]

One last thing

From the Wiki article you linked:

Quote:
see less value in the letter, given its uncertain date, and the possible ambiguity in the reference.

see it as having little or no historical value.

there is no overall scholarly agreement about their impact on the historicity of Jesus

but its usefulness in determining the historicity of Jesus is uncertain.

they have little historical value, given that the wording of the original writings can not be examined.

not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to rebuff pagan sources.

What do you know, it seems these sources are disputable after all.

Go figure....

And also from the wiki article.

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.

most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.

Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence

Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

I don't care how they knew it, all I know is they're professional historians and they know how to do their job and that is what they came up with.
Jesus was a real guy, I am not saying this because of the Bible, I am very sure he was a real historical figure.

Whether Jesus existed, matters not. You still have to prove that any of the divine qualities attributed to him were true.

So, let's break this down:

Can you prove Jesus' divinity?
Can you prove he performed any miracles?
Can you prove he came back from the dead?
Can you prove that the OT writer's didn't take preexisting prophecies and slot them in to fit their agenda?
Can you present God, as a tangible, testable and verifiable entity?
Can you prove that any NDE experience involved angels, heaven or hell?

Unless you can prove any of those things and the many other truth claims made by theists, all you're selling here are unsubstantiated fables that you expect us to accept as true, with nothing more than anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

And before you ask me to prove that they didn't happen or aren't true, here's one last challenge for you: I am God, prove that I am not.

[Cyberman]

You, sir, are an artist!

A bullshit artist.

I was thinking piss-artist, but we're on the same wavelength.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I don't care how they knew it, all I know is they're professional historians and they know how to do their job and that is what they came up with.

Yup, a 'true 'Christian' alright; believes what any authority figure says without the inconvenience of engaging his cerebral cortex.

He has actually managed to replace Undeceived as head village idiot.

[The Grand Nudger]

Look, I'm not gonna explain how the Historian got, cause does it really matter?

Yes.....?

It says it right there, the modern world agrees that Jesus exists.

The modern world also believes in fairies to a very high degree of conformity.

All the historians agree, so it's pretty much indisputable.

Except those that don't, making it disputable, even on your highly flawed grounds.

I don't know much. But I do the majority of historians agree that Jesus exists. And I do know they aren't stupid with their research and they do their job correctly, plus it's a majority.

How do you know all of this? Wouldn't it be so much easier to make reference to their evidence, rather than judge the individual credentials of every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an opinion on Jesus?

You see, it doesn't matter HOW they got it, if they all say it is I'm pretty sure it's fact.

I've got some beachfront property to sell you.

Perhaps you got your facts wrong? Seriously the wiki article says it right there "Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted."

Argument by brute force of wiki and avoidance of objections. Bravo. This is incredibly tiring...I'm starting to think that maybe your experts don't actually have any evidence for me to consider.....

[Minimalist]

Look, I'm not gonna explain how the Historian got, cause does it really matter?

Yes.

[Undeceived]

Can you prove Jesus' divinity?
Can you prove he performed any miracles?
Can you prove he came back from the dead?
Can you prove that the OT writer's didn't take preexisting prophecies and slot them in to fit their agenda?
Can you present God, as a tangible, testable and verifiable entity?
Can you prove that any NDE experience involved angels, heaven or hell?

Unless you can prove any of those things and the many other truth claims made by theists, all you're selling here are unsubstantiated fables that you expect us to accept as true, with nothing more than anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

Can you prove Julius Caesar was assassinated?
Can you prove Aristotle was born in Stagira?
Can you prove Plato wrote the works he is alleged to have?
This is history. You can't expect to use the scientific method on historical people and events. We have written testimonies instead.

Do you, Gambit, believe Julius Caesar was assassinated?

[CaseyTheAthie]

Source good sir: http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...hap16.html

---

Appears I have posted it late. Sorry, the internet here is pretty much just crap.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but this site seems to get a lot of stuff wrong - starting with the spelling of names. I only read the section on Krishna and it seems like the author is pulling the whole thing out of his ass. He got the name of the holy texts wrong, the manner of Krishna's birth, life and death wrong and got the purpose of incarnation wrong as well. And he called Orissa a country. As sources go, you could do much better.

Hey man, my bubble isn't burst. I did notice the misspelling hence the changing of some of it that I knew was wrong. Didn't realize it went that far off and I apologize. It's what I get for a quick search and go type thing.

[FallentoReason]

Look, I'm not gonna explain how the Historian got, cause does it really matter? It says it right there, the modern world agrees that Jesus exists. All the historians agree, so it's pretty much indisputable. I don't know much. But I do the majority of historians agree that Jesus exists. And I do know they aren't stupid with their research and they do their job correctly, plus it's a majority. You see, it doesn't matter HOW they got it, if they all say it is I'm pretty sure it's fact. Perhaps you got your facts wrong? Seriously the wiki article says it right there "Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted."

Maybe it's time to teach you what your own Bible says.

Ephesians 3:4,5
4When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.

Galatians 1:11,12
11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

I've been trying to get an answer to this for a while but everyone dodges the question. Why are the early Christians talking about Jesus as if he was a spiritual being? Both these verses don't even bother mentioning his glorious 3 year ministry. Instead they collectively say the gospel came from no man but through the spirit. Oh really? That's an incredibly harsh thing to say after all that Jesus went through.

P.s. it would really help if you brought up real arguments instead if resorting to fallacies like appealing to authority and the masses. If you think that's good enough then how about this: the majority of the world doesn't believe in Christianity so you must be wrong.

[Minimalist]

Can you prove Julius Caesar was assassinated?

Historians:

Lucius Cassius Dio Cocceianus

Gaius Suetonius Tranquilus

Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus

Appian of Alexandria

Marcus Velleius Paterculus

Publius Annius Florus

Politicians:

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Gaius Octavius Caesar

Writers:

Publius Vergilius Maro

All of the above mentioned the assassination of Julius Caesar in one context or another.

Try to stop looking like a complete horse's ass every time you open your fucking mouth. The first thing you need to do is stop believing all the shit that idiot apologists put out to con fools like you.