Thread 17812086

what is /his/'s response?

yes

He never recovered from Jimmy Akin
https://jimmyakin.com/2022/03/why-barts-wrong.html

About what?

>>17812086 (OP)
He makes apologists seethe so yep

>>17812086 (OP)
Yes, he's right that the Qur'anic version of Jesus and early Christianity has zero historical support, and that Jesus 100% was crucified.
>>17812186
Also this. Akin clocked him in that debate.

>>17812186
Bart wasn't ready for Joseph's Egyptian holiday house

But seriously, these kind of debates are so lame. If it's the one where Akin start with laying out the definition of "reasonable", in such a way he'll win the debate- by definition
as he keep reminding us, all he has to show is that he is reasonable, then he wins. And he decided what count as reasonable or not.

There should have been pushback on this

>>17812804
Akin literally just provided quotes from Bart himself where Bart essentially conceded 90% of the debate from the outset. It's not Akin's fault that Bart was used to debating Baptists with zero nuance.

>>17812810
Akin wouldn't even have to engage with any of Bart's points the way the debate was structured. The way Akin was able to take the reins, and kinda set the rules of the conversation.
He was very good at doing this simple, yet solid rhetoric of reminding the audience what counts as a win or loss, as by the debate title.
Making a very low bar of what he had to do, be reasonable. Then just maintain and remind.

What I remember from that debate was Akin said a few very silly things. Like the holyday home in Egypt part, or the Mary/Joseph differing genealogy copout. Which was funny, because Bart was literally speechless, didn't know what to say about those.
But other than those, Akin was super good at making these simple to follow bullet points for the audience about the title of the debate

If Bart were to have a chance, the title would have to be something more challenging to put Akin on the spot.

>>17812839
>reasonable
Shoot, I misremembered the topic.
Thought it was something like "is belief in the Bible reasonable". Turns out it was: Is the Bible reliable

Whatever, it's not super important.
The gist of Akin's debate strategy, starting with setting a low bar of what it means to be reliable, then just maintain that the Bible is well within his definition of reliable. It was a VERY effective strategy.

Akin never got baited into the weeds of disambiguation, what it means to be reliable in this context. (Some parts reliable? All of it reliable? Etc.)
Or rather he did, got it all out of the way at the start, but he placed the bar of reliability trivially low. That way, he never could lose, as his position was very easy to defend. It was over for Bart when he failed to pick up on this, and challenge it.

goes without saying he's wrong about everything obviously
i like how he knocks unthinking people off balance

>>17812086 (OP)
Richard Carrier has the correct idea but Bart is more likable and serves as a valuable intermediary between mythicists and apologists.

He acutally is pretty much inline with Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholic intellectual traditions but trolls literalist and fundamentalists. He says the same thing Jaroslav Pelikan does. His academic works have a different tone than his popular works.

>>17812086 (OP)
Is he right that Jesus existed? Yes. Is he right that he was failed apocalyptic Jewish prophet? Yes. Is he right that the Bible is historically unreliable and contains many forgeries? Also yes. Okay, one thing I think he's wrong about is his argument that history in principle can never provide sufficient evidence for a miracle because miracles are by nature improbable. You can easily imagine a scenario where the historical evidence for a miracle would be overwhelming. Like imagine if Jesus resurrected but he didn't ascend to heaven after 40 days, instead he stayed on earth as a kind of immortal pope, doing big public miracles all the time until he ascends in the year 1900. Few historians would question his miraculous powers then because there would just be a ton of reliable documentation. But of course, that kind of thing doesn't happen.

>>17813190
He actually doesn't really mention the thing about Jesus being a prophet in his academic works but leaves it more nebulous of what that could have meant because the idea is that there different models of that .Below is an example where he statess. He does state that some people saw him as a prophet or messiah. He tends to leave that up to sacred narrative. He basically believes he existed, and that he died via crucifixion. He tends to state this towards certain audiences more than others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx_Ia9S1NR0

>>17813200
literally just watch Jimmy's opening. He's lay's out exactly was Bart has claimed to be true about the Gospels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKShBLRixR8

>>17812086 (OP)
He is correct.

my first /his/ thread. are they usually this pathetic? are you all joking?
>of course he's right! my heckin god really existed even he agrees haha take that atheist :)

was the resurrection a tall tale
what does it all mean

>>17813237
>Thread topic: "Is he right?"
>Not Thread topic: "is my heckin God real?"
>>"my first /his/ thread"
You have to go back.

Of course the Bible is unreliable. It says a man walked on water, but we know people can't do that.

I don't understand this nonsense about not evaluating the supernatural claims.
I think we should be a LOT more confident in our knowledge that humans can't walk on water, than the Bible getting some of Jerusalem's geography correct.

>>17813204
This is just such a ridiculously low bar to set for reliability.

Akin kinda set up a dichotomy of there having to be EXPLICIT contradictions, for the Gospels to be unreliable.
Which of course there's never going to be, because the Gospels do not use explicit language.

Like if you got different accounts of women at the tomb. The Gospels do not explicitly say that there wasn't multiple packs of women, etc.
Or Judas' death, which I consider the most clear cut case of Gospels "contradicting" themselves. You'll always be able to say stuff like he hung himself, and THEN his gut split open.

The contradictions are always going to be implicit, and rely on us putting two and two together. You'll always be able to explain them away, if you're willing to make the explanations ad hoc.

So this performance Akin put on, on demanding for explicit contradictions. That was kind of a show, right? Him being a bit silly.
There's not gonna any contradictions as such. And everyone knows that.

>>17813204
based on this slide and his general appearance i dont think i am interested in spending very much time with akins ideas.

The Catholic cowboy aesthetic is WEIRD