Debate with a Christian

[Rayaan]

So disciplus, earlier in this thread you were discussing with Jacob(Smooth) on what topic to debate on, with two different topics in mind although undecided as to which one. Jacob said that he is willing to debate you, and he sent me a PM as well so that I can create a thread for you guys. But I didn't hear a clear answer from you on whether or not you want to debate with him, nor exactly which topic you planned to debate on.

This was Jacob's response on the topics you suggested, which you didn't respond to yet:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24451-po...#pid619680


If you're going to do this, then you have to tell us because you won't be able to start this unless one of the admins gives you access to post in the Debate Area.

[pocaracas]

Finally!!!!
The cat is out of the bag!
I'll try not to repeat the points other have made about you reply, discipulus... just to push a bit further on a few things you may have missed.

Look into what he says closely, something extraordinary is indeed present. He states that an immense multitude of Christians were convicted by Nero for starting the fire that burned a great deal of Rome in 64A.D.

Yes, of course, "immense multitude"... How many make up such a multitude?
How did they go from repressed minority to immense multitude in a few lines of text?
Anyway, I can agree with you that there were people who followed the teaching of christ... or some or other form of those teachings.

Now, if Jesus, who we know was crucified, had died and indeed remained dead, then it becomes inexplicable as to how His immediate disciples (all of which were Jews), who were despondent, fearful of their lives and forced into hiding, could have somehow been the cause of there being an immense multitude of Christians in Rome which is roughly 2,000 miles a way in a mere thirty years!

Now do tell me how those people 2000 miles away would have come to know about these events concerning Jesus?
Did they all witness them and then flocked to Rome to tel everyone about it?
Or... as the story goes... one man traveled to Rome and told the tale?
A tale which, as we know, is appealing to the masses, the poor and destitute.
Is the fact that people believed and propagated the tale of this one man a testament of the reality of that tale? Or a testament of the gullibility of the people?
Occam's Razor suggests the simplest answer is often the real one.

The presence of so many Christians in Rome at this particular time roughly 2,000 miles away from where Christ was crucified and buried leaving behind a rag tag group of Galileans who were forced into hiding and despondent at the death of their Rabbi, cries out for an explanation.

Yes... Rome was a city, the capital of the Empire. Where opportunity looms for those who leave the countryside and try their luck at a potentially easier life... I wonder... has this ever happened again in human history?
So, lots of people in one place, unlike Galilee, where one tale, one appealing tale, brings hope to those without it, and swooosh.

Both Suetonius, the Chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian and the Roman Historian Tacitus mention a "superstition" when speaking of Christians and many historians see this as an allusion to the claim of the disciples that Jesus had been resurrected.

Claims by one disciple of something beyond the normal.
Ok, maybe two...

Are we really to believe that these twelve Galileans would:

A. Be able to somehow steal Jesus' body guarded by Roman soldiers....

B. Hide the body in such a way as for it to never be found...

C. Fabricate a lie (Jesus rising from the dead)

D. Go out and proclaim that He did indeed rise from the dead (something they knew was a lie)

errr... yes, they would do that...
Take your picking at recent "religions" and cults and you see the same thing happening.
Cargo cult, scientology, etc... all share the same sort of fabrication and proclamation.

E. Boldy proclaim the remission of sins in His name in a Second-Temple Judaistic culture which would have earned them immediate ostracism

I skip this one as I'm not aware of what it's about...
Perhaps you'd like to instruct me?

F. Be so effective in their proclamation of this lie that Christianity spread so rapidly as to have an immense multitude of followers 2,000 miles away in the capital city of a pagan empire...

A tale custom made for the poor goes a long way when the vast majority of the population is poor.... and goes ever further when you have a bunch of these poor people in one single place.

G. Be willing to die and suffer some of the most extreme forms of torture, and persecution and ultimately death for something they knew was a lie.

As I understand it, Rome was a hub of multiple cults. Anything was possible there.
It's only as these people become bothersome that they become persecuted... by then, it's too late. Belief is inculcated and, like it happens with any other belief system, will not go away, unless force is applied.
Parents teach this belief to their children who then propagate it to their children and it goes on and on... until it hits a rift.
e.g. The egyptian gods were driven out by the romans/christians, and eventually died out, however even nowadays "many festivals and other traditions in Egypt, both Christian and Muslim, resemble the worship of Egypt's ancient gods." linky winky.

H. Inspire an immense multitude to also die and suffer the most extreme forms of torture

Inspire them in the knowledge that they die to meet their loving caring "heavenly father"?... Any mortal suffering pales in comparison to that!
Also, poor people had little or nothing to lose in this earthly realm.

And accomplish all of the above by basing their new religion on a complete lie?

Yes, it seems similar to how all other religions got started, wouldn't you think?

Overnight they go from despondent, leaderless, cowardly, fearful men, to men who literally turned the world upside down so that today in 2014 nearly a third of the world's population (over 2,000,000,000) people worship Christ as God!

Overnight?... I wouldn't say that... it was a difficult battle.... won some 300 years after, when the religion got adopted by the roman empire, to appease the masses (so the tale goes)... the same masses to whom the story so appealed.
Does that make the story real?

To say that this is extraordinary would be a gross understatement. Not only that but the sheer improbability of this happening and all of it happening while Jesus lay dead somewhere is so staggering as to make one's mind reel when thinking of the improbability of it.

How did the egyptian gods become adored by the egyptians for some 4000 years?
How did the vikings come to believe in the norse gods?
How did the muslims come to believe in Allah?
How... well, I think you get the picture...
How extraordinary it was that any relative large group of people came to believe in a single mythology?
Does that make any of those mythologies true and based on reality?

Zealous men will oftentimes die for what they believe to be true, but I am aware of no one who would die for something they knew to be a lie. This is exactly what we have to believe if we are to believe that Christianity is based on some colossal lie.

Remember how many "witnesses" actually traveled from Galilee to Rome? one? two?...
Only these would be aware of the deception... and it seems these lived to be old men...

Is it not more probable and in accordance with Occam's Razor( i.e the principle of parsimony or succinctness) that Jesus Rose from the Dead in accordance with scripture and that Christ was and is alive and well and building His Church as He said He would?

A scripture that was written when it was already going on?

Come on... I thought you had something better to bring forward.
It was, nonetheless, refreshing and interesting.
Thank you.

[Mudhammam]

I wonder if Discipulus has ever heard the names Seneca, Justus of Tiberius, Philo, or Lucanus...?

Is there a reason why he disregards the fact that no contemporary historians of Jesus mention anything about him, even those with direct ties to people who, according to the New Testament, were involved in miraculous happenings?

[discipulus]

So disciplus, earlier in this thread you were discussing with Jacob(Smooth) on what topic to debate on, with two different topics in mind although undecided as to which one. Jacob said that he is willing to debate you, and he sent me a PM as well so that I can create a thread for you guys. But I didn't hear a clear answer from you on whether or not you want to debate with him, nor exactly which topic you planned to debate on.

This was Jacob's response on the topics you suggested, which you didn't respond to yet:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24451-po...#pid619680


If you're going to do this, then you have to tell us because you won't be able to start this unless one of the admins gives you access to post in the Debate Area.

The topic has been agreed upon.

The topic will be: : "Are the gospels reliable biographies of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?"

The format has not. Jacob(smooth) asked that I address my points one at a time. This however will not be feasible utilizing the current debate format. For I have upwards of twenty different points to make and the debate format consists of a total of only four rounds. How shall this be reconciled?

[Jacob(smooth)]

So disciplus, earlier in this thread you were discussing with Jacob(Smooth) on what topic to debate on, with two different topics in mind although undecided as to which one. Jacob said that he is willing to debate you, and he sent me a PM as well so that I can create a thread for you guys. But I didn't hear a clear answer from you on whether or not you want to debate with him, nor exactly which topic you planned to debate on.

This was Jacob's response on the topics you suggested, which you didn't respond to yet:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24451-po...#pid619680


If you're going to do this, then you have to tell us because you won't be able to start this unless one of the admins gives you access to post in the Debate Area.

The topic has been agreed upon.

The topic will be: : "Are the gospels reliable biographies of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?"

The format has not. Jacob(smooth) asked that I address my points one at a time. This however will not be feasible utilizing the current debate format. For I have upwards of twenty different points to make and the debate format consists of a total of only four rounds. How shall this be reconciled?

From where I sit, it looks thus. For it to be considered accurate it must be without error. I'm not representing that it isn't true in any particular, merely that it's not true in all.

So if you like, I can offer you say 5 of the reasons I stopped believing the bible was inerrant, (accurate in this case) and you can refute them?

[Esquilax]

From where I sit, it looks thus. For it to be considered accurate it must be without error. I'm not representing that it isn't true in any particular, merely that it's not true in all.

So if you like, I can offer you say 5 of the reasons I stopped believing the bible was inerrant, (accurate in this case) and you can refute them?

Everyone ready for forty more pages of tedious clarifications?!

[shep]

From where I sit, it looks thus. For it to be considered accurate it must be without error. I'm not representing that it isn't true in any particular, merely that it's not true in all.

So if you like, I can offer you say 5 of the reasons I stopped believing the bible was inerrant, (accurate in this case) and you can refute them?

Everyone ready for forty more pages of tedious clarifications?!

Heh, I said this (http://atheistforums.org/thread-24451-po...#pid617118) on page 4. Doesn't seem to have really gone anywhere since then.

[discipulus]

So if you like, I can offer you say 5 of the reasons I stopped believing the bible was inerrant, (accurate in this case) and you can refute them?

I understand you clearly.

How about this:

We debate on the topic: "Do the four gospels contain errors in them?"

After the introductions you will open first and present your five arguments (examples) of why you think the gospels contain errors. Then I will come behind and give my view on those five things you present and we will follow the standard four round format.

Sound good?

[Jacob(smooth)]

I'm less happy with restricting it to "errors" because it leaves our the element of proof. To show an error one assumes the correlary to be true. Some of my issue is the "dog which barked in the night" principle, which is not so much an error.

But the hell with it. Let's call it errors to get things moving. Provided you promise not to get semantically pedantic over the difference between an error and an inconsistency or whatnot.

[discipulus]

I'm less happy with restricting it to "errors" because it leaves our the element of proof. To show an error one assumes the correlary to be true. Some of my issue is the "dog which barked in the night" principle, which is not so much an error.

But the hell with it. Let's call it errors to get things moving. Provided you promise not to get semantically pedantic over the difference between an error and an inconsistency or whatnot.

The restriction is necessary because you have asked that I deal with one point at a time in a four round debate. My case is extensive and much of it is revolving around various interpretations of key concepts relating to the nature of the gospels, what historians consider to be contradictions, the burden of proof and who it goes to in approaching texts critically etc etc.

All of these concepts and several more must be enumerated and expounded upon and this will necessitate my opening post to contain a lot more than just "one point".

In fact my opening post would of necessity have to be about the size of a small chapter one commonly finds in reference material dealing with these concepts.

Maybe you would just like to give me one reason why you think the gospels are errant? No debate would be necessary to the discussion of this reason. We could just start a new thread here and dedicate it to this reason.