Scientists slowly proving the bible is right.

Quote from stu:

It's been explained why your ridiculous comments hold no water. The only response you have is to keep repeating them. That's why you're an idiot.
Correction, one reason.
More...



stu vs. the dictonary.
stu vs. nobel prize winners
stu vs. scholars

Note...

did you see that second quote I gave you ... it references the encyclopedia of disbelief.... you know your people referencing secular scholars...


# ^ For example, see Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145. He writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically." -

* Wells, G. A. "Jesus, Historicity of." in The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief, ed. Tom Flynn. Prometheus, 2007, p. 446: "Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive figure. They are aware that much that is said of him, and by him, in the New Testament is no longer taken at face value even by scholars within the mainstream churches, who either discount much of its material as inauthentic, or justify it by more novel interpretations."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory


see also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[59] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[60][Need quotation to verify] As such, New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[61]


note - there are no challenges at the top of the article calling it biased.... so if one goes up after I post this it will be strikingly similar to the one that went up last time after we had this debate....
 
Quote from jem:

That is what is so funny, you are the one who makes ridiculous comments without any support

I do not ask you to believe me I cite to nobel prize winners and scholars.

stu vs. the dictonary.
stu vs. nobel prize winners
stu vs. scholars
stu vs wikipedia
More...

You repeat your own altered versions of what people don't say. Just like those ancient christian interpolators, the truth comes secondary to your beliefs.


jem vs. consciousness
jem vs. sanity
jem vs. rationality
jem vs. reality
 
did you see that second quote I gave you it references the encyclopedia of disbelief... I guess you are calling them christians too..... " -

* Wells, G. A. "Jesus, Historicity of." in The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief, ed. Tom Flynn. Prometheus, 2007, p. 446: "Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive figure. They are aware that much that is said of him, and by him, in the New Testament is no longer taken at face value even by scholars within the mainstream churches, who either discount much of its material as inauthentic, or justify it by more novel interpretations."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory
 
Quote from stu:

In ALL the voluminous historical records, there is no attestation whatsoever from any writer, recorder or scholar living at the time Christ is supposed to have lived. That is a big problem for christian apologetics - whether they be scholars or not, to get over.


More...

Yes there is, problem being you won't accept them.

Stu's defense....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk
 
Quote from jem:

did you see that second quote I gave you it references the encyclopedia of disbelief... I guess you are calling them christians too..... " -

* Wells, G. A. "Jesus, Historicity of." in The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief, ed. Tom Flynn. Prometheus, 2007, p. 446: "Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive figure. They are aware that much that is said of him, and by him, in the New Testament is no longer taken at face value even by scholars within the mainstream churches, who either discount much of its material as inauthentic, or justify it by more novel interpretations."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory
More...

What's that supposed to be, your concession?
It's a piss poor argument in defence for Jesus the Jewish Wonder Worker.
 
Quote from stu:

What's that supposed to be, your concession?
It's a piss poor argument in defence for Jesus the Jewish Wonder Worker.
More...

the encyclopedia of disbelief apparently states most secular scholars accept the historicity of Jesus.

That is what this argument is about.

You have been making the absurd argument that only Christian scholars accept the historicity of Jesus.

No one is arguing proof of divinity or miracles.... that is new misdirection from you.
 
Quote from stu:

In ALL the voluminous historical records, there is no attestation whatsoever from any writer, recorder or scholar living at the time Christ is supposed to have lived. That is a big problem for christian apologetics - whether they be scholars or not, to get over.

More...

There are at least 3 that attested to Christ that lived when he lived....they are named matthew,mark and luke.
 
Quote from jem:

the encyclopedia of disbelief apparently states most secular scholars accept the historicity of Jesus.

That is what this argument is about.

You have been making the absurd argument that only Christian scholars accept the historicity of Jesus.

No one is arguing proof of divinity or miracles.... that is new misdirection from you.
More...
You do realize do you , stating "most secular scholars accept the historicity of Jesus" , doesn't make it so?

You should realize too by now, that repeating over and over a few dodgy remarks said to have been written hundreds of years after the supposed life of Christ by people who were not even there, and who could not have found any established historical evidence for a Christ even if they wanted to , does not work as historical evidence.

I'll say it again as you are notoriously so slow.

There is no historical evidence of whatsoever from secular scholars or from religious apologist scholars ANYWHERE that authenticates an historical Jesus.
No one has ever shown that the character Christ ever historically existed and certainly not so as claimed by any christian, scholar or not.

There's no ambiguity. Astonishing as it may seem to you, there is actually NOTHING which historically confirms Jesus once lived or existed in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top