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

Dear Sagey Thank you for the chance to debate this. I believe in that truth is important and debating (which is also fun) and hope that this will be education, not only for me and you but the readers as well. I originally wrote a huge rebuttal to your argument and it fell short. I couldn`t figure out where it was weak, before I realized the mistake you and I both made; The burden of Proof. You as PRO have the BOP and so far you have not presented anything factual to support a historical figure called Jesus. In fact the individual who you reference is intellectually dishonest and factually in error in much of his work. And instead of providing an argument for jesus, your trying to rebut my arguments rather than present your own, which is the position of PRO. Shifting BoP The statement by you that "I can deny jesus altogether" is a shifting of BoP. It not that I'm denying a jesus. You have yet to show compelling proof that he exists or existed. By implying I deny something says that there is something to deny (linguistically and by logic). It is up to you to prove that he exists. I can deny your proof, which I will do. I can point out that its not valid, which I will do. But to start off a debate with rebuttal is a mincing of positions. Saul of Tarsus Your claim that Saul wrote his letters is completely false and factually wrong in every way possible. The first mention of jesus is Flavious, not Saul. The vast majority of Saul`s work, written under the influence of early Christianity was written well after Saul`s death and not by him. Non-biased members of academia do not consider it a legitimate source. Even a basic search shows the entire authorship was discounted when it first presented. Proof of jesus based on stories of stories of stories of stories of what people may have believed does not only not count as proof is not proof. http://en.wikipedia.org... A critical study of Ehrman or A Debate.org book report While normally a books report is not a debate, I will address his videos and his arguments as best as I can, though many others already have. Not only are his claims not factually founded, he misquotes his sources, takes them out of context, exaggerates in a form of intellectual dishonest that would make a politician blush. He is generally dismissed as a crank in professional circles. The fact he sell book is well known, however he does not engage in debates or address`s critics, living in his preferred information bubble that `you must disprove jesus`not prove it. http://freethoughtblogs.com... While short on words, as he presents more false arguments and intellectual dishonest that I can address in a single post, I will address 2 of his arguments. I cannot claim authorship of this critic of his work and too many to source it. To sum up his most popular argument is "every story has a basis of truth or some truth behind it, especially if popular or influened history' and as a follow up `until the mountain of evidence points that its not possible. Erhmans argument for a real Jesus could be used for a real Hercules, as well as Zeus and a real Olympia. Which he also acknowledge would be fair intellectually, but dismisses them spiritually. Additionally he points to a massive amount of authorities that support his position. He spends a lot of time referencing other authors who all agree the validity of jesus. This massive amount of authorities must have some validity. However all his arguments are based on the same idea, 3 individual’s referring to jesus. 1000 people referring to 3 sources, does not increases the validity of the 3 sources drawing the same erroneous conclusions do not an argument make. Flavious We can start with Flavious who was the only person within the 1st 100 years that is sited as mentioning jesus as a credible source and from the time of jesus (give or take 75 to 125 years). A critical study shows nothing that would support a historical jesus (or more accurately the specific jesus you still have to prove existed) . Where Ehrman (another other believers) point out Flavious mentions "james the brother of jesus" they fail to mention that he mentions jesus in other passages as it’s a common name, and in nowhere does it point to the jesus that they assume, beyond a coincident of name. In addition referring to Jesus Christ in another passage, it has been thoroughly discounted by non-biased professional in the field of biblical study and many within it. Why would a non-believer refer to a jewish rebel rouser (and he doesn’t he refers to his followers), as a true messiah. That’s like a muslim deferring to the popes biblical authority and religious title as authentic from the position of a defender of mohmadd during the crusades. Again non-biased scholars who want the truth do not take the statement as position there was a jesus, but a fraud committed by individuals later in history. 2nd round conclusion Your claim is unsubstantiated and your argument is fallacious. You are attempting to disprove my rebuttals, rather than prove your statement. Do you have actual evidence that support your claim? If not then you believe it not because its true, but you want it to be true. I prefer to believe in a thing because its true regardless of what I want. Sorry for the bluntness, but thank you for the debate so far. I had to do a little research for this and alot of reading and I thank you for expanding my knowledge and look forward to your next post. NATHAN