I simply wrote that I weigh the evidence of those who came before me and decided for myself based on reasoning such evidence. If that is arrogant to humbly admit that I'm not a historian and thus I must lean on the evidence of others then so be it. The real problem you have is that I didn't come to your conclusion. Thus I seem arrogant to stick to what I have already researched. So you assume that the only way someone could believe in that the Gospels are true or primary sources is if they blindly follow something that they were told as a child since they didn't come to your conclusion. Is your definition of humility really that everyone thinks just like you? Could there ever be the possibility that someone could research something and come to a different answer than you?

Since you have trouble with wordplay and analogies, I'll just break what I said down into a list.

Me: Research based on others, understands limitations, admits topics are controversial
You: Knows all the answers, knows topics are settled

So what you're telling me is that I can only believe that the Gospels are valid if I time travel and validate them myself? That I can't simply look at the research of those who believe Christianity is true (Kenneth Samples, Bill Craig, Hugh Ross, Clive Lewis, etc...) and those who do not believe Christianity is true (Lawrence Krauss, Bart Ehrman, Richard Dawkins, etc...) and decide which way I think the evidence points? Don't you think your criteria is a bit much?

If that is your criteria on believing something is true, I'm not sure how you can sleep at night wondering whether atoms will stick together since you have not validated the four fundamental forces of nature yourself. How do you get on with your day with the thoughts of whether or not you existed five minutes prior plaguing your mind. The answer is that you believe those things because you've researched the evidence of others and/or you hold on to some properly basic beliefs.

Now you've asked, "Who would Jesus smear?" Great question. He would refer to the proud and arrogant as dogs or vipers. He said things like, "I didn't come to save the 'righteous'". He called it like it is.

And just to clarify, I understood you were attempting to trap me by changing the question from "Who validated that Jesus exists" to "Why do you believe in the Gospels". But I answered you anyway. So let's not pretend the two questions are the same. Obviously my personal belief has no impact on whether or not Jesus existed just as my personal belief on how far I can throw a baseball has nothing to do with the physics of throwing a baseball.

Asking me why I believe something to be true is very different from asking why I believe Jesus is a validated to have existed by mainstream historians. And the answers are very different. If you want names of non-Christian historians, how about starting with someone like "Bart Ehrman"? While I obviously disagree with Bart's conclusions, I would point out that he is one of many examples of non-Christian historians who affirm the existence of Jesus.

In regards to being a student of religion, I'm guessing it means that you've taken or are taking some "religious studies" class at a college or university. I've gone through school as well. So I've experienced how these professors talk: "We know..." "But it was later discovered..." and so on... It is a clear bias where they disingenuously teach their students controversial things as if the issue has been settled. And then students get puffed up thinking that they now have knowledge that these silly uneducated Christians don't.

As far as me being "nebulous" by using words like "mainstream historians", that's fine since this isn't a scholarly paper. I would encourage you to research these topics yourself. I already understand that I cannot convince you since I'm just words from a random guy online. It does me no good to present a case where you've already rejected the premises.

Now to answer your question regarding certainty of faith in the Gospels (which again is very different from the original question being debated), it's for the same reason I have faith in physics. People much smarter than me have already hashed out the issues of physics and I've experienced the effects of physics on my life. Similarly people have already hashed out the issues of Christianity and I've experienced the effects of Christ in my life. So I choose to believe the scholars that corroborate with my experience. I could give you examples, but you'll counter with "affirmation bias", right? The idea that I have to prove something for myself rather than being okay with the research of experts who came before me is silly. I don't have to know how the strong force works for me to believe that protons and neutrons hang out together in a nucleus of an atom. I don't have to prove that for myself. Someone else already researched it and the fact that chemistry happens corroborates their research. So I admit that I accept the research of experts.

In philosophy they call these properly basic beliefs. Did you exist 5 minutes ago? Sure. Can you prove it? No. It's a properly basic belief.

I assume English isn't your native language. So I'll try to clarify some concepts you have missed. What I was trying to say is that there is research out there that discuss the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. All I'm saying is that I accept the research of mainstream historians. And when you counter with "This doesn't count" or "That doesn't count". Then I admit only that I do not have a source that would satisfy you. Which makes sense since you feel that nothing counts and the question has been settled. "What we know about the Gospels"? Really? Where'd you get that from? Wikipedia?

I cannot present to you something that does not already researched since I do not claim to have secret knowledge or documents that academia does not already have. And even if I did, "it wouldn't count". I could literally youtube the crucifixion and you would say, "If only you knew what we know. That was some other guy."

You are free to research the arguments for the historicity of Jesus just as you have already gone out of your way to "prove" to yourself that Jesus never existed. I can read wikipedia and counter-apologetic blogs to. I am quite aware of the gyrations people go through to deny the existence of Jesus. I simply choose to go with the research that mainstream historians have presented instead.

To put it another way, if we were talking about "climate change" your position is analogous to the position of the "climate change denier". Many scientist claim that the climate was changing, yet there are those out there who have an excuse for every bit of data presented.

Simply put what you're asking for in a /. post is me to copy and paste volumes of literature to counter what you've read on the Internet just so you can say, "It doesn't count."

Actually a better substitute question would be, Most modern scientists agree that the climate is changing. Do you see it now? I will give you a hint: There are detractors from facts when facts have consequences. It's the same reason why some people deny the holocaust. Believing in Caesar's existence has no consequences, believing that Jesus didn't exists does.

Where the heck did I hear about atheists discouraging atheists from saying silly things like "Jesus is Fictional"? I don't know. How about this blog for starters? Or how about this non-Christian historian? The better question is how does your painting cross thing even relate to anything?

Jesus performed miracles and people did not believe him. God delivered the Israelites from slavery from Egypt through wondrous miracles and they quickly forgot about him. So I doubt I, a mere stranger on the Internet, could present to you any evidence that would allow you to believe that there was a man named Jesus who lived in the first century and was crucified.

I've given you the evidence that historians, even atheist historians, use to assert that a man named Jesus existed. Namely that there are many accounts written about him. Rejecting evidence to come to a less probable answer is your choice. If you reject solid evidence then I concede that I have no case. Just as if the judge rejected the claim that there was a car wreck despite having six different (and perhaps contradictory) testimonies then there is nothing left to discuss in that case.

As for which Gospels are "true" and which ones are "false". Well, if you're not a Christian then you believe that they are all false obviously. If you are a Christian, then you simply trust that this issue has already been ironed out. It's not really important to know everything about something to believe something. I can't tell you if a combustion engine is safe because I don't know how it works. But I can believe it anyway. Furthermore, one can research and study why one Gospel was chosen over another. I'm okay saying that I cannot adequately hash that all out over the span of a message post in a public forum. You're welcome to research this yourself.

I can tell you want to engage in intellectual reasoning, so I'll bite.

When I mentioned theories, I was hitting at the idea that you casually mentioned something controversial like whether or not Josephus wrote about Jesus as if it was not controversial. Both the idea that he wrote it and didn't write it are up for debate.

Now drawing back to your last response, you said something interesting. Considering who Jesus was, why would there be statues and coins? He was not a ruler in the sense that Caesar was. Not having these things is closer to what we would expect.

Second, you dismiss the Gospels as evidence of the existence of Jesus. Which ones? All of them - including the false ones. Consider six people needing to testify about a car wreck. If they contradict each other should the judge then conclude that the car wreck never happened? Is it really the best application of Occam's Razor to say that these people wrote about and died for an imaginary person? Whether or not the Gospels agree, we can conclude that it points to a real person.

The direct first hand evidence is the Gospels and all of the false gospels. It would be weird for several different accounts be written about a guy who never existed were written in such a short time, wouldn't it? Applying Occam's Razor here would lead you to reason that a man named Jesus really did exist. The problem is that people can't accept evidence if they don't believe that evidence is 100% accurate.

Imagine a car wreck if you would. In court, six witnesses give an account of said wreck. Some of the accounts seem to contradict others. Do you as the judge or jury then conclude that the wreck didn't occur? Of course not! That would be silly to assume that since you don't 100% believe any one of the six witnesses that nothing happened.

The direct evidence is the Gospels. It is doubtful the Gospels would be written to discuss a fictional man.

The problem with verifying Jesus is that people who are not historians often times holds Jesus to a different standard than other people in history. One could take a time machine, record the crucifiction of Jesus, put it on youtube, and people will still claim that it's another guy. There is no evidence that I can give that will convince someone who wants to deny the existence of Jesus that there really was a man named Jesus who was crucified in the first century. As you have demonstrated with your examples, people who want to deny Jesus existed will come up with theories as to how this historical evidence was altered or that historical evidence was altered.

But with that being said, the canonical example is typically comparing the historicity of Jesus with Julius Caesar. Both historical figures have primary sources. In the case of Jesus, it's the Gospels. But since a religion holds said primary sources to be sacred, it somehow doesn't count. But I digress. The earliest primary sources for Jesus show up just 50 years after his death. With Caesar, our earliest copies of primary sources is hundreds of years after his death. So if we hold the same qualifications for the historicity of Ceasar for Jesus, then we can comfortably conclude that a man named Jesus existed.

Given that the Caesar/Jesus example is the canonical example, a quick Google search will bring up hundreds of blog posts from arm chair historians with all sorts of crazy evidence to prove that Jesus did not exist. And then often times in the comments, you'll see people refute those refutations and so on.

tl;dr - Jesus is held to a different standard than other historical figures. So, no, I cannot give you evidence that will convince you that a historical Jesus existed.

Because only someone with an incentive of Jesus not existing would contradict an established fact like that. Just as Christians will assert that Mohammed and Buddha are historical factual people, all of the major religions of the world will assert that there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth at the beginning of the first century.

Great question, schlachter! Yes, there is a lot of time and money spent researching Jesus. Given the huge impact Jesus, and by extension Christianity, has had on western culture; Jesus is one of the most well studied historical figures of all time!

I will admit that you're correct that it is often times not an intelligent debate. It makes sense. Not because I think the divinity of Jesus is false, but rather those who are quick to debate are those who are quick to draw attention to themselves. Quite the opposite of what Jesus teaches. Now don't get me wrong. The Bible instructs Christians to be able to have a response to questions and criticisms, but I think that's very different from the Harold Campings of the world.

lol... I love it when atheists say that Jesus is fictional. It's low hanging fruit to debunk since the existence of a man named Jesus who was crucified in the first century is one of the most verified humans in antiquity. Saying that Jesus is fictional is as bad as believing in geocentrism. In fact, many atheists encourage their fellow unbelievers to stop saying nonsense like "Jesus is fictional" since it is such low hanging fruit for an apologist to debunk.

When they say "belief" for evolution, I don't think they're talking about organisms adapting and changing over time (ie natural selection). Most people would agree that natural selection and adaptation occurs. Rather it is the belief that all life can be traced back to a single population of life forms.

And let's not forget "Dog the Bounty Hunter".

I don't know what you're talking about regarding .0031% of the United States. Google Fiber is available in 100% of the places where I live (a house in KC).