Yea...come on now.
Everything I post you say has been widely debunked yet it's be written and rewritten and agreed with for over 100+ years by anyone not subscribing to your faith.
Agreed with? Regardless of how I differ with Ehrman's conclusions about who Jesus was, there is little question that he is an expert on the historicity of Jesus. So, no, a fringe claim is not debunking. Neither does the age of a position, in and of itself, validate the position.
At this point we are just disagreeing over who's sources are more viable and to be honest if Jesus is or isn't a plagiarized story has very little to do with how most atheists have formed their opinion. Most of that information is discovered far later.
Many (I'd say most) atheist are products of a post modern world. They honestly believe they are thinking outside the box, not to realize that their humanist worldview is the result of indoctrination worse than what they ridicule people of faith for having.
For every source you sight I can sight one also and we will just both discount each others source.
If you say so. Crush asked you some specific questions about that, and instead of answering you present more objections. YOu didn't actually answer ANYTHING. What is sad is that Crush mentioned this old debate tactic in a prior post, and then you proceed to employ it just a few posts later.
Also it even matters less if Jesus did or did not exist. At least from my side of the argument, obviously not on yours. I think ROUST mentioned earlier he was a man from Palestine. Just a quick question; how many Palestinian Jesus pictures do you see? Why worship the blue eyed Jesus of Christianity and not the historical?
What? This is almost comical. It is not unusual for cultures to ascribe their own physical attributes to real historical characters.
What does that have to do with the historical facts that we do know? Again, John 5:24. Is Jesus asking people to trust His His eye color and hair color, or to trust His message?
Take Michelangelo's statue of David for example. Does his artisitic rendering impact whether David actually existed, or whether we can NOW posess a clear historical perspective of who David was? No.
FWIW, I don't worship Barry Gibb Jesus.
If I agree with every reason you posted as legitimate, every historical piece of data and citation you listed as well as count the bible as 100% completely factual can you explain to me where faith plays a role?
If you are familiar with the arguments, then this ought to be evident. The phrasing of your question indicates that you are likely misdefining biblical faith, and instead hold to faith as something blind and ignorant. I would recomend a word study of pisteuo. Jesus said it this way. John 5:24
In turn, you have faith that your sources are legit. I question whether you have actually studied the raw data on Mithra and Isis, but instead are just relying (faithing) on others opinions of the matter. You are placing your confidence in those things. That is faith in a nutshell, and EVERYONE does it. at least be an equal opportunity skeptic.
You may want to reread Genesis and explain to me how a god that can just make the sun, moon, earth, light ect ect just by willing it so or speaking it into being would choose to murder a world of people by drowning them? He couldn't have just been the merciful god he is and said "sleep"? Or was he not merciful until the new testament? I am sure there were some babies and toddlers drowning , lovely story that Noah's Ark.
This has already been discussed on the thread and answers offered. You aren't addressing the questions Crush posited to you. This is a debate tactic.
I'll also just quickly mention all the "kill every man, woman, child and livestock and burn down their crops ect ect in my name."
Don't quite recall if it was this thread or the evolution one, but I linked this...
Paul Copan - Articles
Copan has done a scholarly job of examining all the cultural idioms of the ancient near east (ANE). I doubt anything is going to be brought up on a sports forum that hasn't been better addressed by him. Suffice to say that this has already been a topic of discussion on the thread. I've even extended offers for others to start threads on specific topics where these things can be discussed without the constant rabbit trails. No one has yet to take me up on it.
Besides the point of my original post when I jumped into this was not to try and convince anyone to come to my side (and I sure as H E double hockey sticks wasn't coming over to yours) but to answer the question posed as to why atheists don't take Christianity seriously.
This thread is here for you to read. Serious answers have been offered and met with one line quips, platitudes and angry rhetoric. Now, I agree, there are several here on the Christian side who only do damage. The difference is that I have pointed this out on several occassions. Like I mentioned earlier, Percy responded to your post without actually having taken the time to investigate. I'd bet a day's wage that he is not familiar with the Mithra, Osiris, etc.. And I seriously doubt he knew who Bart Erhman was. I do. You were just as quick to challenge me, and yet it's find for the one-liner atheist to BLINDLY endorse those claims and sources as the infallible, inerrant, gospel truth? Nice. :clapping: But, are you here criticizing those on the atheism side who make it impossible to take atheists seriously? No.
