Abra:

How can you be confident of that? If you have an imaginary belief system that is completely coherent, how can you be confident that it isn't true?

I actually approach spiritually in precisely that way.

If I can imagine a completely coherent belief system, then why shouldn't I imagine that it can also be true?

In fact, if there is any reason why I should doubt that it could be true, then there must be something about it that I feel isn't completely coherent.

Creative,
You have NOT given me any "valid evidence."

I went over all that piece by peice.
I don't accept that as valid.

Sorry.

Bottom line, it is completely unconvincing.

This is false.

It's validity has nothing to do with whether or not you accept and/or know what being valid requires.

Interesting, seeing how it was exactly what you asked for. Gotta different criterion?

I don't know what to tell you JB. You're making yourself look bad. It is clear that you do not know the difference between a valid argument and an invalid argument. May I suggest that you not use terms which you do not know the meaning of? That deficiency in knowledge is stopping you from understanding the case at hand. A valid argument does not require your being convinced of anything in order for it to be valid.

Not my problem.

Be well Jb. Ya really should stop being rude. I mean, I've seen you complain about the laughing faces several times, yet you always use them. Attempting to ridicule another does not impress me.

Ah well, that comes of no surprise...

Creative, you do not present a convincing argument.

I don't know why you feel it is valid.

You have failed to present any evidence at all of the existence of King David or Abraham.

I went over your so-called evidence. Sorry, it does not fit the bill.

Valid or invalid, you have not been successful convincing me of anything.

And I see no archaeological dated, evidence at all. All you offer are writings written years after the fact by unknown persons and a bunch of assumptions.

What constituted Valid evidence in your opinion?

True. However, I offered plenty of reasons supported by fact which clearly supportd two things, 1. that the truth of Jesus' existence has nothing to do with either 2. because of 1, there is no 'house of cards' as you've insisted upon having us believe

Point me to where you've said it before.

If Jesus has no connection to King David, then how does Christianity fall along with David?

Looking for 'evidence' to support more Jew-bashing?

I'm done.

I dont believe its simply the means of delivery that has kept the bible viable and valid.


I imagine, it would have to be a huge conspiracy lasting that same two thousand years to not have any indication from that period that it was a hoax, even without internet.


Imagine, these things being written in such a time when there was division and sacrifice and crucifixion. IN such a circumstance, I cant believe there would be not ONE (discovered) contradiction written by others in that time to state that these things didnt happen or werent true.


If I wrote a story today, about how X came to Nevada and was burned at a stake by order of a Judge. I would think that someone who knew the judge, perhaps the judge himself, or someone who was in Nevada when such burning was said to happen, would write or express that they had heard or seen no such thing, or that no such thing has happened.

To me, its amazing that noone from that period seems to have documented that these things DIDNT really happen.

,,,its the flip side of an absence of something seeming SUSPICIOUS

my suspicion is on the other side, that nothing from that period refutes what was claimed to have happened...