>There is no reasonable doubt that Jesus existed as a man in history. He was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 4 BC and died between AD 26-36. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere, was called Christos in Greek, had a brother named James, and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek. It is believed even from non-Christian sources that he had both Jewish and Gentile followers, and that Jewish leaders held unfavorable opinions of him. Although there are great differences (outside of the Gospels) trying to reconstruct the details of his life, the two events whose historicity is subject to “almost universal assent” are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate. There is no evidence from antiquity that the existence of Jesus was ever denied by those who opposed Christianity. It is also widely agreed as implausible that Christians invented him. Today nearly all historians, whether Christian or not, accept that Jesus existed. The claim that Jesus was simply made up can be debunked at every turn. The total evidence is overpowering.
He is mentioned by Tacitus (regarded as a responsible Roman historian), Josephus, Thallus (in about AD 50), Suetonius, Ignatius, Pliny the Younger, Mara bar Sarapion, Lucian, and in the 4 Gospels. John Crossan, a skeptic who denies the authenticity of just about everything in the Gospels, says, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
If that's all you've got, then you haven't shown your claims about him to be true and therefore logically the claims should be rejected. We have just as good of evidence for Mohammed. All that you've shown even if your claims are true is that there was a Jesus. That's about it. I'm sorry, but that's not exactly amazing claims that you've been able to substantiate. If this is the bar, then most religions will easily step right over it.
>Mike Licona says, "Of course they’re biased. They have an agenda. John is explicit about his bias. Every historian writes because they are interested in the subject. But bias doesn’t mean you’re wrong. If it were, then we can’t believe any Jewish historian who writes on the Holocaust, or any African-American writing about antebellum slavery. Too many elements of the gospels don’t come across as having been invented for the sake of bias (the disciples’ lack of faith, the testimony of women on resurrection, Jesus’ claiming his father had forsaken him, etc.). But elements in the gospels also show they are trying to report accurate history. Richard Dawkins has an objective, an agenda. Gerd Ludemann has an agenda. We don’t reject writings because the authors have an agenda, but because the arguments are insufficient. Even we as readers are biased."
I wasn't saying you're wrong because it has biases. I'm saying you can't claim that a lack of bias shows that your claims are true.
>This is patently untrue. Clement of Rome quotes from the Gospels in about AD 95, 65 years after Jesus' death. We have a fragment of John (P52) from about AD 125. As far as Matthew, Papias (AD 125) mentions his writings, as do Pantaenus and Irenaeus in the 2nd century. Ignatius of Antioch (about AD 100) quotes Matthew, as does the Didache and Polykarp, along with others. There is a fragment of Mark from AD 100-150. Papias also mentions the existence of his Gospel, and Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria (end of 2nd c.) say they knew of Mark's Gospel. Luke is quoted by Ignatius and Clement of Rome (AD 100), as well as by Polykarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, among others. There is so much more to add, but hopefully I've shown that you are incorrect about this statement of yours.
Ok, so they don't show up until about 65 years later... that doesn't sound terribly great for saying that your claims are actually true. I mean, all of these big events witnessed by so many people and all we've got is something showing up 65 years after Jesus's death? That's a bit... lacking don't you think? This doesn't seem like the kind of solid evidence that could justify incredible confidence that your god existed. At best it's evidence that your Jesus existed and died. That's not remarkable. You don't seem to have solid evidence of much here other than some rather unremarkable claims. Where's your solid evidence for the resurrection? Where's your solid evidence for the burning bush? Where's your solid evidence for the fall of man due to eating the forbidden fruit. Shouldn't we logically reject all of these claims unless/until such time as someone can present good solid evidence for them just like we reject the claim that Mohamed rode on a winged horse to the moon.
>I'm pretty sure we've already had the discussion that I take Genesis 1-2 as an account of functional creation, not of material creation. Possibly it's not the Bible that is hopelessly wrong, but you are insisting on taking it differently than it was written to be taken.
Does the bible say that I should take this as an alegory? Besides, "The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever” (Psalm 119:160, NKJV) There the bible claims that THE ENTIRETY of god's word is truth. Therefore if there are any errors of any kind in any way even to the slightest degree, then the book is not the word of god. It claims that THE ENTIRETY of god's word is truth. It's not all truth. Therefore it isn't god's word. It's just the word of man. It doesn't say the entirety of the word that isn't related to science is true. It says that the entirety of it is true. You can try to say that we shouldn't take that to mean that it's actually true but instead only true in the sense that the people at the time would have thought it to be true, but that's a long long stretch. The Bible says it. The Bible says that every word of it is true. I'm sorry, but when the Bible claims that the entirety of it is truth, it's hard to say that oh well it meant accept for all the science stuff in it and Noah's flood (there was no world-wide flood, sorry). I'm sorry, but the big claim of the bible is that it's the inerrant word of god. It contains EXACTLY what we'd expect it to have in it if it was just the word of man. Every word of it oozes with the kind of errors and the kind of morality that we'd expect it to have given that it was written by primitive man rather than the kind of moral superiority and scientific superiority that we'd expect it to have if it was written by god. Honestly, it seems to me that your evidence is lacking at best when it comes to backing up the claims that the bible makes when it comes to the super natural stuff.
Given that we have no solid evidence of a super natural resurrection. Given that the Bible claims that it is true in the entirety of it's word. Given that Noah's flood didn't happen (at least not in the form it's said to have in the Bible, there was a BIG flood, but not world wide). Which is a more logical conclusion: Jesus was the son of god and all of these incredible things happened and were seen by so many and yet so little evidence exists for it or Jesus was yet another guy of whom tall tales has been told just as there were tall tales told of Mohamed? Do you really have enough evidence for the super natural claims of the Bible to justify a high degree of confidence in it's claims that you believe in?