As a real programmer, I just echo punchcards into a file.

I own a couple of Prius vehicles and I've never noticed the delay. That sounds kinda scary if it ever did happen. I wonder if yours was defective.

Going 110 probably had a lot to do with not saving money. I drive at a relaxing 60 - 65 mph and I get great gas mileage.

Sounds like someone's a bit jealous. :) Here in KC, you typically have to pay an install fee for Internet and then pay a monthly fee for the service. With Google Fiber, you buy the equipment and get the service free.

Aw... you're just jealous because we have Google Fiber! :D

I take it you were one of those kids who would say, "Tomatoes are really fruits," right? :) When I communicate, I try to communicate to be understood, not to be "right". In Kansas City, we call Kansas City International KCI. Nobody is confused, especially in context of talking about Kansas City. Nobody would wonder how I was going to get to Indonesia if I said, "Hey I'm driving down to KCI to fly out to New York." Sometimes it's just better to be a little less pedantic. ;)

Nope. I meant to say KCI. Here in Kansas City, we call "Kansas City International" KCI airport. Nobody in Kansas City calls it MCI. Yes, I'm well aware that the official formal designation is MCI as I have flown out of KCI many times.

As far as I remember KCI has always had free Internet wifi. Combined with the fact that we have Google Fiber, it feels like the rest of America is some third world country.

So which one of my secondary sources that I listed didn't count? Here, I'll recopy and paste it for you:

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.