I'm rethinking my whole debate strategy on Jesus.
For a while, I was fascinated by the idea that he never existed at all. The dearth of evidence, contradictory claims by different early Christians and the inability to square the Gospels with known history made me wonder if Jesus was the greatest urban legend ever told. I'm still curious about 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7, verses where "John" rails against false Christians who thought Jesus wasn't a physical being.
After spending a few years debating with Christian apologists, I've grown tired of what I've come to call "The Scholars-Say Shuffle". Apologists are quite skilled at this dance of ducking and weaving, hiding behind claims (whether true or not) of scholarly consensus. Repeated demands for evidence are dodged until they finally bring up Josephus and Tacitus. Tiresome wrangling over whether the TF of Josephus is "partially authentic", the "Jamesian Reference" and the merits and flaws of the Annals of Tacitus ensue. Pointing out the flaws of all these pieces of "evidence" is met with a smug "well, the scholars don't agree with you".
I'm still not convinced that a historical Jesus ever existed. However, I think that debating this point is precisely the argument that the apologist wants to have. They're more vulnerable when discussing the contradictions of the Bible, the wild supernatural claims and how science has debunked the Christian worldview (evolution = no Adam and Eve = no fall = no need for Jesus). By focusing only on the historicity of the alleged ministry of Jesus, they can try to paint the skeptic as a crackpot and shove the burden of proof away from them.
My new strategy is going to be "assuming Jesus existed, what can we know about him and how likely are the Christian claims?".
For a while, I was fascinated by the idea that he never existed at all. The dearth of evidence, contradictory claims by different early Christians and the inability to square the Gospels with known history made me wonder if Jesus was the greatest urban legend ever told. I'm still curious about 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7, verses where "John" rails against false Christians who thought Jesus wasn't a physical being.
After spending a few years debating with Christian apologists, I've grown tired of what I've come to call "The Scholars-Say Shuffle". Apologists are quite skilled at this dance of ducking and weaving, hiding behind claims (whether true or not) of scholarly consensus. Repeated demands for evidence are dodged until they finally bring up Josephus and Tacitus. Tiresome wrangling over whether the TF of Josephus is "partially authentic", the "Jamesian Reference" and the merits and flaws of the Annals of Tacitus ensue. Pointing out the flaws of all these pieces of "evidence" is met with a smug "well, the scholars don't agree with you".
I'm still not convinced that a historical Jesus ever existed. However, I think that debating this point is precisely the argument that the apologist wants to have. They're more vulnerable when discussing the contradictions of the Bible, the wild supernatural claims and how science has debunked the Christian worldview (evolution = no Adam and Eve = no fall = no need for Jesus). By focusing only on the historicity of the alleged ministry of Jesus, they can try to paint the skeptic as a crackpot and shove the burden of proof away from them.
My new strategy is going to be "assuming Jesus existed, what can we know about him and how likely are the Christian claims?".
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
