Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus.

[TheRightOffensive]

Isn't it possible he had scribes who wrote for him? YES YOU EFFING MORON. Wow.. absolute fucking morons.

[iamTOTALLYredeemed]

Rofl! An atheist being schooled about evidence! Brilliant.

[jordan6030]

The host is so stupid...he's also so disappointed that a historian who is not even Christian FIRMLY believes that Jesus existed.

[RuinSonic]

@jordan6030 This makes me chuckle as a non-believer. Damn atheists who make the rest of us non-believers look bad.

[jordan6030]

@RuinSonic Like why is it sooo hard to believe as a non-believer that Jesus existed? I don't understand. Like noone has a problem believing Julius Caesar existed. If Jesus didn't exist then why are we in the yr 2012 now?

[RuinSonic]

@jordan6030 Because it's hard to separate Jesus from the miraculous in the minds of many atheists. They also are very anti-religion and fed this idea that you need to question everything religiously related. That's my speculation. You got to understand that on you tube there is a bunch of atheists who are mad at how religion has effected their lives. I know what that is like. But kids need to grow up and realize sometimes people just disagree and see the world different.

[jordan6030]

@RuinSonic Well I don't think atheists have a problem believing that Mohammed existed, He's a religious figure as well. It's the existence of Jesus they want to deny. Fair enough...what you said makes sense! But as an atheist - I take it that you believe jesus existed...yet you probably deny his miracles and resurrection...which is reasonable on your behalf... but at least you don't deny his historicity.

[RuinSonic]

@jordan6030

I'm agnostic for many reasons. I've realized a god is as counter intuitive to my mind now as any other crazy scientific idea you could come up with. Whatever the answer is going to be mind blowing. And that's why I can respect both sides, given they honestly are seeking reason, because I know the advantages of both sides. However, I think there's too many "brute facts" to swallow even if many of the things I believe about Christianity are explained.

[jordan6030]

@RuinSonic Thats fair enough mate.

[snifcjo]

This question by itself is quite artificial. If Jesus was an existing person it means logically christianity is true. If Jesus was not an existing person, christianity is false. It is impossible to separate this question from these motives. Therefore I found this question more a false assertion to try to prove a religion.

[snifcjo]

Once you read the gospels, you realize quite easily they do not talk about a real person. They clearly are a myth. It is a common pattern with christians today, you need to recognize it. This historian on the tape does not indicate any ways he has recognized the style of gospels.

Comparing Julius Caesar does not work. These are two totally different kind phenomen. The roman empire left many physical evidence. It's not a person, its an empire.

This historian plays dirty: "Any SERIOUS historian!

[Shazoolo]

@snifcjo You do realize who Bart Erhman is right? He is an ex-Christian an a very prominent historian. He has no veste interest here but is convince by the historical evience that Jesus existed, as we would be for any other ancient figure. He is actually right when he states that "serious" historians" do not deny Jesus existence. It si people who deny His existence who have the vested interest. If they can convince themselves and others Jesus didn't exist they can feel justified.

[snifcjo]

@Shazoolo Of course every myth has some kind start point we can call "existing". Be it a fairy tale about princesses, sure there is evidence princessess existed. Be there a myth of God, sure it cames from persons own relations to his own father. Be it a Mother Earth, relates back to role of own mother, and so on.

In the gospels there surely are stories no-one accepts. Just follow this path: Why are they written in gospels. Take the false part away, what rests? Continue, what rests?

[Shazoolo]

@snifcjo Even liberal theologian Rudolf Bultmann said:

“Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement.” (Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (London: Collins/Fontana, 1958), p. 13)..

[snifcjo]

@Shazoolo This is quite typical choise of words: "No sane person can...". It has a message. The message is, that these people want to play dirty. Instead of giving the evidence asked, they just start to play big-mouth. These kind of "historians" should be totally ignored.

[Shazoolo]

@snifcjo Agnostic historian Dale Allison states the following with regards to the view that Jesus never existed:

“no responsible scholar can find any truth in it.” (Dale C. Allison, Jr. “Explaining the Resurrection: Conflicting Convictions,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3/2 (06, 2005), p 121)

[Shazoolo]

@snifcjo This atheists historian said this:

'In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, [1977], pp. 199, 200).

[EastGateShut]

Infidel guy has a very thick skull

[Farrellfortoday]

Awesome! A decent, smart, intellectual and calculated argument to the existence of Jesus. This historian shows the right attitude towards discovering things for yourselves. Only if alot more Atheists did this!