Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[OpenYourEyes]

As icing on the cake, Josephus also happens to mention James was the brother of Jesus. He writes: "[Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Antiquities 20.9.1), which, unlike the Testimonium Flavianum, is near universally accepted by scholars as authentic.

It's a FACT to hyperbelievers, damn the evidence ! full speed ahead !


Kapyong

Looking over all of this rhetoric, I didn't find that you addressed historia's reference to Josephus. I'm not talking about the Testimonium, but rather just the reference to James, Jesus's brother.

Secondly, lets address how does Dr. Carrier distinguish between an author telling supernatural stories because they happened vs. telling these stories as myth. If he equates supernatural with myth, then I disagree with him because the two aren't always the same. Myths tend to incorporate the supernatural but they do so to explain what didn't really happen

[For_The_Kingdom]

Dr Carrier DID DO EXACTLY THAT !

Kapyong

Dr. Carrier? Who is Dr. Carrier? Ohh, you mean that infidel historian, Richard Carrier, who got his ass handed to him in a debate against William Lane Craig on the Resurrection of Jesus? Dr. Craig wiped the floor with that guy.

Carrier took a terrible lost there. Terrible.

[Zzyzx]

.

Dr. Carrier? Who is Dr. Carrier? Ohh, you mean that infidel historian, Richard Carrier, who got his ass handed to him in a debate against William Lane Craig on the Resurrection of Jesus? Dr. Craig wiped the floor with that guy.

Carrier took a terrible lost there. Terrible.

Notice that the reference was to a book, not a debate.

If Apologists here think that Craig presents compelling arguments perhaps they can read / listen to him and learn enough to improve their debates HERE.

[Willum]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Considering Craig has no actual facts at his disposal, I assume that he wiped the floor with him with substanceless reasoning?
It really should concern you that you may be persuaded by how someone is made to look. Especially in the face of reality.

Craig's arguments are dis-interred arguments discredited by basic science. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but here it is again:

Much of modern physics relies on the principle of conservation of matter and energy.
This principal is simple: Matter may neither be created, nor destroyed, only transformed.
Energy, similarly, may be neither created nor destroyed.

Craig's fallacy is to assume there is a beginning, not a transformation.

There is no beginning, only a transformation from a dense state of matter and energy, containing all the matter and energy that currently exists in the universe, colloquially, the "Big Bang," to the state of matter and energy that currently exists in the Universe, the Universe as we know it.

No creation or creator required.

Indeed, the bible only goes back to the creation of the Earth, making Craig's argument, which should be destroyed anyway, even weaker.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Notice that the reference was to a book, not a debate.

And? His book can't be any better than his ability to defend his claims against real opposition.

If Apologists here think that Craig presents compelling arguments perhaps they can read / listen to him and learn enough to improve their debates HERE.

I did. And you are a living witness to that. LOL

[benchwarmer]

Dr Carrier DID DO EXACTLY THAT !

Kapyong

Dr. Carrier? Who is Dr. Carrier? Ohh, you mean that infidel historian, Richard Carrier, who got his ass handed to him in a debate against William Lane Craig on the Resurrection of Jesus? Dr. Craig wiped the floor with that guy.

Carrier took a terrible lost there. Terrible.

I'm not sure which debate exactly you refer to (maybe there was only one), but the one I saw had WLC presupposing God exists in order to support his argument. He lost right there in my opinion. Even disregarding that, he went on to rely on consensus of scholars a lot rather than actually discussing the evidence at hand. In contrast Carrier went through an analysis of the gospel texts and epistles showing the parallel with already existing myths. It was a real difference of debating style for sure. WLC probably sounded great to believers due to what almost amounted to preaching in many of his points, versus Carrier's focus on actual textual analysis and discussion of evidence.

I also find it telling that when describing the debate you label one of the participants as an infidel as if that somehow changes the exchange that actually took place.

[Kapyong]

Gday For_The_Kingdom and all P)

Dr. Carrier? Who is Dr. Carrier? Ohh, you mean that infidel historian, Richard Carrier, who got his ass handed to him in a debate against William Lane Craig on the Resurrection of Jesus? Dr. Craig wiped the floor with that guy.
Carrier took a terrible lost there. Terrible.

So, I take it you will NOT be addressing Dr Carrier's arguments, or reading his book ?

You'll just believe the believers who believe in believing the Gospels and Epistles - which is essentially all of Craig's argument.

While ignoring all the evidence AGAINST them ?
And calling people names.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

And? His book can't be any better than his ability to defend his claims against real opposition.

Yup.
You won't ever address Dr Carrier's claims.

You'll just preach your beliefs and call people names.

A poor effort.


Kapyong

[Zzyzx]

.

Notice that the reference was to a book, not a debate.

And? His book can't be any better than his ability to

Thus, from a Theist point of view people must be equally adept at writing and verbal debate?

defend his claims against real opposition.

It is unfortunate that this Forum does not have strong theistic debaters whose arguments do not depend on the likes of “People 2000 years ago believed that a long-dead body came back to life so that is the most likely explanation for the claimed empty tomb�

If Apologists here think that Craig presents compelling arguments perhaps they can read / listen to him and learn enough to improve their debates HERE.

I did. And you are a living witness to that. LOL

You did? You really presented compelling arguments?

I've read a lot of your posts but must have missed that one.

Kindly supply URL

[historia]

historia - you didn't even bother to READ my post 27 did you ?

As I mentioned in the previous thread on this topic, I moved several posts from that old thread (which had received no responses) over here. So, naturally, those posts don't take into account any posts in this thread, as they were written before this thread started.

I haven't yet had time to respond to post 27.

There in a nutshell is one of the hyperbelievers greatest errors (among many good choices )

Apparently every mention of a 'man', in an ancient religious work, MUST refer to a literal historical man.

So when Paul says Jesus was a 'man', and he was 'born of woman' - that can ONLY mean a literal, physical, historical man, right ?

Because we all know, there are NO OTHER sorts of men and women mentioned in ancient religious books, right ?

I think your concern here is misplaced. As far as I know, no one has ever claimed that ancient people couldn't use terms metaphorically, or that there aren't legends or myths in ancient literature. So we can safely put aside this straw man argument.

Note, as well, that the question under consideration in post 32 was whether Paul believed Jesus was an historical person. Whether that belief was accurate is not germane to the argument being made there.