I have really been looking forward to this debate Dr Rob Pri

File: kitty-zhang-00.jpg (96KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1280x1024px

>>2568410

Shameless self bamp

Is no one else interested in the question of whether Jesus actually existed?

>>2568474

What?

I didn't realize there were mythicist who had actually done any research. I agree, Bart was so much better than Price, but it seems like that's just because his position has so much more evidence.

File: 517bW0TcJqL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (23KB, 231x346px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 231x346px

>>2568410
>Bart seemed to destroy Price and the Jesus mythicist position is now dead, though I would still like to see him debate Carrier.

Sort of obvious, many times do the mythicist change their hypothesis quickly year by year to justify their viewpoints. Whether you agree or not, the debate between Carrier and William Lane Craig on the resurrection is another example of which mythicist have no credibility. Additionally the debate between Dan Barker and James R White was fun to watch just for the introductions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ-NBFFMm90

>>2568634

Carrier and Price to their credit try their best to justify their position, though Price in the past was lambasted by liberal and conservative scholars in the 5 views of Jesus.

>>2568463
Not really.

The question of if there actually was a guy named Jesus who went around and said some of the stuff the bible says he did is really kind of irrelevant. Maybe he did say a lot of those things, maybe he didn't, I just don't think it really matters.

A guy said some things, they were changed, embellished, and written down, then Christianity happened because of that.

VS

Some people wrote/told stories about a guy who said/did some stuff. Christianity happened because of that.

It's really the same song and dance. Is this a mostly fictional account of a person who actually existed, or an entirely fictional account.

File: images (2).jpg (20KB, 440x648px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 440x648px

>>2570752
>>2568463


It really comes down to also how one's presuppositions and knowledge of what the gospels are, in 1992 the whole realm of new testament scholarship changed because of the way in which the gospels were written thanks to Richard Burridge. Previously the gospels were considered myths but there was a shadow of a historical person who lived but was embellished centuries later. Today the majority of scholars believe that the gospels are ancient historical bios. And it's no surprise why, the narrative, format, the historical locations, practices and the message portray when one compares it to other ancient sources. Richard Burridge actually wanted to debunk the idea propped up by scholars in America of the gospels as biography, but only became convinced that it was true.

>>2568410
Just been watching it. Ehrman makes a lot more sense but damn he's a terrible public speaker.

>>2570752
Not really. The question they're debating is if there was some kind of preacher who founded a movement vs a total fabrication. We'll never really know, but we can make a judgement based on the available evidence.

>>2570735
>Whether you agree or not, the debate between Carrier and William Lane Craig on the resurrection is another example of which mythicist have no credibility.

Ehrman absolutely annihilated Lane Craig and so did Bishop John Shelby on the subject of the resurrection showing that, whether you agree or not, fundamentalists have no credibility on the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRTUrvTTRAQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0xo4etMMi4

>>2568410
>debate Carrier
Carrier has no business debating academics. The guy's an unemployed blogger.

>>2572283
Don't forget how Carrier only wrote a book about mythicism because a bunch of people who follow his blog paid him to do it. It wasn't even his idea; his followers chose the topic and paid him to write it.

The guy has a legit background in his dissertation area (ancient scientific thought), but really has no business talking about church history, and has some pretty obvious bias behind him. It's really obvious when you hear him debate an actual biblical scholar and not a fundamentalist. In an debate I heard between him and Mark Goodacre, he was so unable to defend his arguments, he ended up conceeding most of his big arguments to Goodacre.

>>2568463
I'll watch it later. I've been waiting for something like this for awhile