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

Thanks Nathan for making me work harder than I had hoped to here. Just when things get busy, I'm expected to do more research. 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. Bart has also taken some shots at Richard Carrier, in that Carrier is completely disregarding the writers of the accounts of Jesus and dismissing them as mythical or Euhemisms. http://www.britannica.com... In other words Carrier is painting Jesus Christ as a construction from previous mythical characters and stating that Saul, and the Gospel writers are either entirely dishonest or deluded into believing that Jesus existed. 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”, so there may have been hundreds of people named Jesus who were anointed before Saul started writing his letters. Some of them may have had a brother named James. 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. So far I've been searching historical accounts of Jesus and found no qualified historians accepting the arguments for non-existence of Jesus Christ other than Richard Carrier. Carrier is the only highly qualified Jesus mythicist I'm aware of at the moment. This does not necessarily mean Richard Carrier is wrong, in fact Bart Ehrman may be wrong in assuming that Saul and the Christian writers had some genuine knowledge of a real person named Jesus who had been anointed and executed by Jews for claiming to be Son of God. 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. http://www.reasonwithme.com... Here is Bart Ehrman's response to Richard Carrier. http://ehrmanblog.org... I may be able to dazzle the reader with color, but this is just me experimenting. Though I'm the first one to admit that as far as having enough evidence for the Existence of Jesus the Christ, to convince a Judge in a Court of Law that Jesus actually lived it may get thrown out of court, since all evidence for Jesus is entirely Hearsay and Circumstantial. Yet, I like Ehrman, err on the side of consensus that there very likely was a man named Jesus who was anointed (became a Christ) who preached Buddhist/Confucian/Eastern philosophy that upset the Jewish hierarchy and had him executed. Even many Christians as in the following debate (it is lengthy and I apologise for this) between the Christian apologist Dr. Douglas Jacoby and Richard Carrier. I agree with some of Jacoby's argument. Yet, I disagree with his assertions that Jesus is Son of God. That is an ad populum fallacy and a Tautological argument from Ignorance.The Gospels are full of disagreement and errors, so to believe that the Coptic Gospels were Truthful is a Folly. Both Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier along with many historians agree that the Gospels are mostly fictitious.http://threeskeptics.blogspot.com.au... Source: http://acquiescere9.wordpress.com... All the claims for the Son of God, I agree with Carrier there. 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. Thanks again Nathan, for an interesting debate.Guess I'll have to do more study if I ever debate this topic again??? I'll hand the stage back to you.