James Patrick Holding takes Ken Humphreys behind the woodshed Part I

[zytigon]

Interesting video, try website Jesusneverexisted. Also Earl Doherty, 'Jesus Puzzle', G.A. Wells, 'The historical evidence for Jesus', Richard Carrier, ' Not the impossible faith', John W. Loftus, 'Why I became an atheist', Dan Barker ' Godless', Victor J Stenger, 'God, the failed hypothesis'& 'The New atheism'.Youtube video, "The God who wasn't there" or ZomGitsCriss. Was there no human Jesus or a real human Jesus who was mistaken about there being a supernatural realm?

[UTubekookdetector]

ZYT: You were so busy copying a spiel off the net you didn't even notice Humphreys' website was referenced in the opening moments of the debate? One could also try my article at freewebs(dot)com/professor_eni­gma/evidencesII(dot)htm which utilizes a lot of material from guys like Glenn Miller, including christianthinktank(dot)com/jrt­hal(dot)html R.T. France's "The Evidence for Jesus" debunks a lot of Wells' talking points. Contra Carrier by Miller christianthinktank(dot)com/mqf­x(dot)html

[zytigon]

@UTubekookdetector Thanks for your video. It led me on to look at the J.P Holding v Richard Carrier video debate. Good to see them in virtual real life. I find higher criticism of the Bible yields many treasures that apologetics miss. Whatever conclusion you reach it teaches you to cross reference what each author says on a point & some of the tricks writers get up to- writing words into the character's mouth. I think freedom of speech & belief & information is important.

[UTubekookdetector]

ZYT: Huh? Who said anything about denying anyone freedom of speech? I find that your canned speil is largely nonsense, if I were you, I'd dig into some heavy book-reading on this issue and avoid the internet armchair warriors.

[zytigon]

@UTubekookdetector What would you recommend as the top ten books to read in defence of the Bible / Christianity

[UTubekookdetector]

ZYT: For starters, you could see my opening comment, I reference one of France's works. Another good one would be "Jesus Under Fire" and perhaps Hoffmeier's "Israel in Egypt." Good day!

[UTubekookdetector]

ZYT: I would also like to ask, Holding focused primarily on Tacitus & Tacitus only in this particular debate. Using the same principles Humphreys et al would apply to non-biblical texts, what did Humphreys do to undermine Tacitius' testimony in this debate?

[zytigon]

@UTubekookdetector I'm impressed you didn't delete my reading list! Thanks for your reply reading list. I just think that all the books pro & con should be on the table. People should read everything, analyse the evidence themself what bits of detail to accept & what verdict to reach. I just like knowing the various propositions. It makes the whole quest more interesting. The good thing about Humphreys is that he has the courage to break taboos & ask questions Christians are too afraid to.

[macroman52]

Rule 1 of internet debating: he who brings in the holocaust is losing the debate. And we don't believe EVERYTHING TACTITUS says. All ancient historians are treated sceptically. He may be reporting rumors. He doesn't say how he knows.

[UTubekookdetector]

MAC: Seems you're taking "to hades with history" argument. JP wasn't violating Godwin's Law, he was making an historical point using an event in history. I don't think you understand Godwin's Law.

[macroman52]

Rule 1 of internet debating: he who brings in the holocaust is losing the debate.

[Maber01]

At 6:57 JP says the idea of a contemporary witness is an inventive rule. Why then are so many people ignorant to the fact that there are no contemporary eye witnesses outside of the bible. When ever I tell people this they don't believe me. I bet when I go to J.P's website that would not be anywhere on his site. So how about recreating his web page to presents the truth. Spell it out in big bright flashing letters. "The are no contemporary eye witnesses outside of the bible". Chicken?

[UTubekookdetector]

MABER: At one time, there was no extrabiblical attestation to the Hittites or Belshazzar (Nabodinus's son), in due time the Bible was proven correct. The Egyptian Dynasty in charge when Egypt crumbled didn't trumpet those failures from the rooftops. However, I do find it interesting that you didn't take on the crux of JP's point. He used one witness (Tacitus) in this entire debate to validate the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible. Do you think the Iliad has contemporary witnesses?

[Maber01]

@UTubekookdetector Nice Red Herring, but your logical fallacy has been caught. Tacitus is not to be trusted as he was employed by the Flavian Ceasars that phonied up the Jesus scam in the first place. Get the book Ceasars Messiah by Joeseph Atwell or watch youtube videos on this subject. The following quote can easily be found on wikipedia under the "Flavian Dynasty" section Propoganda. "Tacitus admits that his status was elevated by Vespasian". Josephus was their employee as well.

[UTubekookdetector]

MABER: No dice bud. I'm deconstructing your ideaology here, tell me--does the Illiad have contemporary witnesses (I've heard arguments against the "testimonium Flavianum" and responded to them on my webstie EVIDENCES II) or not? Even the Bablylonium Talmud & the Jewish Talmud don't deny Jesus' existence, they were enemies. You're also hawking "the winners" write history" argument, which has been debunked by Glenn Miller. The 2nd century Sadducees were highly organized & could've responded.