What part was difficult for you?
Ah, I get it. The only evidence is what the Christian holy book says.
Then no, you don't get it. I didn't say the only support for the historical being of Jesus was found in the Bible, but began by noting your bias/agenda at the outset in your error of description without context, an error you continue here to no real effect. The Bible wasn't a discovered book, chair. And you know that as well as I do, making your declaration on that point all the more revelatory.
To a Christian, who believes in Christian holy book, this make perfect sense.
Rather, it makes sense to anyone who understands the Bible is a compilation of writings by different men over time. It's as though I gathered different reports by witnesses to an accident and stapled the whole together. Now you scoff at the collection and say, "What have you other than that book to prove the accident happened?"
Now, bear with me a minute, and try real hard to think what this means to a non-Christian.
When you pen something that is remotely challenging for me I'll let you know to slow down. Until then, just take breaks and pat yourself directly on the back between posts. No need for a middle man.
Why in the world would I, or any other non-Christian, accept your holy book as factual?
In what respect? As historical narrative? Because it is written in the time by those experiencing the events and rewritten over time to preserve it; because it is internally consistent in the sense you'd look for in witnessing had you any experience with it; because it doesn't exist in a vacuum, but is supported by other historically verifiable facts, including the writings of early church fathers.
Do you accept the Koran, or Book of Mormon, or the ancient holy texts of the Hindus?
As what? That is, I don't wonder after whether or not Islam's prophet existed, or Smith, or the writers of the Upanishads. And, like Lewis, I find a great deal of reflected truth in them. If you've read Lewis on the true myth of Christianity you should have a good grasp of what I mean. If you don't, I'd suggest it.
If pointing to the "claims and growth of the religion in the relatively uncrowded, backwater region where it began " is any kind of evidence, then we all better convert to Islam ASAP, since it beats Christianity hands down in this regard.
You're conflating the issue of historical truth with the question of the larger truth. I wouldn't offer the above to settle the latter. That remains a matter between man and God and will never find an objective methodology, though there is an offer on the table regarding experience and proof in the only manner possible and satisfactory for any individual. And men are free to approach and consider that or not.
I will ignore your "fringe cry" but- there is no real argument there at all.
Self evidently untrue and beneath you, chair. :e4e:
