Christianity is Logically a Circular Reasoning Fallacy?
Bigtown asked if I would make him Con in this debate, as Bigtown believes he has more to contribute than my previous opponent as an argument against my resolution in the Title.
Being the Instigator, I accept full Burden Of Proof.
I believe Christianity is a Circular Reasoning (Begging The Question) Fallacy.
Simply because of Three major Contentions with Christianity.
1: There is absolutely No evidence for the Divinity of Jesus Christ, as there is no First Hand Contemporary Eye Witness accounts of his Life and most importantly, any Miracles produced by Jesus Christ. Surely if 5000 witnesses were at the breaking of the bread and fish, somebody in the crowd was literate enough to record the event????
2: Jesus did not properly fulfil the Messianic Prophecy of the Jewish Prophets, as Jesus was not really a direct Descendant of King David and had no claim to the throne of Israel as the Jewish Prophecy required of the Messiah.
3: The Gospels or the descriptions of Jesus's Life all conflict, since they were written over Thirty Years after the death of Jesus and they read more like attempts to persuade non-believers than genuine attempts to record Historical Events.
They Conflict in extremely important points regarding the life of Jesus Christ, which points to an inconsistency of sources and evidence that the authors invented some of their Gospel themselves.
All arguments Christians have used to assert their God have been arguments from circular reasoning, many are Begging The Question arguments.
The Ontological Argument.
The Cosmological Argument.
The Teleological Argument.
All demonstrate such Fallacies.
There is not an Argument used by Apologists like William Lane Craig that aren't classed as Circular Reasoning or Begging The Question Fallacies.
Though the Cosmological, Teleological and many other arguments are also False Assertion and False Dichotomy Fallacies.
Christianity is also an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy since there is no Validated Evidence to Support the Life of Jesus Christ and thus Christianity, and most Christians are ignorant of this fact.
Essentially: Christianity is based on falsehoods and all arguments to support their belief system are Fallacious!
This debate only centers on a couple of their Fallacies.
Thanks Bigtown for the offer to debate this subject.
I'm extremely interested in what you have to offer!
Best of Luck if you accept the challenge.
Your main argument then, is that Christianity, as you argue there are no other sources for Jesus' life or work, except the Bible, is fallacious as it begs the question.
Why's Christianity true?
Cos the bible says so.
or something along those lines. Am I correct here?
If so, then over to you Sagey, and good luck.
Thank you Bigtown for accepting this challenge, that is Big of you, LOL, may we and anybody who cares to observe our debate take away something from it. Knowledge, a sense that Sagey is an idiot or Whatever!
As you have stated and the audience possibly is already aware of.
A Circular Argument is often referred to as Begging The Question or as you have already stated.
"Why's Christianity true?
Cos the bible says so."
Here is another example concerning Life After Death which is also often based on such Circular Reasoning:
"How do we know there is an afterlife? Because the Bible says so. How do we know that the Bible is correct? Because God wrote it. How do we know that God wrote it? Because it says so in the Bible. Yes, we have to admit this is circular reasoning, and those outside the circle are unlikely to accept it."
Though it can go a little deeper than that:
It's also known as a Presupposition Fallacy or a Tautology.
Another common Tautology often found with many Religions and one William Lane Craig subscribes to is the Personal Experience of God Tautology.
I've often heard WLC use this in debates when he is asked how come he believes so strongly in God.
These arguments from Personal Experience go like this:
Q: How come you believe so strongly in God?
A: Because I had a personal Experience with God.
Q: How do you know it was a personal experience and not a Hallucination.
A: Because my experience with God was uplifting and Real.
Thus, it is avoiding the Question of examining what most likely was a Hallucination closer and the Experience was both the Premise and the Evidence.
It doesn't really provide evidence that the experience was not just a hallucination, possibly from dehydration or some toxin in the vegetables he consumed that night. So the Question of how do you really know it was not a hallucination was avoided by asserting the event as real, without questioning it.
Yes, WLC makes the Assertion that his Experience of God in his vision/Hallucination was real and avoids questioning it any further. Thus his arguments in defense of his reason for belief in God end up as Tautologies.
This is so very common with many Christians I have known and even many that I attended church alongside and lectured me in Theology. When I have asked them why they believe their God is Real.
Another Christian Tautology is the arguments based on the concept of "Original Sin".
Argument from X: Because of the Sin of Adam eating the Fruit of Knowledge, we are all born Sinners so we must repent and be baptised in the Holy Spirit to be accepted into God's Kingdom of Heaven.
Question from Y: How do you know if I won't be accepted into Heaven, since I've been an extremely good and caring person, surely God will take that into account.
Answer from X: Because Adam condemned all humanity to sin by eating the Fruit of Knowledge.
As Con inferred, Most of Christian Dogma is Tautological.
Essentially because everything they believe in is based on the Bible and since there is little outside the Bible, they have to rely on Scripture and so everything from the Bible becomes a Tautology.
Baptism: Why, It's in the Bible.
Original Sin: Why, It's written in the Bible.
Saved By The Crucifixion Of Jesus: Why, Bible again.
Repent and be Saved: Don't need to ask Why, as I already know, Bible again?
Jesus will be coming back soon: Forget it, Just another Tautology.
Because the Entire Basis for Christian Belief is Based in a Single Collection of Books, their Beliefs and evidence for their beliefs cannot be anything other than Tautologies. Or Circular Reasoning Fallacies.
Though as I have demonstrated, Even belief through personal Experiences of God, such as William Lane Craig's, become Circular Reasoning Fallacies.
If there was any actual evidence for the Life, Miracles and Divinity of Jesus Christ, then their beliefs would not be so Fallacious and we could accept that some further evidence exists that make their Tautological assertions reasonable.
But, sadly for Christianity, there is nothing to back up any of their Tautological Arguments.
Back to you Con,
Hope you can add some clever insights and rebuttals to my Argument.
"1Cor 2:14 states, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” This verse is really saying that you have to get into a particular mind-set, a certain mentality and then you will see the Bible as the Word of God. That is circular reasoning. This is tantamount to saying, “If you accept it as true, you’ll see it is true and if you see it is true then you’ll accept it as true.”
According to Sodahead Poll, Original Sin is a Circular Argument: http://www.sodahead.com...
I like the Logo on that page:
Some further reading for those interested
Back to you Con,
Hope you can add some clever insights and rebuttals to my Argument.
Hi Sagey, dood really is that your argument? Thanks for the many examples of circular reasoning you have given me, I think I got the picture before accepting the debate, however. It is funny though :-)
So, your argument goes something like this,
P1.I and others don't believe in Christianity, as it's tautological in rhetorical terms.
P2 I have gathered all the evidence and opinion of others I can muster in support of my above claim.
C1 Therefore, I have proved my own belief that Chistianity IS indeed tautological in rhetorical terms and therefore false.
See, this is where the thinking all goes wrong I'm afraid. It's all one sided. Where are you own arguments as to why it could be true? You must have thought about that surely. Your main premise feeding into your own conclusion. I'm sure hoping we can go somewhere with this, so I will use your main 3 claims as stated in your R1 opening comments. You have given nothing here in support of those claims at all which any reader of this should acknowledge. So I will attempt to rebut your 3 main unsubstantiated claims you make.
These are the underlying tenets of all Chritianity, not different sects or religions but the Bible as is only. We're not discussing practises or traditions of different 'churches' or denominations that you may have encountered. I don't belong to any church, just to make that clear.
God created the universe and He exists outside of time and space.
God created man, as a perfect being in spiritual oneness with God.
This is not up for debate here, you have to accept this as fact as I stated in the comments.
By the temptations of the great deceiver he became estranged from that spiritual oneness, by having the knowledge of good and evil and therefore would always be aware of this sin and his separation from God. The creation was corrupted in effect. Further the antediluvian world was corrupted totally by the fallen angels which went into the daughters of men.
Global flood, destroys all mankind and beasts, save for the animals and Noah and his family, as Noah was righteous in God's eyes. First part of God's plan for salvation of humankind.
Through Noah's son, Shem, God's chosen people ,the Hebrews/Israelites , were to follow God's commands and laws, including building the temple system where the annual sacrificial system was instigated to show repentance for their transgressions and become acceptable to God. A long history here.
Jesus was prophesied in the Bible to become the last sacrifice and Messiah for Israel and abolish the sacrificial system totally and the word of God was to be sent out to the other peoples at that time. This he fulfilled and is the basis for Christianity. His life, death and subsequent resurrection forming the basis of mankind's salvation and Christian belief.
If He wasn't resurrected then obviously Christianity would prove untenable. He was truly either the Son of God claiming to be God which He did, or a madman, lunatic or something worse. There is no middle ground here for any Christian. Oh but he was just a great moral teacher like Buddha, no, not even on the cards, I'm afraid.
So this is where I start my arguments to counter your claims in essence.
1) 'There is absolutely No evidence for the Divinity of Jesus Christ, as there is no First Hand Contemporary Eye Witness accounts of his Life and most importantly, any Miracles produced by Jesus Christ. Surely if 5000 witnesses were at the breaking of the bread and fish, somebody in the crowd was literate enough to record the event????'
Ok, why do you presume 2000 years ago, is like the world of today? Paper was obviously time consuming to make and therefore expensive, nobody was running around with notebooks and inkpens in their pockets, the Roman Review or Temple Tribune newspapers weren't yet in circulation, predates the printing press by 1500 years. The copies of the Torah were few, only the very rich would probably have one outside of the Temple, therefore oral dissemination of the Law of Moses was the order of the day and therefore orally transmitted news was the norm.
What do you want here? Oh Mrs Galilee was there and she recorded it all on her laptop and iphone. Get real. The scribes were the historians of that era and considering the effort to produce such work, I cannot believe they would waste their time making up stories for effect. Of course there is first hand eye witness testimony, the Gospels were starting to be written down within at least 5 years of Jesus'death. All gospels have been deemed written within 20 to 30 years, there is no mention of the Temple's destruction in Jerusalem in AD70. Are you implying this did not happen in history? Considering geographical and historical evidence in those Gospels, you would presume the total destruction of the city would appear somewhere. It doesn't. Surprisingly the oral traditions of the Pharisees weren't formed into the Midrash and subsequent Talmud until 100 to 500 AD when they fled the city. So we will look at some of those sources later and see what they had to say as non biblical sources. There are probably more non biblical resources referring to Jesus Christ than any other person at that time. So the historicity and the existence of that man is unquestionable and no serious historian would doubt it.
Divinity. Well he existed in history for sure and was put to death by Pontius Pilate during the Passover week in Jerusalem. Surprisingly this is where I will make a little departure from traditional Christian thinking. I think He was crucified on a Wednesday, middle of the week, and that he rose on the following Sabbath Saturday. According to Hebrew calendar the fourth day of the Passover week, where the animals were were killed prior to the high feast day on the fifth day, it fell on a Wednesday that year. The Sabbath mentioned in the Bible and traditionally thought of as the Saturday Sabbath, was in effect the high feast day of Passover on the Thursday, there being 2 Sabbaths in that week. Therefore His resurrection was indeed on the third day, but on the Saturday Sabbath. Did He rise from the dead? Well think about it. Would you as a person or group of persons conspire to make up a such a lie and then have yourself killed along with many others for that lie? The slaughter of Christians in those first 200 to 300 years is well-documented. The murder of the Apostles, except John, documented. People lie to garner favour or material gain, not lose their lives over it.
2: 'Jesus did not properly fulfil the Messianic Prophecy of the Jewish Prophets, as Jesus was not really a direct Descendant of King David and had no claim to the throne of Israel as the Jewish Prophecy required of the Messiah'
Ok. I'm going to leave the genealogy of Jesus according to Mark and Luke (I think) to one side. I don't think there is any doubt that either Joseph or Mary were not descended from that Davidic line, although the 2 accounts given could be argued as contradictory at specific points. Yes there are many prophecies about an eventual Messiah for the Israelites. Let's look at Daniel in the OT specifically. Written at least 270BC as it's in the Greek Septuagint, parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls Gospel dated to at least 400-500BC
Daniel 9 specific prophesy timeline:
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Ok, 70 weeks = 490 years in prophetic terms, a Bible standard using 360 day count. This was literally meaning that God's people were under probation for that time.
The temple was authorised to be rebuilt in 457BC, by Artaxerxes, historical fact.
The first 7 and 62 weeks takes us to 27AD, the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Messiah the Prince.
The last and final week the Messiah was cut off, 31AD, in the midst of the week and literally in the midst of the Passover week too.
His crucufixion in the midst of the week causes the sacrificial system to cease literally for God's chosen people.
Stephen is stoned after an immense speech ending the last prophetic week and the probation of the Hebrew people. The message then goes to the Gentiles.
I think this is one of the most profound biblical prophesies ever. It moved me for sure.
Here for more info:
3: 'The Gospels or the descriptions of Jesus's Life all conflict, since they were written over Thirty Years after the death of Jesus and they read more like attempts to persuade non-believers than genuine attempts to record Historical Events'
Well, not quite exactly they were written up to about 30 years after the fact. Can you tell me then where you think the conflict is, or are we going to get into small trivial sylistic discrepancies? There's no persuasion in there, I think they're quite matter of fact. Luke is an exceptional historian as proven by the record.
give me some arguments at least next round :-)
Thank You Bigtown for your interesting rebuttals:
Con is stating that The Circular Reasoning is not Fallacious because he considers the Principle Source (Bible) as not being Fallacious.
Circular Reasoning is Fallacious, even if the Principle Source is Proven and Well Known as True.
So the fact that the Bible itself is full of Errors and none of the Gospels agree on when Jesus Died, What Jesus told his disciples, What time he was Crucified, What Jesus's last words were and who attended his Resurrection. Apart from the numerous discrepancies in the Bible, these play no part in making Circular Reasoning a Fallacy.
Circular Reasoning is always Fallacious because it does not offer any evidence to the opposition from outside the Circle.
The opposition is unable to question principles cited in Circular Reasoning as the principles are part of the original Premise and are explained Through the original Premise. The person using the Circular Reasoning is deliberately offering their opponent nothing else to reference outside of the Circle. Thus avoiding providing a Rational answer to criticism.
For instance in this example of William Lane Craig's Form of God From Personal Experience Circular Reasoning.
Question: Why do you believe so strongly in God?
WLC: Because I came to know God through my Personal Experience of him.
Question: How do you know that your experience of God was real?
WLC: Because, it was real to me and I consider myself a good judge of reality.
Thus he is offering no evidence outside of his circular argument of: It is True, Because I Believe It To Be True!
Which as a Fallacious Argument.
It is being totally unfair to the opponent in a debate so it is not only bad manners in debating, it is also highlighting a possibility that WLC could be suffering a mental illness.
As WLC is avoiding answering the Big Question of how do you know your visions can be verified as truthful?
The Only other time I've witnessed Apologists like WLC use something outside of "Me" as evidence for personal-experience is when WLC states that many others believe they have similar experiences, which is also a Fallacious Argument from Popularity and when he cites famous people who have had similar experiences, as another fallacious argument from False Authority.
Which is all the Art of Apologetics is: The Art Of Producing Fallacies.
So: Since Con wants to turn this Debate from the art of Logical Construction concerning Christian Beliefs, into another Bible is True/Untrue Debate.
I'll now demonstrate why I consider the Bible as Completely Historically Unsound and Most of The New Testament is Complete and Utter Nonsense.
Firstly I'll Let The Renowned New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman give his reasons why he considers that there is no Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ currently existing:
Con's First rebuttal was:
"So, your argument goes something like this,
P1.I and others don't believe in Christianity, as it's tautological in rhetorical terms.
P2 I have gathered all the evidence and opinion of others I can muster in support of my above claim.
C1 Therefore, I have proved my own belief that Christianity IS indeed tautological in rhetorical terms and therefore false. "
Sorry Con: It is not like that at all. I have explained why Circular reasoning is fallacious whether I believe in Christianity or not, many Christians, including my Theology instructor back when I was at the Christian college had admitted that Christianity is a Tautology (all knowledge and evidence comes from the Bible). It is a fact that has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal beliefs. All Tautologies are Fallacious in their Construction, it has nothing at all to do with the Subject Matter. It is the way the Logic is Constructed that makes it Fallacious.
A Science argument could be circular and Fallacious if the person only refers back to his year 7 science textbook, without giving outside evidences.
So it is the misuse/abuse of Logic and Evidence to support a belief, that is the Fallacy.
As you will notice: I'm sourcing Christian material, not only My-side Bias Sources:
I'm not going to argue whether a God created the universe or man, as this is outside even the tautology of Christianity (all things are Biblical) and involves the millions of other Gods that people believe in. If you are going to cite the Christian God, there, again it is a Tautology as all evidence for those concepts only exist in the Bible.
I will elaborate on my claims that Con is Rebutting:
1) 'There is absolutely No evidence for the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
The Jewish Law and the Prophecies state that the Messiah has to be in line with the Throne of Israel from the Blood Line of King David. The child has to be a direct Blood descendant of King David. According to some Jewish historians, only the male can be considered as a defendant of King David and no evidence apart from some Post Period contrived evidence was constructed to make it appear that Joseph was an heir to the Throne of David, but there is no real historical evidence to confirm any such linearity.
Jesus was totally unlikely to ever have been considered as the Direct heir to King David and thus Luke, written around 30 years after the Death of Jesus was completely Misled and thus Wrong.
Also: To give Jesus a human lineage, denies and destroys the Virgin Birth Myth.
But, then again, not all the Gospels agree with the Virgin birth, another contention and evidence of Inconsistency between Gospel accounts of Jesus.
On the Chronology of the Bible, from a Christian, Bible Study Source:
Complete with disclaimer.
"While no arrangement of these books can be made with absolute confidence, the following dates are sufficiently reliable to serve the purpose of the Bible student.
James - 50 A.D.
Second Thessalonians - 52-53.
Galatians - 55.
First Corinthians - 57.
Second Corinthians - 57.
Romans - 57-58.
Philippians - 62-63.
Colossians - 62-63.
Philemon - 62-63.
Ephesians - 62-63.
Luke - 63.
Acts - 64.
First Timothy - 65.
Titus - 65.
Second Timothy - 66.
Mark - 66.
Matthew - 67.
Hebrews - 67.
First Peter - 67-68.
Second Peter - 68.
Jude - 68.
Apocalypse - 68.
John - c. 85.
Epistles of John - 90-95.So you can see that all the Books of the New Testament came between James 20 years after the death of Jesus and Saul whose writings date also around 20 years after the Death of Jesus.
There are no writings concerning the life of Jesus any closer than 20 years after his death.
The date of the Death of Jesus Christ is not really known, as the Gospels all have a different date, time and last words spoken for Jesus Christ, so there is no consistency in the Gospels there on anything concerning the Life and Death of Jesus Christ.
It does appear that the Gospels were mostly made up by their Authors, who were not the Disciples whose names they carry.
The Gospel Authors are all unknown.
Likely no Disciples lived long enough to contribute to Matthew, Luke and John, and even if they did, their accuracy would be Questionable at best.
So it is likely that much that was attributed to Jesus Christ saying on Sermon on the Mount, was inaccurate and possibly never came from Jesus Christ at all.
I studied history and worked for a time as a historian, and I know that personal memories, even from strict Rote learning cannot ever be trusted as accurate.
Rote learning can carry tradition reasonably accurately, but not Historical Facts, so all Historical Facts concerning Jesus would be totally inaccurate by the time they were written down. So they can be discredited as historically Useless.
Paul cited the Apostle's Creed, but the document produced as such, has since been found to be a fabrication and it is no longer considered a Historical Document nor Evidence for Jesus Christ.
So I have thus defended my takes on Con's rebuttals 1 and 2 on the Divinity of Jesus and and this should also include anything in the Bible concerning the entire life and ministry of Jesus.
The Gospels simply cannot be considered as Accurate accounts of the Life nor Ministry of Jesus Christ, due to the lapse of time between his death and their concoction.
Also there was likely no input to the Gospels from any witnesses to Jesus Christ's life nor Speeches.
There is no evidence of any Miracles performed by Jesus Christ outside of the Bible.
There is no actual evidence of his Resurrection from outside of the Bible.
So they are all circular references to a set of Historically, Unsupported Texts.
Though, even if there were supported texts and other evidences for Jesus Christ, the referencing back to the Bible makes the arguments Circular and thus fallacious.
If they referenced outside evidence instead of resorting to asserting the Bible as proof, then their arguments would not be Fallacious.
Since it is impossible for them to do this, they must rely entirely on Circular Arguments.
Same as would go for a scientist who refers to his year 7 science textbook as proof of his Arguments.
I think I have made good in establishing and supporting my Burden Of Proof.
Though that remains the concern of the Voters only.
Thanks for taking part Bigtown.
Look forward to your closing argument.
Hi Sagey, I see at last you have given me something to chew on, so thank you very much indeed.
I still would like to point out that your points that you set out in R1 have only be dealt with briefly in R3. In effect you made me produce the arguments (else where can we go with your circular reasoning and my apparent circular reasoning) without at least looking at the evidence. You set up a debate promising evidences of your claims in R1 and essentially provide nothing until R3 which is based solely on Bart Ehrman's opinions, but you don't even investigate his views properly and misrepresent his real views as a serious historian to back up your position (I will provide a link below and when I rebut those views). It's like a version of pop history.
If I make a reference to outside sources you say it's false as it refers back to the Bible. What?? So in effect you ask for corroborating evidence, which I can give, you ignore it as its got something to with the Bible and say that's circular reasoning. What's left, your opinion? At least I've put forward things to rebut and you don't. You try to childishly demolish eminent scholars based on a question answer session conversation (not a debate to prove anything) and say that's all he's got. It's so dishonest of you and misrepresentative of the whole topic. In general I think you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself which is a shame, and it just shows how you convince yourself it's the correct position to take. I'm sorry that's all.
Your opening statement in R3:
'Circular Reasoning is Fallacious, even if the Principle Source is Proven and Well Known as True.
What are you on? That's how you establish further facts or truth based on known truths. My head will explode in a minute. What books are you reading, I would put them down and start again, honestly.
WLC statement - you are being dishonest here intentionally. In a question/answer session he responded to a question made after a debate. Oh sorry, he can't explain his personal reason for his own beliefs any more, on top of the very sound arguments he makes in any debate on the subject. You portray it as his ONLY argument which is dishonest to anyone reading this debate. He was not offering it as an argument, don't you get it. A statement of his personal circumstance is not his argument for it. Then you resort to personal abuse on his character. Is that all you've got?
May be you should do what I do. Look up many debates and watch the entirety of them from the start to the finish and then make a judgement. It seems like you look around the net for 2 minute clips to back up your own beliefs. Can't you stand watching for 2 hours, or might you start asking yourself questions you don't want to? Run and hide. At least I want my belief challenged that's why I watch other people with their views.
'Firstly I'll Let The Renowned New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman give his reasons why he considers that there is no Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ currently existing:
Ok again a 15 minute clip of someone propounding their own view. See what you don't see is the fact that he as a serious historian remember, does not doubt these 4 independently verifiable historical FACTS, you'll be sorry to hear that I'm sure. I would watch the WHOLE debate. Bart Ehrman not once refutes or rebuts these facts, the only thing under debate is the ultimate hypotheses that can explain these 4 facts. In my opinion he doesn't make a very good job of it, but then I'm biased.
1. Jesus' burial in a tomb
2. The discovery of an empty tomb
3. The multiple eye witnnessed appearances of Jesus after His burial.
4. The origin of the disciples belief in his resurrection.
So if you want to be honest, I would watch this all the way through and seriously reconsider your position that the Bible is false. Yes you can pick small discrepancies in the detail, but the fact remains the 4 accounts of the main facts remain trustworthy and reliable. At no point does Ehrman refute anything as a lie, as he obviously knows better.
The only issue at stake is the best explanation of those 4 facts. Ehrman argues against resurrection. You decide, but please don't say it's all lies and untrustworthy as you put yourself into a very tiny fringe element of people or serious historians. Remember I'm using your source to show you what he really thinks.
Secondly I wish somebody like Bart Ehrman would refute the theory of evolution. Funny isn't it, the demands of rigour from the opposite position never match up to the supposed rigour of their own views and fall woefully short in my humble opinion.
'So I have thus defended my takes on Con's rebuttals 1 and 2 on the Divinity of Jesus and and this should also include anything in the Bible concerning the entire life and ministry of Jesus'
You have done nothing of the sort. I put aside the lineage as there is no doubting that Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah and was a Jewish person. The lineage question could go either way, Luke goes through to Joesph being the strict way lineages were recorded through the fathers, and Matthew the lineage through to Mary instead as Joseph was not actually His father. It does not warrant the attention given here.
You did nothing to rebut that major biblical prophesy at all. Not a word about it. How can you account for this bein written at least 300 years before it happened. Nada.
Unfortunately you make very bold claims about the Gospels and the Bible in an effort to not look at the question too closely obviously. You might not like what you find I suppose. You quote serious historians as your argument against reliability, but you take no account of the fact that they do not disagree with 4 very very important historical FACTS. Ehrman himself had to do U turn on this, as nobody would take him seriously as an historian otherwise, career suicide probably in effect. You make no mention of that, you hide the reality of the situation to prove your own points and don't make a very good job of it.
As I stated above, according to your own source, there is only one thing uncertain, did Jesus rise from the dead supernaturally, or is there another hypotheses that can account for those 4 major facts regarding Jesus that Ehrman did not refute in any way, shape or form in that debate. You can run and hide and fight it, that's your choice, but I sincerely hope you don't continue lying to yourself forever.
'Though, even if there were supported texts and other evidences for Jesus Christ, the referencing back to the Bible makes the arguments Circular and thus fallacious.
You are on another planet with this one. Illogical.
If they referenced outside evidence instead of resorting to asserting the Bible as proof, then their arguments would not be Fallacious'
What like another Bible or something?
Really Sagey, take a good hard look at some of the things you said here. It's real hard I know, but you do not seem to have even the slightest regard to the real and historical facts in that book. It is your history. You pick and chew over the smallest of differences in your attempt to dismiss it.
This is your alternative.....
Once upon a time bilions and billions of years ago, the universe exploded from nothing (miracle), then billions and billions of years later, something started to come alive (miracle), it grew bigger and bigger and formed into different shapes and animals and plants and everything really (miraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiraclemiracle
after miracle to the power of 100000000000000000000000000, thenI was here and was able to debate with another person online about the strange story of a person called Jesus. I don't know I just don't believe it myself, it must have been a miracle, and we know those don't happen don't we ;-)
Take care Sagey, take a good look at where you stand. I'm not in it for the votes by the way, just good talking with you.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|