The C.C.O.I. (Christian Cult Of Ignorance) and Willful Ignorance

That lame argument does not fly. We have libraries of contemporary historical evidence for Julius Caesar. There is absolutely nothing for a historical Jesus Christ.

Who are these authors? Do you know their names? If so it was your evidence for that attribution? When did they write they the stories? Who or what were their sources? What else did they write so we can check their accuracy and reliability?

I think it is the beginning of Mark. Not sure chapter and verse. Dont feel like reading mythology right now.

It is actually Mark 1:15.The time has come, he said. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!

Missed that post sorry.

Missed that post sorry.

Actually they are probably both interpolations. Probably additions and changes by later christian scribes. Even if they are not, they are not evidence, they are just hearsay. Not direct evidence of your jesus.At best he was reciting things learned from gospels. Basically worthless information historically. His information has no effect on the probability of historicity, or myth for that matter.

Have you even read Carrier? Has anyone said he is absolutely correct? He is by far not the only scholar to present convincing evidence and arguments that these are interpolations. Do you have any evidence to show they are not? Attack the evidence not the person presenting the evidence.I know you like to skirt around the edges but your link is laughable. It is not a critique of his book or his arguments as a whole it is a critique of a web article and the main criticism is that he doesn't argue the way this writer wants him to. In a lot of ways Mr. Akin's article is ad hominem attacks against carrier. Ehrman goes the same route. Read what carrier actually writes not what an apologist thinks he wrote.If you cannot put forth logical responses and evidence to counter, on your own, don't bother. I have read both sides extensively. There is no contemporary evidence for historical Jesus Christ. If you have it present it.Edited by Theodoric, : Minor spelling and formattingEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

So you attack Carrier and I and you have nothing to back it up.Typical.

Of course it is about evidence. I posted that the Josephus and Tacitus references about your Jesus are probably not legitimate. You responded with a snide comment about a historian that you assumed was my source. It was actually an ad hominem against him and I. Against him that he has some sort of agenda and against me because you accused me of somehow blindly following him. Carrier is one of a few reputable historians I have read. He and the rest have reasoned, well argued arguments fo their positions. You have faith.If you are going to make attacks be prepared to back them up or don't make them.Now, do you have any argument to show that the Josephus and Tacitus lines are original to them? Are you familiar with any of the scholarship on the issue? Or do you blindly believe their legitimacy because they back your religious beliefs?Why do you feel a personal attack because someone presents solid evidence and reason that counters your belief system? When you blindly attack you look silly and unconfident in your beliefs. You criticize Jar but he is at least intellectually honest about his beliefs and how they relate to verifiable reality.Don't attack me because you beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny.

So even if they are not interpolations neither are evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus Christ. All it is is hearsay. Edited by Theodoric, : forgot second "they"Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.