Hi, I'm a Christian. Help Me Disprove My Religion!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[Jenny A]

As a believer, I'm often appalled by the things which some Christians say and do thereby causing God's name to be blasphemed among non-believers.

As a non-believer, do you ever cringe upon reading the stupid things that Jesus Mythicists say in this forum and elsewhere which bring the credibility of atheism into question?

Well I cringe at what Jesus Mythicists say as a historian, but not as an atheist.  Bad reasoning is always cringe worthy.  I cringe when you announce that those minimal facts are proof of resurrection in much the same way.   A plague on both your houses.

[Bob Kelso]

C'mon, SD, don't hold back.

Tell him how you really feel!

Will senpai notice me then?

[Bob Kelso]

C'mon, SD, don't hold back.

Tell him how you really feel!

Double post.

[Aractus]

1) I have told you repeatedly that I am not a Jesus Mythicist.
2) These are inferences, and I hold them as true only to the degree of confidence I find the inferences warranted.
3) Don't know what I'm talking about? You can go and fuck yourself.

You are not separating what is an inference from what isn't. As Hurtado says there are "matters widely held by scholars" which are based on inferences. The existence of Jesus is not based on inference. It's based on evidence scholars view as strong.

[GrandizerII]

1) I have told you repeatedly that I am not a Jesus Mythicist.
2) These are inferences, and I hold them as true only to the degree of confidence I find the inferences warranted.
3) Don't know what I'm talking about? You can go and fuck yourself.

You are not separating what is an inference from what isn't. As Hurtado says there are "matters widely held by scholars" which are based on inferences. The existence of Jesus is not based on inference. It's based on evidence scholars view as strong.

Not sure if that's what scholars in general really say, but I have to agree with Rocket here. You can't reasonably hold to the view that Jesus existed without making some inferences from the text.

I personally hold to the view that Jesus most likely existed because parsimony suggests it. Even Ehrman makes use of inferences in order to hold to such a view. With regards to Paul referring to James as Jesus' brother, Ehrman repeatedly points out that it passes the criterion of dissimilarity. I really doubt Ehrman would reason in the way that Christian apologists themselves would typically reason ("Jesus exists because the Bible says he does").

[Kitan Etos]

I am not helping an idiot who claims in a fucked up sentence that he is both Christian and wants to sacrifice those who believe as he does.

[downbeatplumb]

Yes I know, but she also mentioned that his existence was not universally accepted.

Right so the case for Socrates is not universally accepted, but the case for Jesus is. What's your point?

That there is doubt.

But you cant prove it, just make a case. this is the point.

I have said that many times. It has been established beyond the doubt of the vast majority of modern scholars.

And yet doubt remains. The evidence for jesus is weak, I may have mentioned this before.

I disagree. The evidence I have seen for Jesus seems to be weak. But then I must repeat my position that I think there probably was a historical jesus, but this is just my opinion and I could not support his existence to my satisfatction.

Well you are not a historian and cannot decide whether the case for his existence is strong or weak.

Well actually a lot of history is sepculation. Best guesses if you will. The case for a historical is made with weak evidence

Let's take James and his clear references to the sayings of Jesus - each taken individually it isn't a particularly strong or convincing reason to believe the sayings have pre-existed. But the fact he does it so many times makes the case extremely strong.

It is a case for the sayings being said that is all.

Someone else.

Who? And how is James referencing it before it was invented and written down 35 years later (according to your point of view)?

Could have made it up, could be something he heard down the pub there are a vast number of possibilities I'm sure you could think of a few dozen if you put your mind to it.

[Losty]

I hate to interrupt an argument, but who really gives a fuck if there ever existed some middle eastern guy whose name wasn't really Jesus who didn't rise from the dead?

It's like debating the existence of that one guy named Bob who lived 1947.

-Bob was a real dude in 1947
~no he wasn't!
-you don't havs proofs that he wasn't!
~you don't havs proofs that he was!!
-but he really was was
~he wasn't was!!

Who cares?

[GrandizerII]

That there is doubt.



And yet doubt remains. The evidence for jesus is weak, I may have mentioned this before.



Well actually a lot of history is sepculation. Best guesses if you will. The case for a historical is made with weak evidence


It is a case for the sayings being said that is all.


Who? And how is James referencing it before it was invented and written down 35 years later (according to your point of view)?

Could have made it up, could be something he heard down the pub there are a vast number of possibilities I'm sure you could think of a few dozen if you put your mind to it.

There's possibility and then there's plausibility. They're not the same thing as you know.

And Losty, it doesn't bother me at all if Jesus in reality never existed, but I sure do care enough to point out flaws in certain arguments when I see them or point out how someone is being unreasonable with the assumptions they make. I guess for me it's more about intellectual integrity more than anything else.