re: Does anyone actually believe this

quote:

---

What argument? You're using the same appeal to authority.

---

Oh my Goodness no I'm not. This is the strangest thing you've said so far. An appeal to authority (an incorrect one) is when you simply say: The authority says so, I believe so.

I've given plenty of reason why I believe the authority on one account, and am in the minority in another. Plenty.

quote:

---

Neither of us are historians, but with basic logic and understanding of how deductions and consensuses are formed, we can feel confident in something that virtually all qualified historians agree on.

---

Neither of us are shoemakers, yet both of us know whether or not our shoes fit. Such is the same with common men about controversial issues.

quote:

---

I'll gladly read the transcript or watch the debate but even in what you quoted I can detect the petty contrarian antireligious attitude. You ignore this, and cling to this one fringe opposition movement, and ignore the overwhelming consensus. Confirmation bias.

---

The transcript is a good starting point as to why the shift has changed considerably. And if you look in any other thread I don't bash Christians at all. I just don't think Jesus was anywhere near historical as historians (New Testament) make him out to be. Almost nothing is universal except his crucifixion and baptism. The rest is muddled.

And I've given adequate reason on why not to believe the New Testament. (Anonymous authorship, interpolation.) And why not to believe the references to Jesus by Tacitus (never actually mentioned Jesus specifically, but Christus in which Christians hailed), Josephus (major interpolations made by Christians, who were the only ones who possessed and kept his piece in tact) Pliny (who never referenced Jesus, only the growing movement).

To say that I have a confirmation bias and an appeal to authority when I've given so much evidence is a little disingenuous, don't you think?