Proving Jesus existed without the bible...

[jnobles06]

Jesus, wasn't an authority in his day either, just the son of a carpenter. The apostles and the writers of the new testament didn't have any impressive credentials either, the ones we know of were fishermen and a tax-collector, according to the bible.

So what is the difference between me believing Atwill's ACTUAL words versus you believing in a second hand account of multiple sources; that conflict one another, of someone who might have existed 2k years ago?

this is showing is that atwill's book is just as valid as the authors of the bible itself, which are the ultimate authority even over the scholars. i used an acceptable form of ad hominem defined by the link you provided, using info i know is wrong, but you believe is true to prove your appeal to authority accusation as incorrect


you then used my acceptable ad hominem in which i deliberately used false info that you believe to prove my point as the basis for your next statement, which makes it a false premise.

Actually, if Jesus was who he claimed to be, then he would, by definition, have been the ultimate authority. If he wasn't, he was still the ultimate authority on what he felt and believed. So, it would be his credentials as the source of his own words and beliefs that would make him said authority.

[racrguy]

Someone doesn't understand how logic works, nor what's being said.

[Maddhattter]

this is showing is that atwill's book is just as valid as the authors of the bible itself, which are the ultimate authority even over the scholars.

It shows nothing of the sort. I even explained why it doesn't.

i used an acceptable form of ad hominem defined by the link you provided, using info i know is wrong, but you believe is true to prove your appeal to authority accusation as incorrect

You're still saying that, and you're still wrong.

you then used my acceptable ad hominem in which i deliberately used false info that you believe to prove my point as the basis for your next statement, which makes is a false premise.

No, it does not. Note once have you demonstrated that the info you used was false. So, again, I'll challenge you to demonstrate that a premise was false. Mind you, demonstrate is very different from assert.

If you fail to do so again, you'll have done nothing but repeat yourself after being repeatedly explained and demonstrated how you are wrong. The only reasonable explanation after that is that you are a liar.

You've fallen so far below pathetic, street urchin are proud they beg for money after looking down to see you.