Debating the existence of Jesus

[Tartarus Sauce]

Just because somebody is willing to die for something doesn't make it true, it just means that there are people willing to die for what THEY believe is right.

[Minimalist]

for what THEY believe is right

Or x number of virgins.

[Foxaèr]

Religious people are always willing to die for that which they think is true, but their sacrifice does not make their fairy tale beliefs real.

[Zarith]

If being gruesomely tortured and then executed in service of a belief proves its truthfulness, then I guess the Inquisition was trying to prove heresy true.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHEiBvB-X...6A85A8A15C

you'll find this very helpful.

summarizing from memory, they discussed the following:
1. People dying for what they think is true, but they were mistaken.
2. People dying to cover for someone else (mother admitting to murder to save daughter kind of scenario)
3. Attention seekers, apparently every high profile murder case has tons of people making fake confessions even though they'll likely be put to death if convicted.
4. I think they also talked about the martyrs were not put to death for believing in the resurrection, apparently they did something else and died for that but happened to be preachers.

And I think every religion has its martyrs, does that mean they're all true?

[Godscreated]

I'm currently in a debate with a theist over whether or not Jesus existed.

Points he's made so far:
-Modern scholars agree Jesus existed, so he existed
-Tacticus and Josephus are reliable historians, so we should accept their accounts of Jesus.
-The writers of the Gospel died in very gruesome, martyr-like ways, so why would they die for something that wasn't even true?

Points I've made:
-Tacticus and Josephus were born AFTER the events of Jesus allegedly occurred, making their accounts as reliable as the Gospels (not very reliable)
-Josephus' account of Jesus was written after the first gospel was written.
-Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum" was tampered with.
-Josephus' 'Jamesian Reference" refers to a different Jesus than Jesus Christ



So I've debunked his first two points (even though he won't acknowledge I have), but he keeps flaunting that third point of his. Any recommendations on how to end this debate in my favor, whether it be debunking the third point or addressing a new point?

Is winning all that's important to you, I thought a debate was about getting to the truth of a matter.
Just because Josephus was born a few years after Christ's death rules him out as a reliable source.
Well if that's the case then my being born 9 years after WWII means I know nothing about it. Even though I had uncles who fought in the war, a mother and father who lived through the war, many of their friends who fought in the war and many of my friends who's parents were in the war. Crap and here I thought I had reliable sources, I bet the history books that were written after the war are trash too.

[Cyberman]

The terrorists that died flying into the twin towers died in a pretty nasty way. Does that make them right too? They thought they were martyr's too.

Their deaths were instantaneous, they were not imprisoned on numerous occasions, they were not stone, nor whipped for their beliefs, no one threatened their lives over and over.

I realise I'm going to regret asking this, but why should this make any difference? This is nothing but pure red herring. They martyred themselves for their politico-religious beliefs. Perversely, that makes them far more devout than the typical grassroots theist.

The disciples did not see themselves as martyrs, they actually placed themselves below others, they considered they were servants to others.

Interestingly, that is the exact polar opposite in every particular to almost every theist I've ever encountered. Certainly the outspoken ones.

[Godscreated]

Their deaths were instantaneous, they were not imprisoned on numerous occasions, they were not stone, nor whipped for their beliefs, no one threatened their lives over and over. The disciples did not see themselves as martyrs, they actually placed themselves below others, they considered they were servants to others.

And you are basing this on what evidence exactly?

Go look in the NT, I'm tired of doing all the foot work for those who want read what they argue against. Just how is it you can argue against something you have not read and studied.

---

Their deaths were instantaneous, they were not imprisoned on numerous occasions, they were not stone, nor whipped for their beliefs, no one threatened their lives over and over.

I realise I'm going to regret asking this, but why should this make any difference? This is nothing but pure red herring. They martyred themselves for their politico-religious beliefs. Perversely, that makes them far more devout than the typical grassroots theist.

Really, personally I think it's because they are loony toons, what man in his right mind would do such foolishness.

The disciples did not see themselves as martyrs, they actually placed themselves below others, they considered they were servants to others.

Interestingly, that is the exact polar opposite in every particular to almost every theist I've ever encountered. Certainly the outspoken ones.

What I know comes from the scriptures, if one were to read the NT one would find that the disciples were humble servants for Christ and man.

[Cyberman]

I realise I'm going to regret asking this, but why should this make any difference? This is nothing but pure red herring. They martyred themselves for their politico-religious beliefs. Perversely, that makes them far more devout than the typical grassroots theist.

Really, personally I think it's because they are loony toons, what man in his right mind would do such foolishness.

I hope you remember it was you that said this, not I. But thank you for making my point for me; I don't think I could have put it better myself.

[Zen Badger]

Is winning all that's important to you, I thought a debate was about getting to the truth of a matter.
Just because Josephus was born a few years after Christ's death rules him out as a reliable source.
Well if that's the case then my being born 9 years after WWII means I know nothing about it. Even though I had uncles who fought in the war, a mother and father who lived through the war, many of their friends who fought in the war and many of my friends who's parents were in the war. Crap and here I thought I had reliable sources, I bet the history books that were written after the war are trash too.

Yes, all first hand accounts by witness's to the events.

Unlike Jesus, for whom there are absolutely no first hand accounts by people who actually saw him.

And that is the point you so blithely ignore.

That no-one ever wrote down one word about your god boy, even though according to the bible his works were witnessed by thousands.

Weird that......