Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

OP: citing the Bible agreeing with the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true is what we call Circular Logic. Why do you believe it? Because it's true! Why do you think it's true? Because I believe it! And so on, and so on.

That's an incorrect assesment. NT Biblical books cite each other before they became bound together and accepted as scripture. They are written by a number of different authors - at least 8, and as many as 11.

There is NOT, as apologists like to claim, a welter of evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. There just isn't. This was a period in history in which records WERE kept, and NOWHERE other than in the Bible is the Jesus story mentioned. Sorry. Yes, there is apparently a mention of a rabbi named Yeshua in the writings of Josephus, but a. the authenticity of this passage is far from established (some historians dismiss it as having been inserted into the text some centuries later by Christian propagandists ) and b. so what? That's like historians 2000 years from now reading articles about BRUCE Springsteen and concluding that since there really were people called Bruce, then Batman was a historical character.

Oh please. The life and death of Jesus is very well documented. Compare this to Pontius Pilate - we found nothing at all written about him outside of the Bible, and yet he was supposed to be an important governor at the time of Jesus? The "Pilate Stone" was excavated in 1961 and was the first piece of evidence ever found, outside of the Biblical texts, that he was a real person.

Here's a short list of facts that virtually all historians who study this area agree on: 1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist., 2. He had disciples, 3. He was crucified, 4. Some of his disciples were martyred. If you're seriously going to disagree with any one of those 4 basic points, then you are going to have to provide sources because you'd be well outside of the general consensus among scholars and historians.

So no, we DON'T all concur that there really was a Jesus - although there may well have been - nor do we concur that he claimed divinity - though again, he may well have done. We're not dismissing these propositions out of hand but if you're seeking to class them as FACTS from which you can extrapolate other facts, then no. Sorry.

Of course, this is probably futile since the probability is that like most theist OPs on this forum, you won't return to discuss the objections to your proposition.

Oh really? The fact that you failed to raise a valid objection in the first place, makes me all the more certain that you can not back up your claim that Jesus never existed, can you?

---

"Probably" won't cut it lad. His supposed ministry was witnessed by thousands. And yet nothing survived, not even official Roman records.

Until you have some actual evidence, saying "probably" doesn't mean a damn thing.

No official Roman records of Pontius Pilate survived either, a fact I mentioned above, what's the difference?

---

Jesus makes a number of commands, most notably, sell all you have and give to the poor. Yet most self described Christians ignore the many verses that command that and don't follow Jesus.

Really? Where in the Bible does it say this?

[Esquilax]

No official Roman records of Pontius Pilate survived either, a fact I mentioned above, what's the difference?

Pontius Pilate never claimed he was the son of god.

[Aractus]

Because it appears they failed to write their experiences down anywhere.

I'm going to call you "captn Assumption" since your opinion seems to be, correct me if I'm wrong, "if I can't read it from another anonymous source then I assume that it could not have happened"?

---

Pontius Pilate never claimed he was the son of god.

But you didn't answer the question, why can't I read the official Roman records that record the activities of this governor??

[Esquilax]

But you didn't answer the question, why can't I read the official Roman records that record the activities of this governor??

That's a new question. The question I answered was what's the difference between writings on Pontius Pilate and Jesus.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

As I recall, the idea that jesus was pure myth has long been refuted and is no longer taken seriously by scholars. It is considered beyond doubt that Jesus was baptised by john and was crucified.

If you would like a non-biblical reference to jesus, how about this:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Tacitus, The Annals, Book 15 (44)

[Esquilax]

As I recall, the idea that jesus was pure myth has long been refuted and is no longer taken seriously by scholars. It is considered beyond doubt that Jesus was baptised by john and was crucified.

I happen to agree but also not care, so just take what I'm about to say next as the words of a finicky bastard and not someone trying to start an argument, okay?

If you would like a non-biblical reference to jesus, how about this:

Tacitus was born after Jesus died. Just saying.

[Zen Badger]

As I recall, the idea that jesus was pure myth has long been refuted and is no longer taken seriously by scholars. It is considered beyond doubt that Jesus was baptised by john and was crucified.

If you would like a non-biblical reference to jesus, how about this:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Tacitus, The Annals, Book 15 (44)

Even if this were true, so what?
Without the miracles and the resurrection, Jesus is just another itinerant Jewish preacher annoying the fuck out of people.
And if he's not the son of god then your religion is still a lie.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Tacitus was born after Jesus died. Just saying.

You're preaching to the choir (well, so to speak) I just thought I'd be nice to the believers

[xpastor]

[Minimalist]

Do you believe these other miracle stories?

I am going to guess "no," X-P.