Debate: Jesus Christ -- Son of God or Apocalyptic Prophet? Douglas Jacoby vs Richard Carrier

This debate occurred on January 14, 2012 at the Amador Christian Center in Sacramento California.

For more information on Douglas Jacoby please visit http://www.douglasjacoby.com

For more information on Richard Carrier please visit http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier

• Category

  Education

[pulseofreligion]

It was not literal. Then Joseph must clarify the literal from the metaphoric.

[pulseofreligion]

Other ancient cults ..... Joseph Jacoby never denied it the Jesus cult was not a cult.

[niginit]

Read Richard Carrier. Watch his many lectures and debates.

freethoughtblogs dot coom/carrier/archives/3503

Take out the dot com.

There are three new videos there. He sums up the arguments and the objections he's had. There is also a couple debates (?) I think.

That is simply the best information on the topic available. If you aren't curious about the information he has you aren't curious about the topic. :) Take a look.

[thefly373]

Are you referring to Mithras?

[scottbignell]

But it seems in your world, there is NO evidence. I think you deny that it is evidence as fundamentally as a creationist denies that DNA is evidence for evolution. Your lack of understanding that Galatians is not trying to convey a moral story is where you seem to be having problems. I would ask you read it again and tell me why you think it is. Maybe then you can actually address my points, rather than just asserting that there is no evidence. Until then, goodbye.

[scottbignell]

But your refusal to see any of this as evidence is blatantly bias. Even Carrier doesn't think that Galatians is trying to translate a moral story. Carrier accepts that it is a genuine letter written by Paul to the church in Galatia in the mid-50s. Even Carrier accepts that this is evidence, only he doesn't think the evidence is convincing, which is fine. I personally find his explanation more stretched than accepting that there probably was a guy.

[scottbignell]

It is not at all uncommon for 'a guy' to start a cult/religious movement by going around claiming to do "miracles" and gains a following. It is not at all uncommon for these movements to outlive their original instigator. Given how common this is, I think that should be our first point of explanation given the evidence we have - i.e. stories of such a guy (gospels) and letters from people who claim to have met his brother and close pals (Paul's letters).

[scottbignell]

(cont) I'm done with this discussion because it's clear you don't understand the argument being presented. You keep trying to shift it to be about something that it's not. Yes, there are holes in arguments for historicity. There will ALWAYS be holes in ANY attempt to recreate the ancient past. It's about what is the best explanation for evidence that we do have. And the hypothesis that there was 'a guy' explains that in the simplest and most mundane way - the sign of a good working hypothesis.