[
Replying to post 14 by Jagella]
If you want to base your beliefs about Jesus on this evidence, then you must conclude that he was a sorcerer, and his activities culminated in a pernicious superstition.
Your thinking is way off here. What we can conclude is, there was a man named Jesus, since we have so many folk who write about him. From here we can read what they all have to say about this man we have strong evidence for, and conclude there were those who did not hold the same opinion.
In other words, we have the evidence that Jesus did indeed exist, because we have the evidence that there were those who thought he was a god, those who thought he was a sorcerer, along with those who thought he was simply a man.
But couldn't those individuals have "perceived" Jesus as a historical person?
Do I really have to explain that there is a tremendous difference between a number of folks who simply "perceived" a person who would not have been real, as opposed to these same folk reporting about a real man, but held different opinions of the same real person?
If you wish to explain away negative comments about Jesus as mere perceptions
When have I ever done such a thing? I have not! This is a good example. You see, I am a real person, but you have the false idea that I am attempting to defend Jesus from negative comments, when I am not.
then their word about Jesus' as a real person is disqualified by your own standard of evidence.
WRONG! Because I am not disqualifying their opinion of him.
So do you conclude that Jesus was a sorcerer?
What I conclude is that Jesus was a real man, who lived in real time, in real space, and in real history.
Was Jesus a sorcerer? Well I guess he certainly could have been since there are many reports of him performing what we would all acknowledge as, supernatural events. With this being the case, it should not surprise us to understand that there would be some who would have thought he may be some sort of god, while there surely could have been those who thought he may have been dealing in sorcery.
So yes, it is easy to understand how there may have been those who would have had a different opinion of what, who, and what he may have been involved in. But with all of the overwhelming evidence that we have for the real existence of Jesus, it is hard to understand how one would want to question his existence, instead of simply dealing with the facts we have available t us, and attempting to determine which, if any of these opinions, may be the correct one.
Just kidding! It is not that difficult at all to understand why there would be those who would want to question such things. It is called, "DESPERATION!"
In other words, we have all this overwhelming evidence for the existence of this man, and we also have some pretty strong evidence that he may have indeed been raised from the dead, and with this being the case, all those who are opposed have left, is to make a desperate attempt to suggest that we may not have enough evidence that he even existed.
It is intellectual suicide. It is like, "I know I cannot win the argument that there is no evidence that Jesus may have been raised from the dead, so I may as well go, all in."
Why deny what the Talmud says about Jesus being a sorcerer?
I have not, and do not! In other words, I see, and hear all opinions, and understand that they all could be legitimate, until, or unless one, or the other has been demonstrated to be false.
Other than that, we are all left to our own opinion, as we analyze, and examine the evidence, and all are legitimate opinions, until, or unless it can be determined otherwise.
So then I am fine with you having your opinion of Jesus. However, to take the leap to suggest that there may have been no such historical figure, is intellectual suicide, and I am fine with you doing that, but it is not wise to do so, here on a debate site.
In that case I will accept the evidence that Jesus was a real sorcerer who really started a pernicious superstition.
You see, now that is way better, because at least you would not be committing intellectual suicide.
Are you happy now that I've accepted this historical evidence for Jesus?
There was never any doubt in my mind as to whether you, "accepted the historical evidence for Jesus." Because, if I am not mistaken, you would be one of those who once claimed to truly embrace Christianity, and what it taught about Jesus, and now you want to tell us that you truly embraced someone, who may have never lived? How in the world could that happen? In other words, how could someone embrace such things, without sufficient evidence that the person they are embracing actually lived?
