Stu, I, for one concede your point. However, I choose Pascal's Wager. I believe in a God because it is the logical thing to do. If there is no God, I lost nothing. If there is, I gained everything. So, I will do right by my fellow man, I will claim Jesus( or whatever his hebrew name really is) as my personal savior. This does not conflict with my believing that Muhammad was the last prophet. Since a day is as a thousand years(give or take a few million of our calendar years), evolution can plausibly be linked with creation. I do not know exactly why believers argue with non-believers, when the Holy Books say to pray for them. Oh well.
The possibility exits. Scientists use theories. And theories can never be proven. Why? Because scientists realize that there is always a possibility of discovering something they did not know before that changes or obliterates their theory. You speak with certainty. As such, you claim to be All-Knowing. In this, your approach is no different than the religious preachers you speak about. They speak with certainty too, no less certain than yours. One is just a mirror image of the other.
Constantly trying to peddle a false assertion by committing certainty, absolutes and âAll-Knowingâ on my behalf , does not demonstrate that you are pursuing an honest argument. Of course scientific theories can be proven. Obviously they continuously have been and are. You'r saying, the possibility exists that Batman of DC Comics who wears a cape, drives a Batmobile and combats crime in Gotham city, possibly lived, because you have to allow for a possibility that Jesus possibly lived . Seriously? Surely you can appreciate no absolutes are required to understand how that is a very silly argument you have there?
A theory is a THEORY. Theories can never be proven. That is basic. Theories are always subject to falsification. You claim to have certainty (your word) that God does not exist. You are a preacher of certainty. This places you above scientists, who can never prove their theories, into the realm of the All-knowing. Just because you don't want to recognize synonyms doesn't mean they don't exist.
You are so full of shit acting like the weight of scholarship supports your kooky position. Why don't you provide links to all the scholars who support you position. [/QUOTE]
Stu your position is so kooky it can not even be supported by your beloved infidels.org. "....However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this... On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. " Noted infidels.org produce no evidence of any objections to the second passage of Josephus. Is that why you have not produced any Stu? http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
Why not try to stop being so angry , aggressive and abusive all the time and actually address the issue. It's not complicated . Just answer the points already raised against the historically unsubstantiated claims you've blindly fallen for.
Every time you get a link or a reference, you misread, misrepresent, misunderstand , dismiss, abuse or deny it. Here is what your own infidelâs link actually says in its context, and not via your bigoted selective viewpoint. Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this. On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much. The upshot is... it 's easy to notice , there is nothing in there qualifying as historical evidence that Jesus ever existed. Unsupported references within (spurious) Josephus text is NOT historical evidence of an historical Jesus. Historians provide corroborated sources and primary evidence for the historicity of people. There is NONE in Josephus or anywhere else whatsoever through the whole of history, for bible Jesus that meets with even the minimum requirements of historical evidence. Without which of course, leaves bible Jesus as a fictional character.