Jesus Christ Was A Real Person, Though Saul's Writings And The Gospels Are Mostly Mythical.

Sage, I had to dig out stuff I hadn’t looked at for a long time as well, and polish off some arguments. I assumed the letters from saul had some validity, and didn’t ever read them till this debate and assumed it was hearsay not a spiritual magical mystery tour. Additionally, I got to test out logic and put it into practice. Also out of the last few debates, you have been the most polite and respectful opponent, on the field and in the comments. As to the debate . . . After reading your response, I’m not sure if you agree with me, but sort of not, or whether you think legally there is not a leg to stand on. However I will answer some of the more obvious mistakes in logic and proof. You state - This has essentially become an argument of whether we agree with the Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ. Or whether we side with Bart Ehrman or Richard Carrier. Rebuttal– This comes down to if your claim is true or not. We do not have shared BOP. In addition, Bart Ehrman may understand textual critics and the changes the bible had over the early centuries, and it be his chosen field, however in looking for Jesus, he is no longer an academic doing research, but a theist looking for a jesus figure to substantiate his faith. Richard Carrier is an expert and authority in the field of the original jesus stories. This is not a case of dueling authorities, it’s a case of your authority (Ehrman) stepping outside of his choosen field, apply standards that do he himself would not accept and still finding a real jesus, vs my authority who looks to the evidence and points out quite clearly that not only is there no evidence of a real jesus but it was a common reinvention of the time. As for additional supporters Christopher Hitchens (1949–2011) - God is not Great - there is "little or no evidence for the life of Jesus," arguing "the gospels are most certainly not literal truth," and while he concedes there may be a Jew by the name of jesus who may be a rabbi or preacher, the jesus of the bible would have nothing to do with the actual jesus the bible portrays and it would intellectually dishonest to draw that conclusion. Tom Harpur – 1929 –The Pagn Christ. The book covers how second or third century churched created the fictional impression of a literal historical jesus and rewrote history to suite there aims, though book burning forgery and violence. Robert M. Price – 1954 - Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (2003), Jesus Is Dead (2007), and The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2012), Though Price has returned to the church, an not longer supports a mythic view, he still supports the idea that it’s a blending of various traditions and that academically he acknowledges that he stands against the majority of scholars that there was a jesus even though there is no actually proof to support his position, similar to that of Ehrman and it’s a question of faith not fact that he supports to this end. (The Historical Jesus: Five Views 2009) Thomas Brodie (1954) – PHD pontifical university of St Thomas Aquinas, he is an expert in Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament as well as an expert in history during the various early stages of the bibles history. He was fired from his position for positing that there was no jesus in any physical sense. The bulk of his study is available and so far, none of his work has been discredited or shown to be false, he was still fired for looking at the evidence and where it lead. Earl Dohery (?) – The Jesus Puzzle (2005) Jesus: Neither God nor Man (2009). Similar to the video link I used in the previous post, he goes into detail how up until the 200AD there is no physical accounts in any writing of a historical jesus, it’s based on a philosophical idea based around Jewish mysticism and philosophy. In the Jesus puzzle he clearly lays out he case that not a single Christian points to a physical jesus until after the 2nd century as a real person but as an angelic archetype and ideal. Strauss (1808-1975) the life of jesus critically examined, Higgins (1772-1883) An enquiry into the origins of languages, nations and religions, Kersey grave (1883) the worlds sixteen crucified saviors, Gerald Massey (1828 and 1907) The Natural Genesis. During the late 1700’s the genesis of authors and intellectual led Mythicize (or mysticism) to the forefront of society. Many of the founding fathers were Deists and believed god did not interact with the world or provide any supernatural influence. The Deist ideals of a separation from the biblical and supernatural from reality was a core threat of diests and went into the sperateion of church and state that was part of the constitution of the USA. Again, while an argument from popularity or appeal to authority is not valid, unless that argument is from an authority on the subject and there is a general consensus. You state - I tend to side with Bart in that Saul may have actually met James and others associated personally with a person named Jesus, though his surname was not Christ, as Christ simply means “Anointed One”, s My Rebuttal is simple. SAUL says very clearly and several times ( in the letters you say are as close to the oringal as possible) his jesus story was revealed to him not by others associated with a person named jesus or even 2nd hand, but as a direct revelation from GOD. Your argument is invalid regardles of how many time you repeate it. Sauls says its divin revelations that not only told him of jesus but his reason to write the letters. You State - Though as Bart Ehrman has stated many times that there are extremely few highly qualified historians who would agree with the Non-Existence of Jesus Christ. My Rebuttal– Bart Ehrman does not recognizes any authority or argument that does not point to a real living breathing jesus. There are many individuals who are recognized authorities in the field and they have answered Ehrman on many of the fallacy in his writing about jesus. I’ve already posted Richard Carrier, and add to it Rene Salam, DM Murdock, Earl Doherty, who comment on Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? Many of them revere his work in other area's just not in this area as is intellectually dishonest. They are all more qualified for the simple fact that they look at the evidence to draw a conclusion, rather then draw a conclusion and make the evidence fit it. You state - Carrier is the only highly qualified Jesus mythicist I'm aware of at the moment. My Rebuttal – Google. You State - Ehrman and other historians may be erring on the side of caution, as it is better to assume honesty from ancient writers than to assume they are all delusional cranks as Carrier is asserting. My Rebuttal – I will point to your authority Ehrman in his actual field of study and his book misquoting jesus. He clearly points out that the 2nd and 3rd Century church re-wrote many aspect to give them more authority and put the bible and its teaching in line with their beliefs. As the church became more poplar in rome and then the official state religion slaver, sauls second letters were modified to reflect roman law and philosophy, hence the change of attitude on slavery. Not all people are delusional, some are greed, backstabing power hungry jerks who lie to get ahead. Court of law A court of law, debate and science are different. By referring to the law, you forgo the ability to discover truth and dilute your argument. A man can be guilty of a crime but not enough evidence is there to charge him with the crime. It seems to me that your implying that you have lost the argument, but not because it isn’t true, but you have made a bad argument. This is not true. You are smart, eloquent and from all your past debates, more than handing a debate. In this case your argument of a real jesus does not stand on the merit of the individual presenting the claim, but the claim itself and the proof offered. Your position is pre-supisitional, and you have presented a number of arguments that are just plain false. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org... You state - There is no actual evidence for any of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, and that is a Fact.. There is only evidence that Jesus at best, was a delusional prophet who did nothing that any ordinary man couldn't achieve. I state- There is no actual (good) evidence for Jesus Christ, and that is a Fact. Conclusion The duelling authorities are really hard to actually get to debate. However I will point out the people who love Ehrman`s other books are his main critics in this one that point to a real JESUS, because of his lack of intellectual honest, purposefully insincere interpretations, his many err and mistakes and the conclusion he draws. Nor is it a debate between two actual authorities, Ehrman is not an authority in this matter, and those who stand that there is not jesus in this field fall overwhelmingly on the `there is no Jesus’ side. Let me say, if there was any good evidence for even a charleton or prophet named Jesus it would be simple like `Saul wrote –a guy wandered into town told me of a zombie named Jesus who did some miracles.` but instead you have `Saul wrote – So I had a vision from God about a Zombie named Jesus.` I take saul at his word, it was a reveled truth not a 2nd hand story from a traveler who may have met jesus. Either Im right and it’s a spiritual acid trip, or Im wrong and at worst re-writing history, either way its not evidence to support a real jesus. In the end all you have is a claim with no facts to support it and an authority outside of his field of expertise. I wish I had a better quote to finish this with. I wish I had a better ending, but like jesus its just not there. Thank you for the fun I truely enjoyed it. I am so sorry this responce is written a little sloppy but it was rushed. Also in comments if you want to debate something again, I'm totally down as you have been the most respect opponent. . .