RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
November 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm
(This post was last modified: November 25, 2014 at 1:43 pm by DeistPaladin.)
I seriously would like to debate you on the topic of whether or not the Gospels are based on a true story. You can even have the advantage of seeing my arguments in a previous debate on this topic.
Just to be clear, the issue is not a non-falsifiable claim that "some guy named Yeshua who was a religious leader" existed. Rather, the issue is whether or not we can take the Gospels seriously as a detailed biography of his life or even offers us an idea of what his life was like and what his teachings were.
I'm a "Jesus Mooter", not a myther. My question is, "What, if anything, can we actually know about him?" My contention is that the Gospels are mythology or, at best, legends no more reliable than the folklore of Washington's Cherry Tree or the "Elvis sighting" stories that appeared in tabloids in the decades after his death.
Since the Gospels are all the detailed information we have, the issue of Jesus' existence is moot.
The criteria of the debate will even allow that the accounts of miracles and the supernatural be ignored, perhaps as fanciful ad hocs to the original tale, much like the Cherry Tree story with Washington or the songs sung about Davy Crockett killing bears when he was only three. Getting rid of the supernatural would gut the Gospel account of the life of Jesus, since 90% of it either is about his miracles or relies upon them, but we'll let that go.
However, the debate criteria will specifically not allow the defender of the faith to weasel out of defending the Bible. There will not be any vague, undefined escape hatches like "well, the Bible's not totally accurate." I promise not to bring up petty contradictions like the color of Jesus' robe and stick to glaring, irreconcilable contradictions like "in what decade was Jesus born?"
If you wish to debate that the Gospels are reliable eye-witness accounts that offer a dependable biographical account of Jesus' life and ministry, consider yourself challenged.
Just to be clear, the issue is not a non-falsifiable claim that "some guy named Yeshua who was a religious leader" existed. Rather, the issue is whether or not we can take the Gospels seriously as a detailed biography of his life or even offers us an idea of what his life was like and what his teachings were.
I'm a "Jesus Mooter", not a myther. My question is, "What, if anything, can we actually know about him?" My contention is that the Gospels are mythology or, at best, legends no more reliable than the folklore of Washington's Cherry Tree or the "Elvis sighting" stories that appeared in tabloids in the decades after his death.
Since the Gospels are all the detailed information we have, the issue of Jesus' existence is moot.
The criteria of the debate will even allow that the accounts of miracles and the supernatural be ignored, perhaps as fanciful ad hocs to the original tale, much like the Cherry Tree story with Washington or the songs sung about Davy Crockett killing bears when he was only three. Getting rid of the supernatural would gut the Gospel account of the life of Jesus, since 90% of it either is about his miracles or relies upon them, but we'll let that go.
However, the debate criteria will specifically not allow the defender of the faith to weasel out of defending the Bible. There will not be any vague, undefined escape hatches like "well, the Bible's not totally accurate." I promise not to bring up petty contradictions like the color of Jesus' robe and stick to glaring, irreconcilable contradictions like "in what decade was Jesus born?"
If you wish to debate that the Gospels are reliable eye-witness accounts that offer a dependable biographical account of Jesus' life and ministry, consider yourself challenged.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
