Nice, let me ask you do you believe in the fact that Jesus was an actual person. Also do you have confidence in the historical accounts of Alexander the Great?

I must point out, you are wrong here... many, many evolutionary biologists regard this theory as fact. "Scientific Theory" does not mean "a guess". Gravity is a scientific theory also but in science this is the title given to an encompassing idea that has a large body of evidence to support it.

This is a misnomer, from what I understand there is no such thing as a "transitional fossil". Every living organism past and present has slight genetic differences from other members of their species, therfore every fossil we find is "transitional" in some way. Enough mutations add up and usually seperation from other members of this species a new species will develop.

I am saying that I have never heard any scientist call evolution a fact, the only way. THere are different forms of evolution from what I understand. Either way the point is what will you believe if science debunks evolution and comed up with another theory?

Debunk?

If evolutionary theory is proven not to be supported by the facts of scientific study and another scientific theory is better supported by the evidence then I would also support that theory.

The thing is you seem to be misunderstanding  what "scientific theory" means. It does not mean there is a scattering of a few data points that support it, it means there is OVERWHELMING evidence to support it. Debunking this would mean disproving every piece of evidence in support of it. 

please provide me a source saying that most  historians think jesus existed? It would be great if it included people who aren't christian too. I know of  2 historians off the top of my head who are either a)jesus mythists or b) jesus agnostics aka aren't sure. So please provide some sources before making asserations. thank you

This should help you.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Do you really think we would have such a conflict over a person that never even existed.

 Yes I did read and I agree with you to a point. I do understand very well what a theory is. To me there are just too many holes in the theory for me, just like there is not enough evidence for God. I cant believe in something that can change at any moment. Look at a science book from twenty years ago.

And this should help you:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_anonymous_works

There are NO contemporary accounts for Jesus. None. If you took the time to read your wiki post, you'd see that yourself.

Yes, provided there were people who believed he existed anyway. 

 Okay so you want me to believe that Jesus never existed and early Christians were killed in the belief of a man that never existed. So people were risking their lives to promote the message of a person that never was. Interesting but probably not. I dont know why we need to go further than the Bible to establish the historical figure of Jesus. With over 5,000 greek manuscripts the New Testiment and the Four Gospels have more support to their accuracy than any other work of antiquity. Even compared to Josephus of which we have about 9 greek manuscripts which were written in the 10th 11th and 12th century.  I would say if you refute the accuracy of the Gospels then you would also have to refute the accuracy of every document from that era earlier, if you are willing to hold the Bible to the same standards as all other historical documents.

Do the 9-11 hijackers show you that you should believe in Allah?  Why would they risk their lives?   

 Ha ok back to the challenge again...finally.  Those merged threads posting didn't work again anyway - that 6th page for some reason didn't work right...

 Even in those threads, which is the same here, some of you guys contradict yourselves and draw attention away from the actual question in what I can only see as avoidance to the actual problem of the challenge you guys set.  Only todagnst ever actually addressed the problem which later slipped away thanks to the merge...

OK you guys...stop with the if he existed nonsense and answer the question.  Why are you still defending a challenge which is based on an out of context reference?  Those of you who have read the other threads know exactly what I'm talking about and for those who haven't - Mark 3:29 as well as Matthew 12:32 and Luke 12:10 are all incomplete references when alone; they MUST be used in context with the story (even if you don't believe it).  Only Luke did not use
the same words as the other two but becasue history shows that Luke used the other two as influences for his writing, hence his writing style was different, it can be concluded he didn't include it much the same way a newscaster won't include some details that another included on the same story from the AP.  

You guys are wrong on the challenge and changing the focus of the thread to "did he exist" or "I see no evidence" simply is avoiding the topic at hand...

Sapient's new video actually addresses the question that has been asked (FINALLY) in a round about way but still misses the point.  As I just stated, Luke's omission of the full story is from the influence of Mark and Matthew. What I found interesting however is how he managed to expand blasphemy the one and only way of damnation against the holy spirit as something along the lines of "blasphemy is blasphemy is blasphemy" and it does not matter if its according to the one DEFINITION (not example) the unforgivable sin or someone lying about their age.  I'm not sure what passage he was talking about "blaspheme against three times" but I can only assume he referred to Peter's denial which, according to the text, was forgiven him.  

One other thing sapient....guilty by association (your rape children note)??  That's pretty tasteless even for you to be THAT judgmental against a group of people that hold to a different belief that you don't (reminds me of another group from the 40's who did the same thing and justified mass murder by it).  

Look, debating the point without using the text in context is completely futile as it shows your lack of desire to actually want to discuss.   I don't care if you don't believe in the text, take it as a work of fiction if you so want to but even a fictional story has structure to it which you completely ignore for the sake of trying to sound "rational".  

p.s....as to him existing or not....history has already shown that the characters from the gospels exist, the events from the gospels existed, sources outside Christian writers all write about his existence.  And before you start to tear those historians apart, remember, do you do the same about those who wrote about Alexander the Great?  The Greeks?  The Romans?  The Nazis?  Remember Iran's President calls the holocaust a myth and debunked historians on that account.  JFK's assignation was criticized time and time again because of the "magic bullet" even though the proof was there showing they were wrong.  So how it is that you take special case to this?  Because you don't believe JUST THIS ONE?

Then why is it necessary to disprove theism for the sake of your own desire to be "organized"? You have the freedom to not follow a religion. You don't even have to believe in God...trust me if God wants you to believe in him he'll let you know. You don't seek him he seeks you and there is nothing that can be done to ask him to do otherwise.

Ummmm no. The REASON why it was punishable by death was from old testament rules and man's desire to take God's law into their own hands (which was wrong anyway). It was not God's will to have it done that way (because of it was Jesus would have killed the woman caught in adultry himself). The Gospel of Mark is very cut and dry; you cannot miss it unless you are intentionally trying to.

If you are a Christian, which is not a religion by the way, it's the belief Jesus as the Messiah, you have ALWAYS believed in the unforgivable sin because it's there in the bible. You cannot be selective in which parts you will and what parts you won't believe.

Oh really? When dinosaurs were first discovered the "scientists" got how to assemble them incorrectly so many times it took well over a century before they started to kinda sorta get it right. For decades since T-Rex was discovered, they believe he stood up right and was a serious predator until Horner came along and corrected it. Observational science said JFK could not have been killed by only one shooter. Observational science discredited flight until the Wright brothers proved it. Observational science had it where the Earth was the center of the solar system. Observational science had it to where the world was flat until....get my point?

Wrong again. I will tell you that I don't accept evolution because of the assumptions that are made to explain "spontaneous life". Something sparked and somehow it worked? Somehow life decided to change a bit for no reason and made fish walk. Somehow life changed a bit and went from four legs to two. The "evidence" that's presented is questionable even from the DNA level because it has to be assumed that somehow life just decided to change. I know I know you can throw as many technical terms at me concerning how science explained it here and there however have you ever once stopped and thought how foolish you sound? A man impregnates a woman because a man's sperm and a woman's egg are the one's that are biologically compatible. Science proved the how but they failed to ever prove WHY.

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein

Now you want to stop bringing up distractions and get back to the point?

I will first state that I am not anti science, I enjoy hospitals and medicine,x-rays ect. I just dont want to build the foundation of my life on ever changing ground. IMHO the foundation of Christianity has no need to change, that being salvation through Christ. The whole new earth old earth is still a mystery to me simply because the Bible never gives a start date, it just says "In the begining", on the science side I dont think the earth is billions of years old simply because I dont trust the methods of testing age. The age of the earth is a non-essential to me, the essential belief is that God created the earth and everything we see, touch, smell and hear. How long or how long ago is most likely never going to  be answered defenitively. What you see as beuty in the ability to change in science or (evolution) is the very reason I dont believe it. What would be the point in believing something to be a fact when it could very well be determined a farce by the same people who promote the idea? Why would I invest my time or energy in that. I believe that I have a better purpose on this earth and a greater gift when I die, instead of just being and dying.  

I am a very skeptical person and question many teachings of the church. I dont apply the quote to my beliefs because nobody has been able to prove anything wrong especially a believer.

My faith is not in the teachers but in the word, and in the promise of Christ. It is very important for all Christians to study the word and seek appropriate council just like in anything. One problem I have always noticed is that athiests or non-believers want Chrstians to prove their faith according to the standards of the non-believer. The stadard of which the Christian faith is held to is the Bible.

As for the quote, it doesnt apply because there is really only one way in my opinion to disprove Christianity and that is in death. There is no way to actualy prove or disprove a faith. People do get up and lie about what is in the Bible and spread a false message but as a christian we have to look out for those people and challenge their teaching.

I have never seen anyone dodge a question, could you give an example.

If the here and now is just a waiting period to your ultimate goal and reward, why don't you just strap on a bomb now, and go to Yahweh/Jesus land?