Thank you runner for demonstrating once more how ignorant biblical literalists deliberately appear to be.

Your parody of the ignorant creationist is so good, christianity needs no other detractors.

Rusty

Not necessarily an assumption, AndrewFinden.

>>No, I do not agree that it was written for such an audience, that is an unwarranted assumption<<

More an opinion.

But I suggest that - leaving aside the KKK analogy for a moment - it would be pretty pointless for a "Darwinist" to use a site such as this one...

http://www.earthexplained.com/

...as evidence against Young Earth Creationism:

Which was the only point I was making with the KKK reference anyway. One believer quoting another believer is simply wallpaper, not argument.

>>The onus is on you to show why ["canonical sources"] should be completely disregarded<<

I am not for a moment suggesting that they should be completely disregarded. They are after all historical artefacts, which also tell a story about the state of mind of the people who wrote them.

The only question that I raised about them was that their core content, describing the life and times of Jesus, contains material that is nowhere else corroborated.

Call it self-referential, if you prefer, since you dislike the concept of circularity.

Incidentally, I loved the throwaway line at the end of Hannan's site:

"In the end, if Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena [sic] than if he did."

That's a pretty solid each-way bet, right there!

Clearly, he hasn't done a great deal of research into the manner in which cults are formed.

Also, interestingly, he could have made the identical observation about Islam.

perridiclues..quote..<<One believer
quoting another believer
is simply wallpaper, not argument.>>

thats why i use science quotes to rebut evolution..of genus

evolution is RESTRICTED..within species
thus darewin..wrote evolution of species..[ie within species]
not evolution of NEW genus...as in no ape..into man

only finches into OTHER finches
seagulls into other seagulls
fruitflies into fruitflies
pigeons into pigeons

life only..comes from life
each AFTER THEIR OWN KIND

2 trillion fruitfly breedings
have produced..ONLY FRUITFLIES

the gap theory..is validated by the evidence
[there are less than ten..so called 'gap'..species..between genus

and none can be proved

the so called tre of life
is fraud...seems many same appearances..have differnt mutation paths

go lok at the tree of life
it has three guess'es..not proofs

the lie of matter forming life is also fraud
no combination of bits can ..nor has made life
its a theory..not a science

just the theory of mendalic inheitance
rebuts evolution of new genus..out of any species

the science dont say
what the math reveals fraud

however it was done
god alone knows

give ya proof

if you got science...specificlly state the first life
how it formed..and what it..'evolved'..into

AndrewFinden

Your repeated charges of ad hominem and spurious are tiresome, and laughable as you do the same.

You do not address the issues; you just appeal to authority.

I re-assert that there is scant non-biblical evidence for Jesus, and assert your claims of plenty of extra-biblical corroboration are unfounded, especially as the only extra-biblical mentions are about a century late, and even then are mostly just references to followers or what they said.

@Pericles
>"One believer quoting another believer is simply wallpaper, not argument."
-That's still ad hominem. It is an argument (the mainstream one actually) Just deal with it.

>"The only question that I raised about them was that their core content, describing the life and times of Jesus, contains material that is nowhere else corroborated. "
- That's still a case of asking for 'one more'. There are, at very minimum, three sources agreeing on the core material. Further, there are several more which corroborate existence, which is the issue here.

>"Call it self-referential, if you prefer, since you dislike the concept of circularity."
- It could only be self-referential if it was a single source, but it's not. That they were later collected into a single volume does not mean they are not still independent, separate sources. My point remains - even within the later-called 'canonical' sources, there is multiple attestation. And as I said, his existence is certainly corroborated by non-canonical sources too.

>""In the end, if Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena [sic] than if he did."

That's a pretty solid each-way bet, right there!"
- I think you've misunderstood it, for it is exactly what I've been arguing (and what that mainstream view is): there is no explanation of the church without an historical Jesus that has any credibility.

>"Clearly, he hasn't done a great deal of research into the manner in which cults are formed. "
-Seeing as it's the mainstream view, you are in effect arguing that the mainstream historical scholarship hasn't done its research, which is a pretty big call to make. In any case, most cults, and certainly ones which develop in the same kind of time frame and with the same kind of unanimity as the early church always have a charismatic figure at the centre as far as I'm aware.

>"Also, interestingly, he could have made the identical observation about Islam."
- no doubt; but how does that help your argument? You're not going to try and argue that Mohammed didn't exist either, are you?

@McReal

Pointing out the scholarly consensus is not a fallacious appeal to authority. It could be wrong, but you've yet to show that it is. The burden lies with you to do so. Further, not only have I pointed to the scholarly consensus, I've shown why they hold such.

The core of your argument is:
>"there is scant non-biblical evidence for Jesus"

You falsely assume that the numerous documents within what was later collected together as the NT and Bible are of no historical value. This is simply not how historians deal with it. Within the bible there are at very minimum, three independent documents that attest to Jesus' life and core events like the crucifixion(that they were later collated into the single volume of 'the bible' does not change their independence or value as sources). Further, you've done nothing to discount the consensus acceptance of the non-canonical corroborative references, relying merely on speculation and goal-shifting (pretending that the time-frame is unacceptable) to avoid them. And most of all, you've not offered anything to account for the existence of the early Christian movement, which most historians think is inexplicable without an historical Jesus. So not only is there sufficient textual attestation for Jesus' existence, but there is otherwise inexplicable phenomenon (that is, inexplicable without a great deal of ad hoc which Occam's razor does away with). It is for these reasons that almost no professional historians doubts the existence of Jesus, even if they reject the miracles.

The burden lies with you, and I've seen nothing that comes close to casting doubt on the existence of Jesus. You've ignored or outright dismissed the canonical sources, and I've read your arguments against the non-canonical sources and find them lacking- I'm not going to go around in circles again showing you why. If we don't agree, we don't agree.

If you find the evidence unpersuasive, fine - just be big enough to admit that it has the same kind of scholarly acceptance as things like YEC.