Response to “I do not believe for a split second the supernatural version of jesus existed”

The following discussions took place due to my video Bart Ehrman on the historical Jesus contra Jesus mythicism. They range from typical Atheist childish taunting to somewhat good attempts at actually discerning the issue. I hope they are instructive in seeing what to except and how to reply.


The following discussions took place due to my video Bart Ehrman on the historical Jesus contra Jesus mythicism. They range from typical Atheist childish taunting to somewhat good attempts at actually discerning the issue. I hope they are instructive in seeing what to except and how to reply.

For more info, see my three historical Jesus related books (which you can find here):
“The Apocryphal Jesus”
“On Jesus Mythicists’ Mythicism Myth”
“Jesus: Historical, Biblical, Apocryphal, Mythical Pagan Copycat”

Casey Wollberg commented based on a reply I had written to someone else, she began by quoting me (a quote which includes me quoting the person to whom I was replying):
“Friend, ‘I do not believe for a split second the supernatural version of jesus existed’ is merely an subjective assertion. As is ‘Ehrman is one of the best sources of information on this particular topic’ then keep in mind that he affirms that the New Testament is a reliable document on a textual level.”
Ehrman doesn’t support a supernatural Jesus, isn’t a Christian, and doesn’t believe the supernatural claims in the New Testament are reliable information.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Your points about Ehrman are not relevant and using them to avoid fact that are inconvenient to your worldview is well, avoiding facts that are inconvenient to your worldview.

Casey Wollberg:
Ken Ammi my points about ehrman are relevant and there are no facts that are inconvenient to my worldview. That is one of the advantages of not believing in fairy tales. You should try it.

Ken Ammi:
God’s existence is inconvenient to your worldview and the fact that you demand adherence to truth, logic and ethics even though your worldview cannot provide you a premise for any of them—not for condemning anything. Now, of course, if you are an Atheist and evolutionists then oh my, yes indeed, you most certainly believe in fairy tales.

Casey Wollberg:
Ken Ammi you are dismissed. Too stupid for my class.

Ken Ammi:
Friend, I can understand the frustration of realizing that your worldview fails you when you get yourself involved in a discussion that you cannot handle. Yet, opting to run away whilst making childish taunts is merely playing into the fact that your worldview tells you that you are merely a temporarily and accidentally existing reactionary animal. Yet, your worldview is false and part of how you can know that is you it is unlivable which is why you must beg, borrow and steal from mine.

Casey Wollberg:
I see you’re still disrupting us. You’ve got everything backwards. Theologians didn’t invent moral philosophy and you sure as hell don’t get it from the bible. Morality is an evolved trait. If you need a primer on morality, I recommend remedial reading on reciprocity, altruism, and kin selection. When you are prepared for more advanced coursework, let me know. Until then, you had better hew to the basics.

Ken Ammi:
Friend you are making category errors: reciprocity, altruism, and kin selection are Darwinian survival mechanism and that is of a different category than ethics/ethos. Not to mention, okay mentioning, that what you read of reciprocity, altruism, and kin selection are Darwinian tall tales: imaginative stories based on an Atheistic/evolutionary worldview philosophy. And, even if reciprocity, altruism, and kin selection provides you the “is” it does not provide you the “ought.”
Also, we get out ethics/ethos ontologically by the nature of being created in God’s image with His law within us (this is why people agree on ethics/ethos regardless of chronology, geography or theology) and it is elucidated in the Bible.
But what is it about reciprocity, altruism, and kin selection that has you acting as some sort of self-appointed truth, logic and ethics police whereby you have discovered the one truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

Thelma Lynne chimed in with:
Christians are very shallow minded people to say the least.

Ken Ammi:
Friend, many people of all sorts are very shallow minded people to say the least—especially someone who paints with a generic broom and subjectively declares that Christians, the millions upon millions who have lived, are very shallow minded people.

Thelma Lynne:
Do you know the difference between believing and understanding?

Ken Ammi:
You seem to be attempting to avoid the issue at hand. If not, then please elucidate.

Andrew G chimed in with:
Lol Casey don’t even try. This guy is either ESL or just real dense. Look at his last comment. He states for me to give a reason for my presupposition that there are no contemporary historical sources, implying he believe this is mistaken, yet in his very next question he asks for me to speculate on any reason why there would be a lack of historical sources, implying he does recognize a lack of evidence. Basicllly he wanted me to speculate after accusing of speculating.
I am asssuming because he believes I would hypothetically assume the church destroyed all early records since they were contradictory. And this would allow him to make some other point. Amigo would be a terrible chess player… haha What’s so bizarre about all this is that this fellow hides behind semantics, accuses me of speculating even though it’s his case that requires evidence, I am just concluding that a lack of evidence requires a neutral stance on historicity.

Ken Ammi:
Yes indeed, look at my comments and you will see that you have made many factually inaccurate statements. This last time I in no way implied that I think that it is mistaken that there are no contemporary historical sources. I am merely asking for a justification of a pseudo-standard that no historian uses and asking you if you could think of why there are no contemporary sources. So, rather than guessing about what I might be thinking please answer the questions I have asked you time and time and time again rather than opting to poke fun.

Casey Wollberg:
Andrew G he’s a typical apologist.

Ken Ammi:
“…it is very easy for a man to seem to himself to have answered arguments, when he has only been unwilling to be silent”—Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 5, Chap. 26

Casey Wollberg:
Ken Ammi perfect encapsulation of christian apologetics. Well done.

Ken Ammi:
Well, when I wrote “Your points about Ehrman are not relevant and using them to avoid fact that are inconvenient to your worldview is well, avoiding facts that are inconvenient to your worldview” you decided to ignore it and opted for engaging in ridicule.

Andrew G:
Lol Ken why you cut and pasting your same appeals to authority over and over again on comment after comment? Are you hoping someone will buy your fallacies? Ones credentials have nothing to do with the argument itself. You love to veil yourself in irrelevant quotes and pout out over and over that one cannot prove a negative. Duh dude. Because someone doesn’t qualify a point like “no one wrote about Jesus in his lifetime” with “that we know about”, you blather on for a few paragraphs about how that’s an unevidenced assertion.

Ken Ammi:
You are condemning me without a premise. You are also doing so based on a subjective assertion of a pseudo-standard. Now, if I “cut and pasting your same appeals to authority over and over again on comment after comment” please give me two examples. Then, if “one cannot prove a negative” then why do you think that you can? “one cannot prove a negative” is itself a negative and you think that you proved it. But then again, of course we can prove negatives so the whole thing is a sham. The problem with “no one wrote about Jesus in his lifetime” is that it is another pseudo-standard, a non-criteria, it is irrelevant and not how historians do history.
I would love to keep going round and round but as it is, due to time constraints, I only devote one day to replying to comments and it is taking me hours to do so.
I am wondering why any of this is an issue for you. If you really believe that we are temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms then what does it matter how we interpret random bio-chemical reactions within our brains?
If theism is a Darwinian survival mechanism then why do you seek to decrease the survivability of others?
How does your worldview provide you a premise for even holding others to standards of truth, ethics, logic or for you to condemn anything?

Andrew G:
More pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Still not one argument from you about the actual topic of this video.

Ken Ammi:
Sadly, I am very experienced with Atheist running away from issues that they cannot handle whilst yelling “pseudo-intellectual nonsense” (which, by the way, is a logical genetic fallacy). So, if you are interested in argument about the actual topic of this video: please re-read this comments section or else the three books that I have written on this topic which are “The Apocryphal Jesus,” “On Jesus Mythicists’ Mythicism Myth,” and “Jesus: Historical, Biblical, Apocryphal, Mythical Pagan Copycat.”
How does your worldview provide you a premise for even holding others to standards of truth, ethics, logic or for you to condemn anything?

Andrew G:
I’m running away? That’s what you just did! You once again latch on to one thing I say offhandedly and use it as a strawman for what? You make no arguments except your appeals to authority. You’ve made no arguments to support your assertion. Broh, I know a fake when I see one. Pity you are so blind to your own ignorance.

Ken Ammi:
Well friend, I am certainly unsure how all my comments to various people herein and three books filled with arguments equal no arguments. I am equally unaware as to how it is focusing on an offhanded remark to repeatedly ask you how your worldview provides you a premise for even holding others to standards of truth, ethics, logic or for you to condemn anything?

Andrew G:
Now you are appealing to your own authority. Hmm. So I’ve looked at some of your books online and tried to read the free pages on amazon. I first notice you seem ESL and/or they are poorly edited, multiple spelling/grammatical errors in the intro alone. Though you use a few big thesaurus words, your intro to the historical Jesus book from last year could have been written by a high schooler. Disjointed mess. You did say you use proof, but I have yet to hear you echo that here. The thesis from your introduction seems to be how you’ve debated (I’m guessing gotten into online arguments) many mythicists and you know how to confuse them and get them to “run away”.
You pigeon hole mythicists in your description of them, a common strawman tactic. Then you reiterate all this again for some reason, and never actually lay out the framework for your case. That’s introduction 101. The table of contents is interesting. Gotta have a chapter for every other paragraph! If you want to “debate” someone, email Richard Carrier. He will likely respond and his email is on his website. Why is my worldview relevant to an historical Jesus debate? Let me guess, as a strawman for you to set up and knock down or as a red herring, a rabbit hole for me to get defensive and chase you down.
I’m not stupid. *My claim is that their is no evidence to believe in an historical Jesus.*. I make no claim as to whether he was real or not. I don’t know. But the disjointed factions, sayings and theologies lead me to think that at least most of not all of the tales (since we have no way to determine which is which) about him are mythical. But I cannot prove that. As you state repeatedly in your book’s intro: burden is on you. You’re claim is that Jesus was real. Give me one of your cases for that please that doesn’t fall into a logical fallacy. Thanks

Ken Ammi:
Friend, just so that I understand: first you complain “You make no arguments” and then when you see that I do you complain “you are appealing to your own authority” well, that speaks for itself.
Then you commit that which I term an “argumentum ad grammaticum”: this is merely a styled ad hominem or genetic fallacy.
If your “claim is that their is no evidence to believe in an historical Jesus” than that is a non-claim since there is evidence to believe in an historical Jesus and as for such “cases” well, what would you consider to count as such a one?
Lastly, I see that you are avoiding the worldview issue and I do not blame you since your worldview tells you that you are just a temporary and accidentally existing reactionary animal and so you jump directly into reactions without a premise. The problem is that lacking a premise makes your reactions nothing but an animal expressing random bio-chemical neural reactions. Yet, it may be that you are seeking subjective meaning that which your worldview tells you is an objectively meaningless existence.

IsaacP150 chimed in with:
Tejas Green sorry it’s just not rational to believe that some people writing later would just make up a person. Why would they do that? What were their motives? It is more reasonable to assume that there was a charismatic Rabbi who existed and was then crucified. All of the miracles are later legends but there was at least someone

Ken Ammi:
Except, keep in mind that even those who did not believe Jesus is the Messiah admitted His miracles–even if they called them sorcery, etc.

Andrew G:
Ken then why are his “miracles” called works in the early gospels and miracles in John?

Ken Ammi:
I am not sure why this is an issue for you. Do you deny miracles?
This is a non-issue for, at least, two reasons:
1) every language makes provision for referring to a certain phenomenon by different terms so that “works,” when defined by its context, means miracle and you cannot demand that different authors use the same words.
2) See Mark 6:52, 9:39 and Luke 23:8

Andrew G:
I’m still waiting on one argument from you in support of an historical Jesus

Ken Ammi:
By the way, I wanted to thank you since I have no editor, English is my second language and I am dyslexic which makes for a perfect storm. Thus, I appreciate you mentioning the issues with the intro and I update it.
Now, when I direct you to three books on the subject of the historical Jesus and you say that you are “still waiting on one argument from you in support of an historical Jesus” it is hard to take you seriously.
How about we try it this way: what would count as an argument in support of an historical Jesus?

Andrew G:
it’s not just word choices and syntax, it’s the structure of your words. Disjointed. Almost as if you have no education. Did you go to college? Did you get a liberal arts degree?

Ken Ammi:
How about we try it this way: what would count as an argument in support of an historical Jesus?

And that was the end of those volleys.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.