Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[Minimalist]

I guess you missed the "troll" part.

[Fpvpilot]

I guess you missed the "troll" part.

Min,

Generally, I do my best to ignore insults. Is your response yes or no?

Thanks,

Fpvpilot

[5thHorseman]

it's a no, but DiestPaladin will, so get it on.

[DeistPaladin]

Hi, DeistPaladin,

I agree that “argument from silence” is not a logical fallacy in the event that we should reasonably expect to find evidence. However, I previously explained how the Christ-Myth proponents’ use of the argument from silence was faulty.

Let’s wait and see what Min says in response to my invitation.

I've posted on forums with Min for many years now and I can vouch for him that it's quite believable that he is exhausted from dealing with the same canned arguments again and again. We've heard about The Annals of Tacitus, Testimonium Flavianum, the Jamesian Reference and the Letters of Pliny. We've also heard Liar, Lord and Lunatic, "Would the Die for a Lie?" and many other cliches frequently cited by Strobel, McDowell et al. Having the same discussion over and over does wear you down.

If he declines, I'm a bit more fresh. I'm not as versed in ancient history as Min is, however. I'll be using the Bible as my primary source.

---

it's a no, but DiestPaladin will, so get it on.

One of the rules I want to make clear from the get-go is I'm going to use the Bible (sorry to beat this to death but I want to be clear). Any admission from the other side that the true story of Jesus bore no resemblance to the Gospel character or that his ministry was nowhere near as famous as the Gospels relate will be effectively conceding the debate.

I have no intention of debating the lack of existence of "some guy named Yeshua who lived in 1st century Judea" or some other poorly defined Jesus-of-the-Gaps.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Let’s wait and see what Min says in response to my invitation

May a be long wait, I doubt Min cares about your invitation. Like me,he has little patience with fools.

[Fpvpilot]

One of the rules I want to make clear from the get-go is I'm going to use the Bible (sorry to beat this to death but I want to be clear). Any admission from the other side that the true story of Jesus bore no resemblance to the Gospel character or that his ministry was nowhere near as famous as the Gospels relate will be effectively conceding the debate.

I have no intention of debating the lack of existence of "some guy named Yeshua who lived in 1st century Judea" or some other poorly defined Jesus-of-the-Gaps.

Hi, DeistPaladin,

Thank you for your willingness to debate. I agree to argue that it is reasonable to believe Jesus existed in the first century C.E. By “Jesus” I mean a Jewish man who was crucified under Pontius Pilate’s authority during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, was a reputed miracle worker, and had a successful ministry during his lifetime. Here is the proposed format:

1. Each debater introduces himself and makes his initial case.

2. Each debater posts a rebuttal to his opponents opening post.

3. Each debater supplies a closing post.

This format will hopefully ensure that each debater’s time is used efficiently and will assist each debater in remaining focused.

Regarding behavioral guidelines:

1. Each debater will clearly explain his method for determining whether or not someone existed or something happened in antiquity.

2. Each debater will cite his sources.

3. Neither debater will commit ad hominen fallacies (i.e., calling the other person names).

4. Neither debater will make an “argument from hyperlink” (posting a link to a web page or entire web site as their rebuttal to the other person’s argumentation).

Again, thank you for offering to debate with me. This debate will probably be my final contribution to Atheist Forums for a while, because my schedule is beginning to become busy again.

Just let me know where you would like to set up the debate thread. Do you want to contact the moderators or would you prefer for me to do so? You are probably more familiar with the procedures for formal debates on Atheist Forums than I am.

Kind regards,

Fpvpilot

[DeistPaladin]

FYI, the "ad hominem" isn't just insulting someone but insulting someone in place of an argument.

Nonetheless, I agree to civility.

[Fpvpilot]

FYI, the "ad hominem" isn't just insulting someone but insulting someone in place of an argument.

That is correct.

Nonetheless, I agree to civility.

Excellent. Please notify me when the thread is ready to go.

Thanks,

Fpvpilot

[Jackalope]

FYI, the "ad hominem" isn't just insulting someone but insulting someone in place of an argument.

You're wrong, because you're a big bad doodyhead.

[Minimalist]

I guess you missed the "troll" part.

Min,

Generally, I do my best to ignore insults. Is your response yes or no?

Thanks,

Fpvpilot

WTF is it that you want to debate? You posted a pile of stuff indicating the problems with ancient history by way of making apology for the fact that no one noticed your godboy in the first century.

As far as I can see, we are in agreement on that most basic of points.

There are no contemporary references to your godboy - or even a criminal coming back to life after 3 days which I contend would have big fucking news all across the empire if it had happened. You want to make excuses for that gap and I am content to point out that the gap exists.

You can't want to debate the gap because you admit it exists. If you want to debate apologetics I have no time for such silliness. I've already posted some of the most basic problems with ancient history elsewhere. It does not change the fact that your jesus appears later and is back written, clumsily in cases, into the early first century.