Excellent points, but as you note you're merely repeating what you already told him, meaning that he has consistently ignored everyone's counter points to his claims. He's made it clear that he's actually ignorant concerning the things he asserts... 

 I appreciate the offer of help anyway.

As for the post, it was not written in hope of a response as I knew he'd never even read it or do anything with it other than just naysay it. The point of the post was to demonstrate to him that there are facts out there that he simply disregards without good reason, and that he must go on disregarding..... 

Todangst: Honestly, I find many of the postings here very humorous and they rarely fail in providing me with a good chuckle - both from the theist side as well as the atheist side. I'm sure all / many of us would agree that Billy The Kid is an iconic American figure. Hell, he's been the subject of countless books and movies and what little boy up until about 1970 didn't pretend to be Billy The Kid when he was playing "cowboys and indians"..? Here's a historical figure who lived and died in the late 19th century - was famous throughout the land in his own lifetime - and yet 125 years later, there's as many questions as there are answers about this iconic American figure: - where was he born (some some New York City - other historians / scholars say Indiana). - what was his last name at birth (some scholars say Antrim - others say Bonney) - how many men did he really kill during his short lifetime (some historians said he killed a man for every year of his life (21) - others say the total was really much smaller i.e. 4 or 6) - did he really die at Ft Sumner, New Mexico at the hands of Pat Garrett (some say he didn't die - that he lived as Bushy Bill Roberts and lived to be an old man). Now here's a guy who lived at a time when newspapers were widespread throughout the land / telegraphs were available everywhere / cameras could take images of a person / books were available / etc and yet historicans / scholars 130 years later are still debating the above and countless other points And yet somehow, we're supposed to have this "hard evidence" about a man who didn't conquer other countries or write great works of literature or paint great masterpieces OVER 2,000 years ago...???!!!  

2,000 years ago...!!!!!! 

Seriously, why should there be alot of historical evidence - aside from a few references from other people and the Svcriptures - about Jesus Christ..??  

In fact, if it was such a bullshit story - you might expect to have seen at least some (archeological / historical) evidence that the story was made up. How about just one credible account from the time of Christ that the story was made up. 

After all, a story that's so "absurd" as to include accounts of virgins births / reincarnation / miracles / etc should be the easiest thing in the world to pick apart. And there should be no shortage of opinions that date back to the first or second century.

 

Enlighten me - point me to links that specifically address this incredible hoax that was created by the disciples and followers of Christ.

And yet in the year 2007, many very learned people would say that this Man is the greatest historical figure to ever walk the planet in terms of his impact on society hundred / thousands of years after his death. Hell of a mythical character, wouldn't you say..?? Easily blows Thor or Zeus right out of the water..!! Finally, I have to confess that I have a "grudging" admiration for Rook Hawkins. As you can see from my name, Broncosfan, I am a fan of the Denver Broncos. I also believe that John Elway was the BEST quarterback who ever played in the NFL. If I thought I could get away with it, I would love to set up a website that's devoted to this claim. And I would create a wishlist - consisting of autographed footballs / books / cards / autographed helmets / etc - that people could "buy me" in order for me to continue to research my claim that Elway - and not Marino or Starr or Unitas or Montana or Favre, for example - was the best who ever played the game. But honestly, I doubt if I could find enough people "naive" enough to buy into this scam. But if Rook's bookcase is being filled compliments of other people's generosity - and money..!! - more power to him.

 Bron, the reason these arguments seem humorous to you, is because you are not abreast in the field of historical Jesus research. You are not capable of recognizing a good argument from a bad one.

The Jesus of the gospels is a myth.

Whether “Jesus Christ” was based on a human being, or was purely a mythical story is another matter. Either option is fine with me (although I slightly side with the myth position), but either option should concern every gospel believing Christian. No Christian should try to find a human Jesus and think they are vindicating the gospels, or that they’re “half way” to "proving" Jesus.

On another note, while the argument from silence can disprove (or at least make it extremely unlikely) that the Jesus of the gospels existed, it doesn’t disprove the existence some first century Jewish preacher who may have claimed to be the messiah, who later became the basis of the story, and who may even have started a small movement of some sorts. (The more ‘active’ or ‘prominent’ the possible human basis for Jesus, the more the argument from silence can be applied to this ‘Jesus’ person). To disprove the historical human basis for Jesus we need to turn to the arguments which suggest that Christianity started as a mystic religion. (I’m not that familiar with the details of them so I won’t argue for them here, although anyone interested should check our this Richard Carrier article: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml)

And as a side note to Christians, the gospels themselves cannot be used to try to point to historical purely human Jesus. They are filled with so much non-historical, made-up stuff, embellishment, etc, that you really cannot separate a possible true Jesus from the mystic Jesus. This is one of the problems with the Jesus Seminar, as they try to do just that.

Are you aware of the (I think, Gnostic) idea regarding the origin of Christianity, that there were originally two versions or tiers to Christianity, first was the literal/historical telling of the story, and later selected people were introduced to the hidden knowledge/meaning, the mystical truth behind the stories. So Christianity was just another mystic religion. And the claim goes that this first tier to the religion broke off into its own direction and went on to become the orthodox view, while the actual mystical meaning and original intent eventually became abolished.

You view sounds similar to this possible explanation of the origin?


So many bits of wood have been presented as being part of the cross you could use them to build an ark!


Paul only states that Jesus “appeared,” and this presents a problem:

Matthew 17:1-3: "And after six days Jesus takes Peter, James, and John his brother, and brings them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And behold there appeared [ophthe] Moses and Elijah talking with him."

The term “appeared” [ophthe] is used for both physical and non-physical appearances.

So, did Moses and Elijah appear physically or non-physically to Peter? The same word [ophthe] is used for the word “appeared” with regards to Jesus, Moses and Elijah. The word is also used for other non-physical appearances elsewhere in the Bible. Why should its use when referring to Jesus’ “appearance” NOT be non-physical? And if Moses and Elijah did appear bodily then Jesus’ alleged resurrection isn’t really so special is it.



Richard Carrier writes on this matter in this essay: http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...on/lecture.html

”Even so, it is often said in objection that we can trust the Gospels more than we normally would because they were based on the reports of eye-witnesses of the event who were willing to die for their belief in the physical resurrection, for surely no one would die for a lie. To quote a Christian website: "the first disciples were willing to suffer and die for their faith...for their claims to have seen Jesus...risen bodily from the dead." Of course, the Gospel of Matthew 28:17 actually claims that some eye-witnesses didn't believe what they saw and might not have become Christians, which suggests the experience was not so convincing after all. But there are two other key reasons why this argument sounds great in sermons but doesn't hold water under rational scrutiny.

First, it is based on nothing in the New Testament itself, or on any reliable evidence of any kind. None of the Gospels or Epistles mention anyone dying for their belief in the "physical" resurrection of Jesus. The only martyrdoms recorded in the New Testament are, first, the stoning of Stephen in the Book of Acts. But Stephen was not a witness. He was a later convert. So if he died for anything, he died for hearsay alone. But even in Acts the story has it that he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove anything in that respect. Moreover, in his last breaths, we are told, he says nothing about dying for any belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, but mentions only his belief that Jesus was the messiah, and was at that moment in heaven.[17] And then he sees Jesus--yet no one else does, so this was clearly a vision, not a physical appearance, and there is no good reason to believe earlier appearances were any different.

The second and only other "martyr" recorded in Acts is the execution of the Apostle James, but we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or what he thought he died for.[18] In fact, we have one independent account in the Jewish history of Josephus, of the stoning of a certain "James the brother of Jesus" in 62 A.D., possibly but not necessarily the very same James, and in that account he is stoned for breaking the Jewish law, which recanting would not escape, and in the account of the late 2nd century Christian hagiographer Hegesippus, as reported by Eusebius, he dies not for his belief in a physical resurrection, but, just like Stephen, solely for proclaiming Jesus the messiah, who was at that moment in heaven.[19]

Yet that is the last record of any martyrdom we have until the 2nd century. Then we start to hear about some unnamed Christians burned for arson by Nero in 64 A.D.,[20] but we do not know if any eye-witnesses were included in that group--and even if we did it would not matter, for they were killed on a false charge of arson, not for refusing to deny belief in a physical resurrection. So even if they had recanted, it would not have saved them, and therefore their deaths also do not prove anything, especially since such persecution was so rare and unpredictable in that century. We also do not even know what it was they believed--after all, Stephen and James did not appear to regard the physical resurrection as an essential component of their belief. It is not what they died for.

As far as we can tell, apart from perhaps James, no one knew what the fate was of any of the original eye-witnesses. People were even unclear about who the original eye-witnesses were. There were a variety of legends circulating centuries later about their travels and deaths, but it is clear from our earliest sources that no one knew for certain.[21] There was only one notable exception: the martyrdom of Peter. This we do not hear about until two or three generations after the event, and it is told in only one place: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which was rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh...[22]”