According to your "voracity of believers" argument, every aspect of every religion must be true because they've all had devout believers, including ones willing to die. Not just every religion either - there have been and are today some areligious ideologies that some people believe in so strongly that they will die for them.
It`s not a plausible argument.
Archaeologists and historians have not proved that your bible is an accurate history. They`ve proved that some of the places mentioned in it existed. That`s not even close to being the same thing.
There have been many changes in the bible itself, including many that people have been willing to die over. Both those who accepted the changes and those who rejected them, so by your argument they must both be true even when they directly contradict each other.
Saturday, March 26, 2011 7:25:02 AM
"there is absolutely zero proof that Jesus actually existed. The only "proof" is conjecture and/or blatant lies. "
The proof that Jesus existed can be found in the voracity of his believers. Here you have people who believe something so strongly that they are consistently willing to die rather than renounce it. This dates back to within the time period where there would still be people alive who knew whether or not Jesus existed. If he hadn't existed the early Christians would have been relegated to a cult status and never really made a name for themselves.
Also, you should look at the arguments of Christianity`s earliest objectors: the Jewish leaders. They don`t argue that Jesus never existed, nor do they argue that he didn`t die on a cross and was found missing from his tomb three days later. If Jesus never existed, why wouldn`t they argue the point? It seems to me that would have put the nail in the coffin of Christianity.