[Deleted. Refers to thread above.]

[Deleted. See above.]

[Deleted. See above.]

[Deleted. See above.]

@ AndrewFinden

88 You keep trotting out a spurious ad hominem accusations, when I have not attacked anyone other that saying biblical scholars (such as NT Wright) have confirmation bias: that is not ad hom in the context of discussing bias in a grey area such as biblical historicity, given the lack of verification for it.

"I'm absolutely certain that historians consider it an important corroborative source." - some might, but but to claim all do is spurious, and such claims are not based on objective analysis such as what a well-designed survey of Christian and secular historians might provide.

"If his existence is 'reasonably;' well documented by ancient sources" - but it is not - the argument there is scant evidence for Jesus is valid and sound.

"I don't question the existence of Ron L Hubbard either, actually." The point I made was not about Jesus v Ron Hubbard, but in relation to your point Christianity was valid because its "founder" was considered real. Using *your* spurious argument, that makes Scientology valid.

AJ Phillips has addressed the issue of an objective Historical Method - here is another

http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm

In summary - I stated "There is no evidence for Jesus of the Bible outside the Bible narrative".

You weighed in with spurious comments re appeal to authority, ad hom, and shifting the goal posts, which ironically you have done, repeatedly.

* I might even consider Jesus existed, despite the lack of non-biblical evidence.

In the context of the changing texts of the canon over a couple of centuries, and changes form the early texts to the current bibles, as well as the failure to verify form other sources, the supernatural claims are implausible.

@AJPhilips
>"Better? How could they possibly get any worse?"
- Easily - they could be from centuries later.

>"a series of major events that directly intersect their lives enough for us to say, “Yeah, this guy probably existed”"
-That would in fact be the argument that most historians find most persuasive regarding Jesus.

>"Oh it certainly does ... the historical method agrees with me.."
- Thanks for the link. Backfires on you though - just read all that stuff about multiple sources!

>"Actually, considering the extent of the emotions behind religious belief that I had described when talking about biases, yes, I can"
- Ah - now we see your own bias. And you falsely assume that all biblical scholars are emotional and religious, further, you've already demonstrated that you're inconsistent, quoting RT France when it suits you (and ignoring the fact that he is one of the most outspoken opponents of the Jesus Myth theory). Again - for it NOT to be fallacious you must show where bias has actually occurred. General claims of 'bible scholar = biased' IS fallacious ad hominem.

The rest of your objection turns into nothing but conspiracy theory about how scholars simply accept an historical Jesus because they don't want to rock the boat. So what about Bart Ehrman?

>"Could you rattle off a few names?"
- How about Pontius Pilate? Complete absence of Roman reference, and a single piece of archaeological evidence only turned up in 1961. Or Alexander the great? The five surviving sources all date from centuries later (and you want to squabble about decades?)

And that's the point - you goal-shift in asking for more and earlier sources that the several we already have, and you offer no plausible explanation for the emergence of the Christian church, you have no explanation as to why, if it was a myth, there is no evidence of development, objection or competing account. Further, you dismiss the scholarly consensus with ad hominem and conspiracy theory. If that works for you, fine.. just don't expect too many people to actually buy it.