DEBUNKING THE CONSPIRACY THEORY

[Randy Carson]

It's a false trichotomy Randy. Either you know that, in which case you're dishonest, or you don't know it, in which case you don't know logic.

Option 4: he simply believed he was the son of God, managed to get some other people to believe him and got killed for causing trouble. That's not covered by your 3 options, hence false trichotomy.

And this is where your "false trichotomy" charge fails. If Jesus believe that he was God, he was a lunatic. Lewis covered that...which you would know if you had ever bothered to read what he wrote. See, here's the thing...you're arguing against Lewis without actually having read Lewis.

I don't know if he existed, neither do you. I'm happy admitting the limits of my ability to interpret history.

You just can't bring yourself to make a decision, can you? The reason is because you don't WANT to decide...doing so has implications for how you choose to live, so it's better to claim that you can't really know for sure. That way, you can pretty much live however YOU want to live without having to answer to God for anything, can't you?

But I'm curious...by that reasoning, are there other historical figures whose existence you are equally willing to question, rob? If you had taken a history test in school and answered questions about Socrates or Alexander the Great with "I don't really know whether he existed or not, so I can't answer these questions", what kind of a grade would you have gotten from your teacher?

Why is it that historians believe we can know some things about the ancient past with some degree of confidence? Why is it that Ehrman says we can know that Jesus existed? Why is that you can't say that?

What are your criteria for accepting the existence of any person from the distant past? And how does YOUR yardstick (meterstick?) line up with that of professional historians?

But if he existed, your 3 options are not the only ones.

Your refusal to admit that someone can believe something but be wrong is at the heart of your faulty thinking.

What would be the real difference between Jesus believing he was a poached egg and believing he was God? Wouldn't he be considered a lunatic either way by those who heard him making the claim?

[Randy Carson]

I agree with Randy. Robin Hood was totally real, since all the Merry Men attested to that fact, as well as the Sheriff of Nottingham.

You have the principles of multiple attestation and enemy attestation correct.

Now, let's examine the sources of this information about Robin Hood. What are they?

[Longhorn]

Bbbbbut NT scholars Abaris! What's YOUR theory??

When even atheists acknowledge that Jesus existed, that he was crucified, that his disciples believed they saw him alive again, etc...

Do they? Fascinating, really....

Say, when you write 'atheists' do you mean 'some atheists' or 'all atheists'?

Something tells me you didn't read the post you quoted very attentively, Randall...

[downbeatplumb]

The fact that you can no longer see a six mile high bean stalk is evidence that it was cut down, therefore jack and the bean stalk is true.

Odins defeat of the ice giants is proved by the continued non-existence of ice giants.

An empty tomb (that on one can find) somewhere in the middle east is evidence for a series of improbable events as mention ad nauseum by our favourite whatever Randy is.

The apostles began to preach in Jerusalem...the very city where Jesus was tried, convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be God, crucified by the Roman, died, and was buried.

If the tomb WAS not empty, then why didn't the Sanhedrin or Pontius Pilate simply order the tomb to be opened for examination?

If there were skeptics like you in Jerusalem, do you think they might have walked to the cemetery just to see the stone and the tomb for themselves?

But even the empty tomb does not account for the transformation of the apostles or the conversions of Paul and James. These were brought about NOT by an empty tomb but by the appearances of Jesus.

If Cinderella hadn't dropped her glass shoe prince charming could not possible have mounted his successful foot ware bride search. These are stories. Nothing more.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]Now, let's examine the sources of this information about Robin Hood. What are they?

Same source as yours - some book.

[IATIA]

And what of King Arthur? Merlin? I have sources/books for those also.

[Randy Carson]

When even atheists acknowledge that Jesus existed, that he was crucified, that his disciples believed they saw him alive again, etc...

Do they? Fascinating, really....

Say, when you write 'atheists' do you mean 'some atheists' or 'all atheists'?

Something tells me you didn't read the post you quoted very attentively, Randall...

Some, of course. The "brights".

I can no more refer to "all atheists" safely than you can refer to "all Christians".

[Longhorn]

Do they? Fascinating, really....

Say, when you write 'atheists' do you mean 'some atheists' or 'all atheists'?

Something tells me you didn't read the post you quoted very attentively, Randall...

Some, of course. The "brights".

I can no more refer to "all atheists" safely than you can refer to "all Christians".

I wonder how 'the brights' feel about the existence of the apostles in light of the information that it has not been proven....

[Randy Carson]

[...]Now, let's examine the sources of this information about Robin Hood. What are they?

Same source as yours - some book.

Right...let's compare the books.

Yours first (since we've already discussed mine at length). What books are you citing as evidence for the historical Robin Hood?

Who wrote it? How long was it written after the actual life of Robin Hood? You know...the usual questions apply.

Thanks in advance.

[Randy Carson]

And what of King Arthur? Merlin?  I have sources/books for those also.

Yes, I was thinking of them, also.

Would you say that professional historians believe that King Arthur really existed? What is their consensus?