Too many people who either haven't even read the post fully, dismissed it, or don't know what they are talking about.

The claim here is simple, the proofs that christian scholars have been using to prove Jesus lived, was actually fabricated and introduced as a new religion to a uneducated mass. According to the article, this guy is going to debate it with professionals from the religious community, the fact that he's doing that debunks pretty much all of the crap in the posts above.

Whether it holds water should be proven upon further scrutiny in the debate the guy mentioned when actual professionals will argue with him.

You would have to take theology classes in any private school. At BYU you need to take the Book of Mormon classes for every major. This is why I'm minoring in Philosophy because they required their "Philosophy of Human Nature" (The exact same shit as Introduction to Philosophy anywhere else) class and Ethics class when I already had an Intro class and Logic... So basically the minor will be completed without any extra classes. I just need to do an Asian Philosophy course for a diverse cultures requirement.

Any religious private school yeah. I never thought Marquette was. 

That's boss though, free minor. I thought about a maths minor, it was maybe 2 more courses but decided against it or there were complications for filling Gen Ed shit that precluded me from taking maths to satisfy them.

I watched the documentary and read the supporting material.  The crux of the thesis aside from the historical jesus arguments which have gone on for a long time on this thread, is that the Flavians manufactured a jewish messianic cult to circumvent further rebellion in judea.  The evidence they presented to make the case was a typoogical comparison of the events Titus Flavius conquest of the rebellious judea and the events of the gospels.  This was the main piece of supporting evidence for the thesis that the Flavians, Vespasian et al., invented the gospels.  And after having read through and watched the arguement I am unconvinced by it.  It is an extrodinary claim and very thin evidence, especially considering that the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavium is disputed.

The surrounding arguments, such as the rather thin historical evidnce, the inconsistencies of the gospels, and so on were interesting but did not do much to support the view that the flavians manufactured Christianity in CE 70 -80.  The letters certainly predated this and there is some historical evidence of early christians prior to this.  So while I think that the authors made interesting side arguments, they failed to offer concrete evidence of thier claims.  Why wait for a proffesional debunking, read, check facts, use critical thinking.

Because regardless of all that you mentioned, it's simply not possible to go through everything that this guy bases his argument on.  He mentioned having found multiple books the christian theological history was based off of, not just one.  So what if that one has a shaky background, who's to say that the others do.  Atwill isn't exactly here to debate flaw you've dug up.  At best you've come up with a legitimate question to ask Atwill at the debate should you attend.  

In short, it's a stupidly complicated issue with incredible amounts of research from all sides giving contradictory explanations for.  Reasearching is fine, but don't start thinking you've debunked something when you've only just probed the surface of it.  

Except that i provided historical refrences made by non christian hisotirans and scholars. In the time of Nero, if anything, these scholars despised christianity and christians

Yeah, I know, I get that, i just find it funny that you find ''queer'' offensive to the extent that you have to report it, yet you proudly express your bigotry and hatred/disgust in your sig

Obviously.

I don't hate the "ill" my good man, I simply wish not to become it. I wish them well, much like Jesus.

That's great just dont call out someone on their ''bigotry'' when yours is sickeningly obvious