vaxx:
what is your argument here here Mr titinngz, there is consensus agreement that the biography perfectly fit the description record inn the Gospel of act

Where did scholars agree that the book of act is reliable?

Even after so many hours , this the flimsy excuse , you can come with, Arthur is not just legend , he is also an historical figure, i do not dispute about myth, my dispute is about the personhood of this historical figure we can discuss about the myth attached to them later . it seems you like the back and forth argument. stay focused

Arthur is more of legendary figure than historical figure, many of what can be collated about king Arthur are more of folklores, I'm not saying he can't be historical.

King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the late 5th and early 6th centuries AD. The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

I've made my stance clear many times, you are the one going strawman.

this is a false accusation, all my quote were back up by scholarly report and not from any christian blog, in fact my experience on nairaland made me realized atheist do not trust Christian blog and therefore i have stay away from it. so tell me you are accusing me wrongly. or better show your atheist friend the christian blogs i quoted it.if not i will tell you to your face you cannot be trusted

Ok, it's not a Christian blog but authored by a Christian.

this is a flimsy excuse without any iota of evidence

Ok, Alexander and Jesus falls to the same category, I've read both Alexander and Jesus historicity, Alexander life and dates are well documented than Jesus.

you are repeating the usual mistakes , just accept you are wrong, i have throw more than convincing element to buttress my point, it is left for you to do as such

Why should I rely on the existence of some figures that are debated?

I'm not wrong, I've provided sources for these figures.

it does not need to be reliable, if the message found in them appears the same with scholarly report, then we can say it is trustworthy.

Lol, before scholars report an event, they need to examine the reliability of the sources, what are you saying dude?

Have you work in a media company before?

you did a very poor reply , your response earlier were better than this . many jewish historian and roman historian in antiquity agree that that the personhood of Jesus exist

We have get over the person of Jesus, we are now talking about the magician Jesus, why are you going back again, was this what my previous response all about?

tintingz:
Where did scholars agree that the book of act is reliable?

Arthur is more of legendary figure than historical figure, many of what can be collated about king Arthur are more of folklores, I'm not saying he can't be historical.

King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the late 5th and early 6th centuries AD. The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

I've made my stance clear many times, you are the one going strawman.

Ok, it's not a Christian blog but authored by a Christian.

Ok, Alexander and Jesus falls to the same category, I've read both Alexander and Jesus historical fact, Alexander life and dates are well documented than Jesus.

Why should I rely on the existence of some figures that are debated?

I'm not wrong, I've provided sources for these figures.

Lol, before scholars report an event, they need to examine the reliability of the sources, what are you saying dude?

Have you work in a media company before?

We have get over the person of Jesus, we are now talking about the magician Jesus, why are you going back again, was this what my previous response all about?

i know it when the game is over, i am not interested in unnecessary argument. i have pass my message. i have even given you more than what you should know. bye mr thintingz who never wanner accept he is wrong, remember this is my second time with you lol

vaxx:
i know it when the game is over, i am not interested in unnecessary argument. i have pass my message. i have even given you more than what you should know. bye mr thintingz who never wanner accept he is wrong, remember this is my second time with you lol

Lol, he's right I'm wrong, self-winner , he want me to accept Jesus levitate on water without any evidence provided.

Dude just accept the biblical magician Jesus is a myth just like Alexander romance.

vaxx:

yes they were all lost, so how can we now depend on the information available? are we working with faith?

i postulate he may also depend on hearsay as you rightly put the case of the available evidence that buttress the GOSPEL of act

Arian of Nicomedia depended on written materials from history to compile his biography of Alexander the great. The Greek society was highly literate and so there were numerous documentary evidence of all their kings. Arian of Nicomedia stated that he relied on documents from those close to Alexander especially Ptolemy I Soter who was speculated to be a half brother to Alexander the great. For you to write a biography of someone who lived half a millenia in the past, you cannot rely on hearsay but on research materials from the academia. It was just unfortunate that all the earlier materials were lost. Conquerors of new lands in the past destroy libraries and other historical relics in an to attempt to wipe out legacies of previous rulers. Even ISIS and Taiwan still does that today.
Jesus story on the other hand is purely hearsay, even the bible admitted that much in Luke 1 - 3;

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses , and ministers of the word;

1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

There were no written documentary evidence of Jesus before the gospels. There were no physical evidence such as bust, coins, inscriptions or anything pertaining to Jesus. Jesus's activities were confined to a very limited and small location, judea, Galilee and it's surroundings. Although he was said to have fled to Egypt with his parents immediately after birth, there is also no documentary evidence of that.

this is your own assumptions, any evidence to back it up that Arian of Nicomedia historical position on Alexandra the great is nothing but the truth? per the bold, was the influence of Alexandra felt during Alexandra reign in those country you mentioned or after so many years of Alexandra departure or death ? your answer will buttress my next reply

If you accept that Alexander the great reigned in those countries, how come you question that he had influence in those same countries? I do not understand. Are you questioning Alexander's conquests of Persia, Egypt and India?

There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. Indeed, the tomb beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the crucifixion''. According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University.

Why not show us links to these archaeological discoveries so we can see if these are authentic or fake to promote certain beliefs. Fake "archaeological discoveries" are very common on the net.

Archaeological evidence concerning Pilate’s name and title bears evidence of Pilate and not Jesus. Why is it hard to obtain Archaeological evidence bearing the inscription of Jesus name and title? story writers tend to infuse names of famous peoples and places in their stories to make it more believeable. That homer used actual places and personalities in his illiad does not mean all the mythical characters were real.

Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and most Christian tourist sites were sited by Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine, she even sited the holy ground where moses saw the burning bush.

[quote author=wirinet post=65922454]

Arian of Nicomedia depended on written materials from history to compile his biography of Alexander the great. The Greek society was highly literate and so there were numerous documentary evidence of all their kings. Arian of Nicomedia stated that he relied on[b] documents from those close to Alexander especially Ptolemy I Soter who was speculated to be a half brother to Alexander the great. For you to write a biography of someone who lived half a millenia in the past, you cannot rely on hearsay but on research materials from the academia.[/b] It was just unfortunate that all the earlier materials were lost. Conquerors of new lands in the past destroy libraries and other historical relics in an to attempt to wipe out legacies of previous rulers. Even ISIS and Taiwan still does that today.
Jesus story on the other hand is purely hearsay, even the bible admitted that much in Luke 1 - 3;

you are not speaking the truth here, all the written material put down by those who were close to Alexander the great were all lost, have you forgotten so soon that that you even said the great library got destroy, so how reliable are the left over evidence, surely it must be from oral report which is the same thing as hearsay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria. in this link i put forward it is clearly started all evidence concerning people close to Alexander had been lost in writing.

There were no written documentary evidence of Jesus before the gospels. There were no physical evidence such as bust, coins, inscriptions or anything pertaining to Jesus. Jesus's activities were confined to a very limited and small location, judea, Galilee and it's surroundings. Although he was said to have fled to Egypt with his parents immediately after birth, there is also no documentary evidence of that.

this is similar to like saying , there were no writing evidence of Alexander before the destruction of the library, i can prove it , because the library lost all information but i can strikingly tell you there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, the only evidence we have is Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus live or not. so the idea of Jesus personhood is recent and it was spearhead by atheist not the jews. in fact all historian of antiquity accept that Jesus live.

If you accept that Alexander the great reigned in those countries, how come you question that he had influence in those same countries? I do not understand. Are you questioning Alexander's conquests of Persia, Egypt and India?

if you are truly a student of history, apart from just internet reader, you will have realized that Persia that stretch from south Asia to the present Libya, you will note that Alexander is far from great from the Persian eye, A true student of history will have discover that the Persians had twice before been defeated by the Greeks during two ill-fated invasions of Greece, by Darius the Great in 490BC and then his son, Xerxes, in 480BC and not the conquer of Alexander that brought them to their knell. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18803290

Why not show us links to these archaeological discoveries so we can see if these are authentic or fake to promote certain beliefs. Fake "archaeological discoveries" are very common on the net.

from Luke Johnson of Emory university and http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/simon-gathercole from the university of Cambridge, hardly can this prestigious university celebrate fake news, it is next to impossible .

Archaeological evidence concerning Pilate’s name and title bears evidence of Pilate and not Jesus. Why is it hard to obtain Archaeological evidence bearing the inscription of Jesus name and title? story writers tend to infuse names of famous peoples and places in their stories to make it more believeable. That homer used actual places and personalities in his illiad does not mean all the mythical characters were real.

This is not always true, there are many history out there that they are factual as it is, and if i am going to go by your logic here we could easily use the same excuse to debunked the evidence put forward by the Alexander historians writer, beside visit this links to read more about the scholarly report on archaeological evidence https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/28/turin-shroud-tv-pope-francis that is less bias and more accurate.

Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and most Christian tourist sites were sited by Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine, she even sited the holy ground where moses saw the burning bush

.it is obvious you are debating the evidence that was not rejected in antiquity, all evidence against the existence of Jesus was just recent and those not in any way accurate, in fact it is silly to be too sure of the non existence of Jesus, giving all evidence at deck that state otherwise, even among the atheist brethren, there is acceptance of Jesus evidence, you have another option to attack Christianity, but saying Jesus did not exist is similar to like saying Alexander do not exist. Josephus ,Pliny and Tacitus had nothing to gain from promoting the existence of Jesus, they themselves are not christian, and report written about Jesus did not speak well of Christianity.

vaxx:
spoon feeding you will be the last thing i will do

At some point in time on a particular thread, buda declared respect and regard for the individual known as Vaxx. However, in another thread, and for reasons posted in the relevant thread, that declared respect and regard was rescinded.

Buda hereby posts notice that in light of the response posted above and requoted as follows, "spoon feeding you will be the last thing i will do", the regard and respect that buda declared for Vaxx which was rescinded is hereby reinstated and doubled with appropriate and deserving regards and respect.

He appears freguently to those who value to see Him.