good point andrew..

just because the works..[first person witness]..
has been collected into one book..
does not invalidate them..as sepperate proofs

then there are the other testmonies not included in the book
like the johanine aprocrathies...the church rejected..in joining the formal texts into the one book...they each would need to be individually be proved fraud

and no one has..in part of in total
so those who hate religeon..attack that collectivly
that they cant refute individually

also obvious in its not being presented
is my request of preodicules

quote..<<give ya proof

if you got science...>>
make specific science based claim...

<<specificlly state..
the first life
how it formed..
and what it..'evolved'..into>>

thing is science..*dont know
but it has theories

the whole lie of evolution..
into new genus..is fraud

simply speaking

science has never done it
never..reported it having been done

has no clue how god done it

cant say what first abio-genus...formed life..by accident
nor name the non living bits that they claim...done it
cant replicate it...dont know

but gfools..claiming science minds
delude they have...but this is their delusion

athiestic disbelief stands on phantom foundations
colluded frauds...and gross misrepresentations
a classic case of the blind..leading the blind

evolution...lol..the science...that you got
when you got facts
that dont fit the theory

thats why its taught to children..
before they learn to think..

its so pathetic
the silence speaks volumes

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

We agree on that!
...........................

"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."

I said -
Virtually all references in contemporary historians (Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Tacticus, Suetonius) were

(i) to "Chrestus", "Christus", "Christos" (or other such names meaning at the time 'anointed one', or 'useful' as was often applied to servants or slaves)*, or

(ii) to his followers - often called "Christianos" (Tacticus).

(iii) That Josephus mentions Jesus does not point to his existence.

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

.......................

"I've seen nothing that comes close to casting doubt on the existence of Jesus"

I provided this link - http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm - and it would be appropriate for you to comment on its content, and perhaps these

R. T. France concludes that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians. Charles Guignebert argued "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".

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

Rhian said "I accept that there are scholars who doubt Jesus' historical existence" (Saturday, 18 December 2010 11:27:44 AM)
.........................

"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."

Are you saying YEC has scholarly acceptance?
.......................

"Within the bible there are at very minimum, three independent documents that attest to Jesus' life and core events like the crucifixion"

You must know the 2-source hypothesis is the most accepted - Matthew & Luke were derived from Mark and Q; or, Mark and Luke were derived from Matthew and Q.

Moreover, the end of Mark - most of the references to the crucifiction in it - were later additions: they were not on Codex Sinaiticus, either.

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

We agree on that! <<

i.e. we agree what my argument is, not that we agree on that point.

get real macreal

quote..<<R. T. France concludes
that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians.>>lol

ie figments of his imagination

fairies at the bottom of the garden?

who are these crhistians..real of not real

if not real
who imagined THEM...lol

<<Charles Guignebert argued>>..cos he loved to argue

but if he argued that there was no christ
where from did come..them christians tacitus quoted
[his imagenry xtians?]

cg argued..<<"So long as there is that possibility
[that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying],..the passage remains quite worthless".>>.

mate thats unreal mc real
you cant be as thick as your sounding

let me explain
by changing names

as long as pericules..is mearly echoing
that charles darwin was saying

what he is quoting..is as worthless as your quotes

im fine with you decieving yourself
but what your saying is crazy...like some say on this forum

take ya meds
get real
mcreal

Greetings all. I am back refreshed from a break away from technology. I have a couple of outstanding responses to offer.

Pericles : re encounter: Paul v the disciples in the upper room. Read again my post 20th Dec 3.27PM The Resurrection is not a resuscitation.

A.J.Philips: re the workings of faith and reason.
This is a particular area of erudition exercised by Pope Benedict XVI and flowing from his vast theological works and observations of the world as we know it, in particular addressing the growing irrationality of social and political behaviour in the liberal West.
His initial reference point is the Prologue of St John’s Gospel, which in my view is one of the finest pieces of literature that exists-: In the beginning was the Word [Logos]. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be. What came to be through Him was life, and this life was the light of the human race. (John 1:1-4). And, of course, the Word became flesh in Jesus Christ – the Incarnation.
Benedict asserts that Christianity is the religion of the Logos, with Logos in Greek philosophy being the rational origin of all reality – the creative reason from which the world came forth and which is reflected in the world.

Reason is within nature – the intelligibility of the universe – which makes the universe and nature apprehendable to the human intellect and thus legitimate objects of study. This endowment of reason from the Creator God provides the ends and purpose of the whole of creation from a Big Bang willed into being.

Benedict places this rich reasonableness of the revealed truths of the Creator God in stark contrast to the harsh cold irrationality in the consequences flowing from the Secularist ( Note: not secular) social, economic and political movements that locate reason as a by-product of a Big Bang that lacks the Logos and thus devoid of an intrinsic purpose and ends within an intelligible universe...(Cont..)

Faith conjoined with reason proceeding from the Logos seeks truth, desires the good and delights in beauty. It meets reason beyond the measurable, the finite and the repeatable.

The pathologies of faith and reason that materialise as untruth, evil and ugliness to diminish the human, require restraint from the other.

Faith in Jesus Christ, as the Son of God the Risen Lord, causes offence to reason which is simply the by-product of an irrational event. However, within the understanding of the Logos, such faith sets the path of life with new horizons and direction for those who have knocked, sought or asked, at whatever time in life.

A fine book on this is The Social and Political Thought of Benedict XVI by Thomas R. Rourke – Professor of Politics at Clarion University USA. I conclude with a quote:

“ If the Logos is rejected, then reason and truth are rejected as well. In other words, if the foundation of reality is an explosion of occurring for no particular purpose or end in mind, then reason itself is no more than a mere by-product of this essentially irrational event. In such a universe, primacy goes to the irrational event that is the foundation of all, and reason would have no ultimate basis. For this reason Benedict believes that Christianity is a philosophic power that needs renewal. Ultimately, there are two choices here, one of which is that the universe proceeds from an irrational source, making reason a by-product…… or the world proceeds from reason [Logos] …… For Benedict this is the only choice that preserves reason’s exalted position, and clearly Christianity provides the firm foundation for this fundamental position.”
Page34 Chp3 : Revelation, Reason and Politics.