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

Sage, Thank you for the debate in a formal setting and I did watch the video you suggested not on our subject and can totally agree with you about playing a guitar. As to the subject, I have done this a few time face to face, and it is indeed challenging putting thought to paper (or web) and I appreciate the opportunity. Your response covers a large swath of things and it would take a lot more than our current word count to address them all in depth and in detail. I will try to do my best most of what you said, or the more important parts. I will also address a response to Ehrman in the comments section and be more specific. I have to address your arguments out of turn, just for the sake of clarity, from Bible Studies, Ehrman, and lastly to Saul. Thank you for showing me how to insert a video. I'm not sure if it will work (I tried elsewhere and epically failed) so I also included the link to the videos and webpages. As to the debate . . . Bible Studies in BS The first thing I will address is your use of bible studies referring to sources of dates. The only thing I agree with bible study groups is there first two letters are BS. Pouring over a book looking for interpretation because it’s about as clear as a brick wall, trying to interpret what contradictory stories tell are about as qualified to offer an opinion as a brain surgeon who had to declare bankruptcy for financial advice. You have individuals studying complex books, with limited understanding looking for kernels of truth from a book that has more face lifts then a Hollywood starlet. This is the same methodology conspiracy theorist use to validate the view of JFK assassination and that the Moon Landing was a hoax. In addition most individual have no idea how the bible actually came into beginning, the books that were chosen or who started it. http://atheistexperience.blogspot.ca... The two links point to Ehrman (your authority not mine), wrote misquoting jesus, where the central point Misquoting Jesus is that 7 major rewrites and 4 different languages, 2 purges and no original text, means the fictional book of the bible is not reliable for telling dates, times and events. In many cases they re-wrote history or changed important facts, especially about Jesus, dates, times and historical facts. So studying the bible to look for the truth is about as likely as saying the same as Spiderman comics, they fall into the same category. As are the dates, times and many of the specific claims, so saying that the bible referencing certain times as first hand events are not proof, and Ehrman goes into it in detail. Re-addressing "Ehrman" As soon as it comes to acknowledge jesus as a fact rather then fiction, he (ehrman) stops being an academic looking for truth, but a theist looking for faith. While he has a degree’s in textual analysis of the bible and well known for the various changes in the bible (I re-read Misquoting Jesus which is amazing) his logic, reason and pursuit of truth and stops when it comes to where the evidence points to there was no jesus. That is the greatest fraud he commits and which many individuals comment on. I will explain in a better way; Ehrman is a great academic when it comes to interpreting the bible, except when it comes to the proving there is a Jesus. Rather than looking at the evidence and seeing where it goes, he claims something and looks for evidence that points to it. Often through a mental pretzel and irrational thinking. He is fully aware of the arguments for a jesus, but doesn't apply the same standards he applies elsewhere. He still has a belief despite of the evidence, not because of it. Again, if you believe in Jesus as a real person based off Ehrman you must accept that there is a real Thor, Hercules & Spiderman based on the same logic. "It's natural to assume that an expert in a very specialized field is also an expert in general. That's a mistaken assumption, however. Dr. Ehrman's work has been invaluable to me as a check to my particular prejudices, but I would not take any of it without critical examination. His style of writing in his popular books allows him to move very subtly from his considered opinions on the history of the text to his less reliable opinions on the consequences of that history. This unfortunate tactic prevents me from wholeheartedly recommending Bart Ehrman's books." link below http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com... If fact, people in the field of study include Richard Carrier, Steven Law to name a few, and non-believers Matt Dillenhunty, Russell Glasser and Martin Wagner are all atheist, are fans of his work and cite it in their own debates and arguments, except for when he goes of his academic reservation concerning jesus. His other books do not have any such critics and are highly praised as he operates with honesty and academia integrity. Its only here, trying to prove a jesus, does he encounter the opposition he does. http://freethoughtblogs.com... My argument against Saul. I thought you would originally mention Saul in 1st round, rather than make an appeal to a non-authority. Your standard assumption of Paul as a legitimate proof is not valid or reasonable. . 1)Saul letters are not original, they are copies of copies of copies, of which several have been added and tampered with. Your saying we have to accept them as a kernel of truth of a real jesus based on bad recorded history. I will say this is not only faulty logic, but horrible to do so as lowering the standard of proof. . That would be like some today saying, ‘batman came in to my room, shot my mother and fled out the window.’ It doesn’t mean the police are going to start looking for Bruce Wayne. Spider man has met the president in a comic book and saves his life, the comic’s reference real places and events, and you don’t believe Spiderman exists? Because the miracles are made up, and fictionalize, it’s not a hard stretch to make a person fictionalize as well. The bible has fantasy stories and a few reasonable ones. This does not mean that the reasonable ones are more plausible then the crazy ones because they are more reasonable. In fact it would lead one to dismiss all of the comments. 2)Even if we give you that the letters from Saul are accurate, your still left with the problem of what the letters say. Saul does not get his information 1st hand or 2nd hand, but from god. The letters you referenced refer to being authentic states SAUL gets his information divine revelation and scriptural prophecy or in modern terms he dreamed it up, or dropped the equivalent of spiritual acid. While his followers may believe him, and you may as well, I require more proof that "god told me" and thus it was true. 3)However my second point above is not even needed, as the letters do not refer to a physical Jesus at all but to show the lack of knowledge of the content and context. The jesus Saul refers to does not exist on the material plane. Jesus is a spiritual figure and has no physical place, time or existence; the original letters refer to a mythic figure similar to the gods who walk unseen like those in the Iliad. Again as neither one of us is experts I will pull out my other video here and defer to someone who has actually studied and wrote about the subject and came to the conclusion that the BOP of a real jesus has not been met. His theory has a number supporters that are experts in the field whom the presenter list. He also goes into and the presenter listed authors who are in the field who study the exact issue and have all drawn the conclusion, there is no worthy evidence to support a real jesus. Conclusion (for this round) Again, the argument is not for me to disprove something, like god doesn't exist or fairies are not real or Jesus does exists. That’s not how logic, debates or discovering the truth works. It’s up to people who assert something to provide proof, like is there a god, fairies are real and a historic Jesus existed. So far you offered an authority that is outside of his area of expertise that uses invalid methods, an argument from silence, conspiracy and ignorance and started with a rebuttal rather the proffering proof, which was is shifting the bop. If jesus is real, a historic individual, where is the proof? Proof that would apply to any other field of study. Where is the evidence that stands up against basic logically and factually sound? Where is the consensus from nonbiased research? (There is, just on my side) More importantly, why is it such a simple question requires a mental pretzel to proff up its claims, that your own authority would never use in any other area of inquiry. I have to accept things based on evidence. I’m still waiting for evidence that would be accepted in any other field of study. Thank you and I appreciate you time, and the video is long and informative, but in dueling authorities, well worth the time.