My new plan to convert you guys to Christianity

[Jacob Harrison]

Remember when you challenged me to convert you guys to Christianity? Well I have a challenge for you. The challenge is for you to attempt to deconvert me. You will fail at doing so because it is impossible to debunk Christianity. By failing to disprove Christianity, you will see that Christianity is true and then convert.

[Art Vandelay]

Have you got the taste of my ballsack out of your mouth yet?

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Remember when you challenged me to convert you guys to Christianity? Well I have a challenge for you. The challenge is for you to attempt to deconvert me. You will fail at doing so because it is impossible to debunk Christianity. By failing to disprove Christianity, you will see that Christianity is true and then convert.

Yeah but you also think denim is sexy, by failing to convince you that it's not doesn't make denim objectively sexy. Your subjective views ain't my problem.

Moar weird sex kinks, wizards and conspiracies pls. Why don't you just follow Jesus sermon on the mount advice RE pearls before swine piggie? Even Jesus knew you're wasting your breath.

[dpareja]

Go look up Richard Carrier. He's probably the most prominent exponent of the proposition that Jesus is wholly mythical.

[Jacob Harrison]

Go look up Richard Carrier. He's probably the most prominent exponent of the proposition that Jesus is wholly mythical.

Richard Carrier is a proponent of “a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.[4][5][6][q 2] It deviates from the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the accounts of a historical Jesus who was crucified in the 1st-century Roman province of Judea.[7][8]”

So if Jesus was just a mere man, how did he get so many people to believe that he is the messiah?

[dpareja]

Most of those scholars work for Christian schools, where they are obligated to disregard the possibility of a mythical Jesus. That's not honest scholarship.

As for why so many people believe Jesus is the Messiah, you do know that stories grow in the telling, right? You can see that with the Gospels themselves: Mark is the barebones story (and still not an eyewitness account), Matthew and Luke build on it, and John does his own thing entirely, each one getting more and more supernatural.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Go look up Richard Carrier. He's probably the most prominent exponent of the proposition that Jesus is wholly mythical.

Richard Carrier is a proponent of “a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.[4][5][6][q 2] It deviates from the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the accounts of a historical Jesus who was crucified in the 1st-century Roman province of Judea.[7][8]”

So if Jesus was just a mere man, how did he get so many people to believe that he is the messiah?

That's better, cutting and pasting from Wikipedia is so much more your speed. And the point of all this is that if you aren't convinced of this "non mainstream" historical thesis then you'll cry that all that jazz about loaves, fishes, smoke locusts and doing the moonwalk on the Red Sea is really real and because our eye rolling doesn't change your tiny little mind it must be truly true?

Also, lots of people also believe that Joseph Smith had a direct line to God, lots of people thought Mohammad did. Lots of people believed in the Mithraic mysteries at one point and some folks believe that extraterrestrials make interstellar quests to arrive here in gravity-defying spacecraft to murder cattle and probe our butts. "People believe stuff" just proves that "people believe stuff"-that's it.

[Jacob Harrison]

Most of those scholars work for Christian schools, where they are obligated to disregard the possibility of a mythical Jesus. That's not honest scholarship.

As for why so many people believe Jesus is the Messiah, you do know that stories grow in the telling, right? You can see that with the Gospels themselves: Mark is the barebones story (and still not an eyewitness account), Matthew and Luke build on it, and John does his own thing entirely, each one getting more and more supernatural.

Not all the scholars are biblical scholars. According to wikipedia “Nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history[7] and most biblical scholars have maintained that a historical Jesus did indeed exist [8][9]

If it is nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history, that includes secular historians. Otherwise, the Christ myth theory would not be a fringe theory, because more secular historians would come to that conclusion after researching the ancient history.

Christianity spread extremely quickly and gained many followers within the 1st century and by the time of the Apostle Paul, there were Churches all around the Roman world. By the time of Nero, there were Christians in Rome who were persecuted. If the story of Jesus’s death and resurrection were not true, then the religion wouldn’t spread that quickly and gain so many followers.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Most of those scholars work for Christian schools, where they are obligated to disregard the possibility of a mythical Jesus. That's not honest scholarship.

As for why so many people believe Jesus is the Messiah, you do know that stories grow in the telling, right? You can see that with the Gospels themselves: Mark is the barebones story (and still not an eyewitness account), Matthew and Luke build on it, and John does his own thing entirely, each one getting more and more supernatural.

Not all the scholars are biblical scholars. According to wikipedia “Nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history[7] and most biblical scholars have maintained that a historical Jesus did indeed exist [8][9]

If it is nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history, that includes secular historians. Otherwise, the Christ myth theory would not be a fringe theory, because more secular historians would come to that conclusion after researching the ancient history.

Christianity spread extremely quickly and gained many followers within the 1st century and by the time of the Apostle Paul, there were Churches all around the Roman world. By the time of Nero, there were Christians in Rome who were persecuted. If the story of Jesus’s death and resurrection were not true, then the religion wouldn’t spread that quickly and gain so many followers.

I guess an argument from authority is to be expected from an authoritarian, there are actually more nuanced and better defences of the historicity of Jesus than the one you're putting forward see if you can find them. I'll wait.

In any case the argument "it spread quickly so it must be true" rests on the unspoken premise that something spreading quickly does so because of it's truth value, and this argument is seriously put forward in an age where fake news spreads and disseminates as quickly as a gaggle of idiots can hit "send." Seriously?

[Jacob Harrison]

Most of those scholars work for Christian schools, where they are obligated to disregard the possibility of a mythical Jesus. That's not honest scholarship.

As for why so many people believe Jesus is the Messiah, you do know that stories grow in the telling, right? You can see that with the Gospels themselves: Mark is the barebones story (and still not an eyewitness account), Matthew and Luke build on it, and John does his own thing entirely, each one getting more and more supernatural.

Not all the scholars are biblical scholars. According to wikipedia “Nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history[7] and most biblical scholars have maintained that a historical Jesus did indeed exist [8][9]

If it is nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history, that includes secular historians. Otherwise, the Christ myth theory would not be a fringe theory, because more secular historians would come to that conclusion after researching the ancient history.

Christianity spread extremely quickly and gained many followers within the 1st century and by the time of the Apostle Paul, there were Churches all around the Roman world. By the time of Nero, there were Christians in Rome who were persecuted. If the story of Jesus’s death and resurrection were not true, then the religion wouldn’t spread that quickly and gain so many followers.

I guess an argument from authority is to be expected from an authoritarian, there are actually more nuanced and better defences of the historicity of Jesus than the one you're putting forward see if you can find them. I'll wait.

In any case the argument "it spread quickly so it must be true" rests on the unspoken premise that something spreading quickly does so because of it's truth value, and this argument is seriously put forward in an age where fake news spreads and disseminates as quickly as a gaggle of idiots can hit "send." Seriously?

Well, the historians are experts on history during that time, and it is common sense that if the vast majority of historians have the same conclusion, then it is most likely historically accurate. They are the ones with the defenses of the historicity of Jesus.

If it was a lie, then Christianity would not have gained as much followers in such a short period of time, because there would be a lack of evidence that would make people believe. Something significant had to have happened to make so many people believe. Lies spread faster on the internet than in Ancient time because the internet allows for very fast spreading of information. . Christianity spread faster than other religions such as Mormonism, and did not spread by conquest like Islam.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Most of those scholars work for Christian schools, where they are obligated to disregard the possibility of a mythical Jesus. That's not honest scholarship.

As for why so many people believe Jesus is the Messiah, you do know that stories grow in the telling, right? You can see that with the Gospels themselves: Mark is the barebones story (and still not an eyewitness account), Matthew and Luke build on it, and John does his own thing entirely, each one getting more and more supernatural.

Not all the scholars are biblical scholars. According to wikipedia “Nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history[7] and most biblical scholars have maintained that a historical Jesus did indeed exist [8][9]

If it is nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history, that includes secular historians. Otherwise, the Christ myth theory would not be a fringe theory, because more secular historians would come to that conclusion after researching the ancient history.

Christianity spread extremely quickly and gained many followers within the 1st century and by the time of the Apostle Paul, there were Churches all around the Roman world. By the time of Nero, there were Christians in Rome who were persecuted. If the story of Jesus’s death and resurrection were not true, then the religion wouldn’t spread that quickly and gain so many followers.

I guess an argument from authority is to be expected from an authoritarian, there are actually more nuanced and better defences of the historicity of Jesus than the one you're putting forward see if you can find them. I'll wait.

In any case the argument "it spread quickly so it must be true" rests on the unspoken premise that something spreading quickly does so because of it's truth value, and this argument is seriously put forward in an age where fake news spreads and disseminates as quickly as a gaggle of idiots can hit "send." Seriously?

Well, the historians are experts on history during that time, and it is common sense that if the vast majority of historians have the same conclusion, then it is most likely historically accurate. They are the ones with the defenses of the historicity of Jesus.

If it was a lie, then Christianity would not have gained as much followers in such a short period of time, because there would be a lack of evidence that would make people believe. Something significant had to have happened to make so many people believe. Lies spread faster on the internet than in Ancient time because the internet allows for very fast spreading of information. . Christianity spread faster than other religions such as Mormonism, and did not spread by conquest like Islam.

No, because if a lie is palatable it gets real popular real quick. As I said, the historicity of Jesus has very little bearing on the merits of Christianity as a religion.

[KingOfRhye]

Remember when you challenged me to convert you guys to Christianity? Well I have a challenge for you. The challenge is for you to attempt to deconvert me. You will fail at doing so because it is impossible to debunk Christianity. By failing to disprove Christianity, you will see that Christianity is true and then convert.

All I gotta say is, read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion and watch AronRa's YouTube videos.  If that doesn't convert you, nothing I can do will.

[Skybison]

@Tol I'd recommend Did Jesus Exist by Bart Ehrman, he does a good job of debunking the Jesus Myth theory and explaining why historian of the period overwhelmingly believe Jesus was a real figure.

I'm going to be honest Jacob is actually right about this one.  I'm not an expert but I know enough about the history involved to say Jesus Myth theory is bunk.  It can't be absolutely refuted but it largely rests on misrepresentations of how ancient history is actually studied and long discredited ideas like the pagan dying reviving god. 

And dpareja, that's not accurate about historians.  First they do have several lines of evidence pointing towards Jesus being a historical figure (Paul personally knowing his brother, the criterion of embarrassment, the general trajectory of how Christianity evolved) and ignores the fact that most of these historians don't believe Christianity to be literal truth.

The dominant view today is that Jesus was a Jewish preacher of the Dualist/apocalyptic movement, promoting the idea that the world was about to end and that poor Jews, not the rich and powerful, were the truly righteous  and should resist the Romans and seek spiritual purity over material wealth or their own families.  He never believed he was a god, that idea evolved much later.

And that's my challenge for you Jacob.  You say why should trust the judgement of historians when it comes to Jesus being a real person, but what about everything else about him?  Again those same historians agree he didn't believe himself to be divine, thought the world was going to end thousands of years ago and overall was a very different person then the guy you worship.  If you trust Historians on Jesus being real, why not on that?

[dpareja]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqpX-OyvsYI

Carrier discussing the historicity of Jesus.

[Skybison]

Okay if your going to post a video that long, could you at least give the time for when he says stuff that is relevant to the discussion?  Because I'm half way through he's barely said anything about Jesus's historicity yet.