Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Historicity of Jesus

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 5:03:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No-one here seriously believes Jesus didn't exist, right?

I mean all historians agree that he existed. I'm posting this here just to tell atheists they're wrong about Jesus not existing.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 11:39:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A man called Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. But was he just a man. Thats the big question. The answer that question no one can agree on, even christians will give many different answers depending on their particular theological view.
yay842
Posts: 5,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 3:13:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 5:03:32 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
No-one here seriously believes Jesus didn't exist, right?

I mean all historians agree that he existed. I'm posting this here just to tell atheists they're wrong about Jesus not existing.

yea , there may be few hundred foos of doods named Jesus living
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 8:08:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are a few people here who don't think Jesus existed. You should do a search on it, because there have been a few debates on the subject.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Progeny
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 2:03:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course Jesus existed, the main issues are the events from his birth to his baptism. That chronicle of his life was written by two separate individuals who had no connection to each other whatsoever, yet both men relied on Paul's own initial writings of Jesus's history. So you can pretty much throw out the ludicrous three king's tale and Mary being a virgin... What's really interesting is St. Paul's censorship of Jesus' teachings. Christianity was successful and is successful because of Paul's religious engineering. Jesus was extremely hypocritical as well. There were many times where he was quoted as saying that he had been sent by God solely for the Jewish people, and not for the deliverance of others. And yet he did preach universalism. He preached violence, quoted as saying to his followers to sell their cloaks so that they may purchase swords, while also preaching peace as we all seem to know. But I think we should all take this with a grain of salt: Only the most hated criminals of the Roman Empire were crucified; it was a punishment reserved for people who had committed the mot heinous crimes. Spartacus was crucified for his slave revolts. What was Jesus crucified for? Instigating the Jewish High priests who filed complaints to the Roman Governor? Jesus came at a time where at least 6 enterprising individuals preced him in either their claims to messiah or the throne of Judea, all of whom were killed or failed in their endeavors to destroy Herod and his family grip over power, as well as the failure to kick out the Romans. It was a time of social and political turbulence, and Jesus came at just the right time. He was a messiah alright, but not to deliver humanity, but to deliver the Jews from Roman occupation as well as destroy political corruption within Judea's own theocratic government.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 3:08:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is no 'of course' about it other than the fact that this belief of a historical Jesus is the status quo. There's actually no reason to believe a Jesus ever existed. The evidence is severely lacking and most of what we'd consider evidence is circular Christian accounts.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 8:28:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2013 5:03:32 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
No-one here seriously believes Jesus didn't exist, right?

I mean all historians agree that he existed. I'm posting this here just to tell atheists they're wrong about Jesus not existing.

Then by implication all historians are theists? No. You're posting this to tell the subset of atheists who don't believe Jesus existed that Jesus existed, perchance to graduate him from fictional messiah to real lunatic.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 4:00:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm one of the rare few that believes that Jesus Christ was a myth. At the very least, if he was a historic person he was euhemerized and therefore not divine. Besides, the NT is too full of errors to take its claims seriously. If Jesus Christ is God, then one would think that he could/would preserve his word from error.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 8:56:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 3:08:10 AM, InvictusManeo wrote:
There's actually no reason to believe a Jesus ever existed. The evidence is severely lacking and most of what we'd consider evidence is circular Christian accounts.

The writings of Josephus, Lucian of the 2nd century (a Greek satirist), Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus all mention Jesus. You really think these are all "circular Christian accounts"?

Taitus and Lucian both hated Christians and Christianity, calling them "associated with all manner of filth and dirt". They had every reason to not mention the history of Jesus.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 6:10:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Installgentoo,

You mention Josephus, Lucian, and Tacitus, who were not contemporaries to Jesus. The accounts of Jesus by Josephus and Tacitus are suspected to be forgeries, though I am not certain of Lucian's account. Are you able to provide examples of Greek, Jewish, or Roman historians who were Jesus' contemporary who lived in or around Jerusalem that can confirm his existence?
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 6:41:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 6:10:50 PM, Cygnus wrote:
Installgentoo,

You mention Josephus, Lucian, and Tacitus, who were not contemporaries to Jesus. The accounts of Jesus by Josephus and Tacitus are suspected to be forgeries, though I am not certain of Lucian's account. Are you able to provide examples of Greek, Jewish, or Roman historians who were Jesus' contemporary who lived in or around Jerusalem that can confirm his existence?

The NT is our primary contemproary sources since they were alive at the time of Jesus. Josephus accounts are not forged entirley, only that one part of the passage, but the whole thing is not forged. Josephus also names Jesus two other times in his works. He mentions James the brother of Jesus, and affirms that James was a bishop and was killed.

Tacitus and Lucian's accounts are not doubted by virtually any historians. There is no evidence to show they were forged. They all have the same literary tone that is consistent in their writings.

Ancient history works by people who referred to somebody back in a certain time period.

Josephus was a member of the Pharisees, the same group of people the Bible mentions in the NT that accuzed Jesus of apostasy in Israel. That means Josephus had some known source that wrote about Jesus, from either another pharisee or written document.

The same thing with Suetonious, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus. They were all Roman/Greek historians, which means they knew about Pontius Pilate who was a Procruator/Governor of Rome during early 1st Century. That means they must have had some archive or again, another written document that attests to Jesus crucifixion.

I mean virtually no ancient historian/NT Scholar, whether religious/non-religious, actually denies that Jesus of Nazareth existed (other than Richard Carrier and Robert Price).

It would be like denying the Holocaust. I am not sure what other evidence we would need for Jesus of Nazareth.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 6:44:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 6:41:00 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 12/22/2013 6:10:50 PM, Cygnus wrote:
Installgentoo,

You mention Josephus, Lucian, and Tacitus, who were not contemporaries to Jesus. The accounts of Jesus by Josephus and Tacitus are suspected to be forgeries, though I am not certain of Lucian's account. Are you able to provide examples of Greek, Jewish, or Roman historians who were Jesus' contemporary who lived in or around Jerusalem that can confirm his existence?

The NT is our primary contemproary sources since they were alive at the time of Jesus. Josephus accounts are not forged entirley, only that one part of the passage, but the whole thing is not forged. Josephus also names Jesus two other times in his works. He mentions James the brother of Jesus, and affirms that James was a bishop and was killed.

Tacitus and Lucian's accounts are not doubted by virtually any historians. There is no evidence to show they were forged. They all have the same literary tone that is consistent in their writings.

Ancient history works by people who referred to somebody back in a certain time period.

Josephus was a member of the Pharisees, the same group of people the Bible mentions in the NT that accuzed Jesus of apostasy in Israel. That means Josephus had some known source that wrote about Jesus, from either another pharisee or written document.

The same thing with Suetonious, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus. They were all Roman/Greek historians, which means they knew about Pontius Pilate who was a Procruator/Governor of Rome during early 1st Century. That means they must have had some archive or again, another written document that attests to Jesus crucifixion.

I mean virtually no ancient historian/NT Scholar, whether religious/non-religious, actually denies that Jesus of Nazareth existed (other than Richard Carrier and Robert Price).

It would be like denying the Holocaust. I am not sure what other evidence we would need for Jesus of Nazareth.

Oh good grief. So, you're calling me a Holocaust denier?
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 6:51:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 6:44:58 PM, Cygnus wrote:
At 12/22/2013 6:41:00 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 12/22/2013 6:10:50 PM, Cygnus wrote:
Installgentoo,

You mention Josephus, Lucian, and Tacitus, who were not contemporaries to Jesus. The accounts of Jesus by Josephus and Tacitus are suspected to be forgeries, though I am not certain of Lucian's account. Are you able to provide examples of Greek, Jewish, or Roman historians who were Jesus' contemporary who lived in or around Jerusalem that can confirm his existence?

The NT is our primary contemproary sources since they were alive at the time of Jesus. Josephus accounts are not forged entirley, only that one part of the passage, but the whole thing is not forged. Josephus also names Jesus two other times in his works. He mentions James the brother of Jesus, and affirms that James was a bishop and was killed.

Tacitus and Lucian's accounts are not doubted by virtually any historians. There is no evidence to show they were forged. They all have the same literary tone that is consistent in their writings.

Ancient history works by people who referred to somebody back in a certain time period.

Josephus was a member of the Pharisees, the same group of people the Bible mentions in the NT that accuzed Jesus of apostasy in Israel. That means Josephus had some known source that wrote about Jesus, from either another pharisee or written document.

The same thing with Suetonious, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus. They were all Roman/Greek historians, which means they knew about Pontius Pilate who was a Procruator/Governor of Rome during early 1st Century. That means they must have had some archive or again, another written document that attests to Jesus crucifixion.

I mean virtually no ancient historian/NT Scholar, whether religious/non-religious, actually denies that Jesus of Nazareth existed (other than Richard Carrier and Robert Price).

It would be like denying the Holocaust. I am not sure what other evidence we would need for Jesus of Nazareth.

Oh good grief. So, you're calling me a Holocaust denier?

No, I was saying that if you deny Jesus of Nazareth existed, it would be equal to denying the Holocaust. Both have solid, irrefutable, indisputable evidence.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 7:15:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, I was saying that if you deny Jesus of Nazareth existed, it would be equal to denying the Holocaust. Both have solid, irrefutable, indisputable evidence.

So, you're basically calling me a Holocaust denier.

The difference between the Holocaust and Jesus, contrary to your opinion, is that we *know* the Holocaust took place. The Holocaust does have solid, irrefutable, indisputable evidence that it took place. Jesus, however, does not. If he did, there wouldn't be people like me having this discussion with you.

I don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed. At the very least, if he did exist, he was purely human without so much as an ounce of divinity. The divine attributes that would have been assigned to Jesus were given to him by men, not God. If Jesus were divine, the NT gospels wouldn't have the multiple errors, contradictions, and inconsistencies that it has.

The Gospels were written 30, 40, even 60 years after the supposed resurrection of Jesus by highly educated Greek scribes. You keep mentioning historians who wrote what they heard of Jesus decades after his supposed existence on earth. Like I said, if you can show me a Jewish, Roman, or Greek historian from 1 BCE to 33 CE who can confirm Jesus' existence, then you might have something. Until then, I'm not buying it.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 7:24:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 7:15:29 PM, Cygnus wrote:
No, I was saying that if you deny Jesus of Nazareth existed, it would be equal to denying the Holocaust. Both have solid, irrefutable, indisputable evidence.

So, you're basically calling me a Holocaust denier.

The difference between the Holocaust and Jesus, contrary to your opinion, is that we *know* the Holocaust took place. The Holocaust does have solid, irrefutable, indisputable evidence that it took place. Jesus, however, does not. If he did, there wouldn't be people like me having this discussion with you.

I don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed. At the very least, if he did exist, he was purely human without so much as an ounce of divinity. The divine attributes that would have been assigned to Jesus were given to him by men, not God. If Jesus were divine, the NT gospels wouldn't have the multiple errors, contradictions, and inconsistencies that it has.

The Gospels were written 30, 40, even 60 years after the supposed resurrection of Jesus by highly educated Greek scribes. You keep mentioning historians who wrote what they heard of Jesus decades after his supposed existence on earth. Like I said, if you can show me a Jewish, Roman, or Greek historian from 1 BCE to 33 CE who can confirm Jesus' existence, then you might have something. Until then, I'm not buying it.

We know Jesus existed too, that's why virtually no ancient historian or NT scholar denies his existence. It's not disputed. Show me a list of ancient historians and NT scholars who deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

They were not written by Greek scribes. Who told you that? They were written by the first and second hand eyewitnesses of his life, somewhere between 10-60 years max.

It doesn't make a difference if the eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus during or after his existence. It is still contemporary because they were alive during the time of Jesus and witnessed his life, that's why they are contemporary.

If 4-12 eyewitnesses were to write about their experiences in Vietnam today, does that automatically make it non-contemporary? No because they were alive to see it happen.

Socrates doesn't have any ancient historians that wrote about him. Only his contemporaries Plato and Xenophon. Does that mean he therfore did not exist?
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 7:39:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We know Jesus existed too, that's why virtually no ancient historian or NT scholar denies his existence. It's not disputed. Show me a list of ancient historians and NT scholars who deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

I'll provide the list you ask for when you provide the one I asked for.

They were not written by Greek scribes. Who told you that? They were written by the first and second hand eyewitnesses of his life, somewhere between 10-60 years max.

Tell that to Bart Ehrman.

It doesn't make a difference if the eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus during or after his existence. It is still contemporary because they were alive during the time of Jesus and witnessed his life, that's why they are contemporary.

It does make a difference.

If 4-12 eyewitnesses were to write about their experiences in Vietnam today, does that automatically make it non-contemporary? No because they were alive to see it happen.

Socrates doesn't have any ancient historians that wrote about him. Only his contemporaries Plato and Xenophon. Does that mean he therfore did not exist?

Socrates had direct sources and students who wrote about him. But what I find unbelievable about Christians is that their god is supposedly the greatest, toughest, most righteous, bravest, wisest, man who ever walked the earth. But they cannot mention even one person who saw him every day and wrote about his deeds, much less his birth details which the NT can even get right.

Anyway, I must go meet a friend. Have a good evening.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 12:31:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Cygnus wrote:

Robert E. Van Voorst, NT scholar and Theologian.
Graham Stanton NT scholar of England states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

Crossan, John Dominic(Not a Christian) (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

"Many scholars agree that Jesus debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate" The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. Princeton Univ(Liberal) Press ISBN 978-0-691

Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[
Geoffrey Blainey, an Australian Historian notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time " more so than any of his contemporaries " with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him.



Here is a refutation of Bart Ehrman. https://www.youtube.com....



The disciples were direct sources of Jesus, and they wrote about his life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection. They were his apostles or followers. Matthew was an apostle of Jesus the inner 12, Mark was an apostle of Peter, who was an apostle of Jesus, Luke was an apostle of Paul, and testifies to the sources by the inner 12. John was a disciple of Jesus in the inner 12. Paul, James, Jude, etc. They are all testimonies to Jesus and his disciples, so we have substantial overwhelming NT evidence.

Jesus is the only one who claimed and proved to be God through his death and resurrection. The Resurrection is based on 4 historical facts accepted by most historians and scholars (religious/non-religious).

Matthew"s birth narratives focus on the role of Joseph, who is "a just man" in Matthew"s words of this event. Joseph is contrasted with Herod, an unjust and wicked ruler. Matthew takes great care to show how the birth event of Jesus fulfills prophecies made in the Old Testament and makes use of these prophecies to present Jesus as a governor, the ruler of Israel, a prince, and as God"s Son.

It is Matthew that tells us about the wise men that came to worship, bringing gifts fit for a king; the murderous acts of the bad king Herod; records the journey of the holy family to and back from Egypt (in no small part to illustrate how Jesus" life mirrors that of the people of Israel); and of the angels who in dreams direct Joseph. Matthew, in his powerful birth account, presents Jesus, in fulfillment of the prophecies and hopes of the Hebrew Scriptures, as the King of the Jews who has been given all authority in Heaven and Earth. He is Emmanuel, God with us.

Luke"s Gospel is an attempt, in his own words, to put in a place "an orderly account" of the birth, ministry, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Luke wrote his Gospel primarily for a Gentile audience and focuses on the traditionally marginalized and neglected groups in First Century Mediterranean societies. Thus Luke"s Gospel is full of references to women, children, the sick, the poor and rejected people groups like the Samaritans.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 3:28:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Very briefly, I wanted to take exception to a few things you mentioned:

"The disciples were direct sources of Jesus, and they wrote about his life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection."

Again, if that's the case, then where are their writings?

I got about 7 minutes into the video that you posted before I was almost yelling at my monitor and had to end the video before I smashed my monitor into pieces.

It's one thing for Craig to stand in front of a friendly group of fellow believers and lay waste to Ehrman's arguments when Ehrman isn't there to defend himself. It's an entirely different ballgame when Ehrman is in his presence. In the video, Craig refers to Ehrman as "Good Bart" and "Bad Bart". The Good Bart is the one that believes that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. Of course, Craig implies that Bad Bart is the one who says that the NT is unreliable, which it is absolutely unreliable as a historical document. Are there bits and pieces and historic figures that we know existed in the NT? Yes. But the fact that it gets so much of its own claims wrong makes it unreliable.

In a debate that the two had several years ago, Ehrman asked Craig, point blank, if he believed that the NT gospels were perfect and without error. In spite of Ehrman asking Craig this question at least two times, Craig refused to answer it because he knows he can't remain objectively honest about it. Craig knows deep down inside that the NT has not only errors and contradictions, but outright whoppers. He knows if he answers the NT is inerrant, he's lying, and he knows that if he answers that the NT does have errors, he's lost his credibility among his followers. Either way, he's screwed.

You go on to say,

" Jesus is the only one who claimed and proved to be God through his death and resurrection. The Resurrection is based on 4 historical facts accepted by most historians and scholars (religious/non-religious)."

I don't care what Jesus said about himself. In Matthew 13:31"32 and Mark 4:30"32, Jesus states clearly that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in all the earth. Yet, we know that the mustard seed isn't the smallest seed on earth. So, you can site the NT about Jesus claiming he is God all you want, but it doesn't make one difference to me. Because how can Jesus call himself God if he knows so little about botany?

For that reason alone, I do not accept that the resurrection actually happened, and we haven't even gotten to the inconsistencies in his birth narratives and his failed prophecies.

How can you worship a god who can't even keep his own word straight?
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 3:46:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 3:28:20 PM, Cygnus wrote:
Very briefly, I wanted to take exception to a few things you mentioned:

"The disciples were direct sources of Jesus, and they wrote about his life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection."

Again, if that's the case, then where are their writings?

I got about 7 minutes into the video that you posted before I was almost yelling at my monitor and had to end the video before I smashed my monitor into pieces.

It's one thing for Craig to stand in front of a friendly group of fellow believers and lay waste to Ehrman's arguments when Ehrman isn't there to defend himself. It's an entirely different ballgame when Ehrman is in his presence. In the video, Craig refers to Ehrman as "Good Bart" and "Bad Bart". The Good Bart is the one that believes that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. Of course, Craig implies that Bad Bart is the one who says that the NT is unreliable, which it is absolutely unreliable as a historical document. Are there bits and pieces and historic figures that we know existed in the NT? Yes. But the fact that it gets so much of its own claims wrong makes it unreliable.

In a debate that the two had several years ago, Ehrman asked Craig, point blank, if he believed that the NT gospels were perfect and without error. In spite of Ehrman asking Craig this question at least two times, Craig refused to answer it because he knows he can't remain objectively honest about it. Craig knows deep down inside that the NT has not only errors and contradictions, but outright whoppers. He knows if he answers the NT is inerrant, he's lying, and he knows that if he answers that the NT does have errors, he's lost his credibility among his followers. Either way, he's screwed.

You go on to say,

" Jesus is the only one who claimed and proved to be God through his death and resurrection. The Resurrection is based on 4 historical facts accepted by most historians and scholars (religious/non-religious)."

I don't care what Jesus said about himself. In Matthew 13:31"32 and Mark 4:30"32, Jesus states clearly that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in all the earth. Yet, we know that the mustard seed isn't the smallest seed on earth. So, you can site the NT about Jesus claiming he is God all you want, but it doesn't make one difference to me. Because how can Jesus call himself God if he knows so little about botany?

For that reason alone, I do not accept that the resurrection actually happened, and we haven't even gotten to the inconsistencies in his birth narratives and his failed prophecies.

How can you worship a god who can't even keep his own word straight?

The manuscripts? They are in musuems, and in seminaries and universities like all other ancient manuscripts. Name one failed prophecy? Bart ehrman even accepts the four facts about Jesus resurrection. The majority of NT scholars religious and non-religious accept the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, empty tomb, post mortem apperances, and the origin of belief in disciples.

No, Ehrman, had a flawed theological system in which inerrancy lay at the very center of his web of beliefs, so that once he became convinced of a single error in Scripture the whole web collapsed. As a result, the doctrine of inerrancy looms abnormally large in his thinking. But the case for Jesus" resurrection which Craig presented doesn"t in any way presuppose the inerrancy of the documents, so that the doctrine becomes irrelevant so far as belief in the resurrection goes. That is why Craig didn't adress the issue because it is not relevant to the debate topic. The debate is over the resurrection of Jesus, not the Innerancy of Scripture. It's a red herring.

Historians don't have to believe in inerrancy to confirm the 4 facts of Jesus resurrection.

The NT and OT far exceed any other ancient document in Manuscript attestation. Even Bart ehrman agrees with that. They have a 99% accuracy in manuscript evidence. 1% is just spelling and grammtical errors the scribes made, and they have no affect on the text whatsoever.

Bart ehrman himself agrees with the 4 facts of Jesus resurrection because they are historically confirmed. This is what he has said before. You see "Good" Bart speaking truthfully.

He says,

The resurrection of Jesus lies at the heart of Christian faith. Unfortunately, it also is a tradition about Jesus that historians have difficulty dealing with. As I said, there are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. . . .

Some scholars have argued that it"s more plausible that in fact Jesus was placed in a common burial plot, which sometimes happened, or was, as many other crucified people, simply left to be eaten by scavenging animals (which also happened commonly for crucified persons in the Roman Empire). But the accounts are fairly unanimous in saying (the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying) that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and so it"s relatively reliable that that"s what happened.

We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. As so I think we can say that after Jesus" death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb ("From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity," Lecture 4: "Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus" [The Teaching Company, 2003]).


So, as I said before, the resurrection of Jesus is based on the 4 facts that are not disputed amongst majority of scholars and ancient historians because the 4 facts are sound.

You can deny the 4 facts, but then you would be denying history. I go by the evidence. The best explanation is the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus claimed he was going to rise 3 times. Either he didn't rise or he did. If he didn't rise, than there would be no Christianity.

Bart Ehrman's main argument is that as an historian, he can't say that the resurrection is the Best explanation of the 4 facts.
Jesus wasn't saying the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world. Jesus was speaking proverbially. That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 8:20:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The manuscripts? They are in musuems, and in seminaries and universities like all other ancient manuscripts.

I have no doubt that the manuscripts exist, but as Bart Ehrman says, we do not have the originals. He also points out that the farther you go back historically into the manuscripts, the more errors there are. But what I want to know is, who the originals?

Name one failed prophecy?

The second coming. Jesus is never coming back. Of that I am 100% certain.

As a result, the doctrine of inerrancy looms abnormally large in his thinking...The debate is over the resurrection of Jesus, not the Innerancy of Scripture. It's a red herring."

The doctrine of inerrancy looms large in my thinking, too. Simply for the reason that the Bible is NOT inerrant. I hate to use all caps, but other grabbing a megaphone and shouting it directly in your face, I don't know how else to stress this very simple, demonstrable fact.

I also believed for years that the Bible was inerrant. That is, until I started to get my teeth kicked in by non-believers who patiently showed me that it is loaded with errors.

So, if the Bible has errors in it, and it is supposedly the word of God, how then can you trust anything the Bible says about the resurrection? Moreover, how can you worship a god, whose supposed writ is absolutely, definitely loaded with errors?

You can tell me that Ehrman accepts the four facts of the resurrection all you want, but in the end, he still denies it occurred.

Jesus wasn't saying the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world. Jesus was speaking proverbially. That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.

And this is why I get so freaking angry with you guys. Whenever somebody confronts you with verses that make you nervous, and you know deep down inside it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is in fact demonstrably wrong, you simply sidestep it with the reply that it's just an allegory. So, let's read both verses, straight from the KJV itself:

"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." Matthew 13:31-32

"It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:" Mark 4:31

The language is about as obvious and clear as it gets. You're simply avoiding the issue because you know this isn't true. This is simply one of those verses that Christians wish weren't in the Bible but it is.

So, here's the thing. We can jibjab about the resurrection, biblical errancy, failed prophecies, the 100% absolute fact that Jesus is never returning, what have you. So, instead of sending shots back and forth, let's just have a debate about it. You challenge me to a debate and l'll accept.

You're up.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 8:24:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The only thing I would ask is that the debate take place some time after Christmas. I don't think your or I would have the time to really hash out arguments amid friends, family, travel and stuffing our faces with food.

But, if you would still like to have it sooner than later, so be it.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 11:10:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 8:20:23 AM, Cygnus wrote:


I have no doubt that the manuscripts exist, but as Bart Ehrman says, we do not have the originals. He also points out that the farther you go back historically into the manuscripts, the more errors there are. But what I want to know is, who the originals?

We don't have the originals for anyone else in that time period. We don't have the originals for Julius Caesar, Josephus, Alexander the Great,etc. Bart ehrman even admits this in a radio interview.

So you might as well say that everyone in history is wrong then.

Are you going strictly by what Bart Ehrman says alone, or the evidence?




You are objectively sure that Jesus return won't happen because it hasn't happened yet. You are putting your assumption as your conclusion.



The doctrine of inerrancy looms large in my thinking, too. Simply for the reason that the Bible is NOT inerrant. I hate to use all caps, but other grabbing a megaphone and shouting it directly in your face, I don't know how else to stress this very simple, demonstrable fact.

I also believed for years that the Bible was inerrant. That is, until I started to get my teeth kicked in by non-believers who patiently showed me that it is loaded with errors.

So, if the Bible has errors in it, and it is supposedly the word of God, how then can you trust anything the Bible says about the resurrection? Moreover, how can you worship a god, whose supposed writ is absolutely, definitely loaded with errors?

You can tell me that Ehrman accepts the four facts of the resurrection all you want, but in the end, he still denies it occurred.

Really? So that statement I showed you that he made is a lie then? He himself said it. I am telling what the evidence says. If you want to deny historical facts, then go ahead, but its not true that these didn't happen. You would also be disagreeing with your boy Bart Ehrman.



And this is why I get so freaking angry with you guys. Whenever somebody confronts you with verses that make you nervous, and you know deep down inside it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is in fact demonstrably wrong, you simply sidestep it with the reply that it's just an allegory. So, let's read both verses, straight from the KJV itself:

"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." Matthew 13:31-32

"It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:" Mark 4:31


I am not nervous, and I am not backing away from the issue. I am going to adress it for you. Well first off, you used the KJV which has translational errors, and has been revised to the NKJV. Second you can't just argue from one verse without reading its context first. Jesus' statement in Matthew 13:32 about the size of the mustard seed
need not, and has no reason to, be interpreted as contradictory to scientific evidence for
the following reasons.

In the first place, the orchid seed may be the smallest, or one of the smallest plant seeds, and thus smaller than the mustard seed, it is not necessary to consider Jesus' statement in Matthew 13:32 as containing scientific error since the class of seeds with which the mustard seed is associated is the garden herb group (lachana) which may possibly be interpreted as being the "all the seeds" category to which reference
is made in the earlier part of the statement, "all" there being limited to the specific group (lachana) under consideration in the total context of the verse.26 Since the mustard seed probably was cultivated in Palestine in ancient times, for its oil,27 it may be argued that Jesus, when speaking of this type of seed, was talking about it in a comparison with all those seeds which were planted by farmers for food. Since panton is used with the lachana group in the parallel passage in Mark 4:31, it may be further argued that the panton ton spermaton group in both Matthew 13:32 and Mark 4:31 is intended to mean only the lachana species, the "all the garden herb" group. In this limited context of garden herbs then, Jesus speaks of the mustard seed as extremely small. With "all the seeds" being understood as limited in this way by the context, the
minute orchid seed28 need not be considered as being included by Jesus in His statement. It is to be observed that if Jesus had said, "The mustard seed is smaller than the orchid seed, "He would have seemed to have spoken erroneously; but this He did not say.

However, it is to be realized that Jesus, in using the common Jewish
proverbial expression of the mustard seed as a figure of smallness, did so only
because the proverbial expression so used was a true and accurate statement,
including those implications involving scientific data regarding the mustard seed,
both as to its very smallness as a seed and to its moderate largeness when grown.



If you want to debate, we can.
.

Let me you ask you an honest question. If Jesus is not who he said he was, even though we have been given all this historical evidence, Then what is proof and evidence for agnosticism?
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 3:22:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"We don't have the originals for anyone else in that time period. We don't have the originals for Julius Caesar, Josephus, Alexander the Great,etc. Bart ehrman even admits this in a radio interview. So you might as well say that everyone in history is wrong then. Are you going strictly by what Bart Ehrman says alone, or the evidence?"

I love Ehrman's work, but I get my hands on every bit of evidence that I can, even the church father's themselves.

Even if Jesus really was a historical person, it makes absolutely no difference to me, whatsoever because he was not divine.

"You are objectively sure that Jesus return won't happen because it hasn't happened yet. You are putting your assumption as your conclusion."

No. I am objectively sure that Jesus' return won't happen because it's a failed prophecy.

"Really? So that statement I showed you that he made is a lie then? He himself said it. I am telling what the evidence says. If you want to deny historical facts, then go ahead, but its not true that these didn't happen. You would also be disagreeing with your boy Bart Ehrman."

Who's your boy? Craig? The man who, when directly asked by Ehrman if the Bible is inerrant, tucked his tail between his legs and kept his mouth shut like a terrified puppy?

I don't deny facts. I just don't base my worldview through blood-stained glasses like you do. And you're ignoring the fact that a historian does not accept the resurrection.

"I am not nervous, and I am not backing away from the issue. I am going to adress it for you. Well first off, you used the KJV which has translational errors, and has been revised to the NKJV."

Did you even take time to warm up Google and look at them? But, okay, fine. Let's compare Matthew 13:31-32 in both the KJV and NKJV.

First, the KJV:

"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."

And the NJKV:

"Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."

Other than the Elizabethan dialect and capitalizing "He", there is NO...freaking...difference.

What are you going to tell me now? That only the Korean version of the NKJV is the correct one? Oh wait, he didn't mean "indeed", but "most likely", right?

By the way, are you hoping that I'm too stupid and/or lazy that I won't spend even 3 seconds looking up your sources? It's traditionally the right thing to cite your sources, not just copy and paste them from AIG.

"Let me you ask you an honest question. If Jesus is not who he said he was, even though we have been given all this historical evidence, Then what is proof and evidence for agnosticism?"

The Bible. Why do you think I'm no longer a believer? Because I love my sin or whatever garbage your pastor is telling you?
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 3:37:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I never said that all historians believe the Resurrection. I said that historians(religious/non-religous) believe the 4 facts about the resurrection. They all agree that Jesus was buried in an empty tomb by Joseph of Arimithea, 75% of religious/non-religous agree that his tomb was found empty by the women followers and male disciples. It is Universally acknowledged that he apperared to his earlies followers, and some of his skeptics like Paul, James, and Jude on various occasions, in various circumstances, in different events. The also agree that the disciples came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead.

You must explain the Best explanation of these 4 facts.

Is what you believe true? Is Agnosticism true? Can you provide proof and evidence for the statement "We can't know if God exits or does not exist"?

http://www.garyhabermas.com...
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 4:09:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 3:37:07 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
I never said that all historians believe the Resurrection. I said that historians(religious/non-religous) believe the 4 facts about the resurrection. They all agree that Jesus was buried in an empty tomb by Joseph of Arimithea, 75% of religious/non-religous agree that his tomb was found empty by the women followers and male disciples. It is Universally acknowledged that he apperared to his earlies followers, and some of his skeptics like Paul, James, and Jude on various occasions, in various circumstances, in different events. The also agree that the disciples came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead.

You must explain the Best explanation of these 4 facts.

Is what you believe true? Is Agnosticism true? Can you provide proof and evidence for the statement "We can't know if God exits or does not exist"?

http://www.garyhabermas.com...

Actually, don't have to.explain anything. I'm open to the idea of Jesus being an historical person, which I still reject, but as for his divinity? Not a chance.

As an agnostic, I don't know if God/gods exist. So, your question of me being able to provide proof is irrelevant. I can't prove that God doesn't exist, just like you can't prove that he does. But what I can do, is use my logic to deductively conclude that your god does not exist.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 4:17:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 4:09:23 PM, Cygnus wrote:
At 12/24/2013 3:37:07 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
I


Is what you believe true? Is Agnosticism true? Can you provide proof and evidence for the statement "We can't know if God exits or does not exist"?

http://www.garyhabermas.com...

Actually, don't have to.explain anything. I'm open to the idea of Jesus being an historical person, which I still reject, but as for his divinity? Not a chance.

I said you must explain the burial of Jesus, the empty tomb, the post-mortem apperances, and the origin of belief in disciples.

As an agnostic, I don't know if God/gods exist. So, your question of me being able to provide proof is irrelevant. I can't prove that God doesn't exist, just like you can't prove that he does. But what I can do, is use my logic to deductively conclude that your god does not exist.

How do you know that we can't know if God does or does not exist? Is what you believe true? I believe that is a fair question that you must answer. I gave historical fact to prove the existence of God.

If what you believe is true, then you need to shoulder the burden of proof for that belief.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 4:57:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 4:12:14 PM, Cygnus wrote:
I will read the link you provided later this evening.

Okay... Don't worry about responding immediately. Enjoy Christmas, New Years,etc.
Cygnus
Posts: 153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 10:06:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have a moment so I wanted to respond to your questions.

"I said you must explain the burial of Jesus, the empty tomb, the post-mortem apperances, and the origin of belief in disciples."

Again, I don't have to explain any of these things. I would like to say, however, that the origins or sudden belief in Jesus by the disciples is flawed reasoning. There were sudden worshipers of Apollonius of Tyana and Allah. So what?

"How do you know that we can't know if God does or does not exist? Is what you believe true? I believe that is a fair question that you must answer. I gave historical fact to prove the existence of God

Agnosticism makes no assumptions about claims until enough evidence (or lack thereof) has been examined. Therefore, I don't know if God exists or not. Again, you claim that you gave historical fact(s) for the existence of God, presumably the god you worship, Jesus. But how can you call him God if he can't even get the details of his own birth right in his own word, and fails to deliver on his prophecies, especially the second coming?