Did Jesus exist ? Was there a historical figure named Jesus? Did Jesus the man really exist or was he a myth.
This question and others will be debated by two experts in their fields September 20th in Room B101 at the University of the Fraser Valley (UFV) from 2:00 to 5:00 pm.
Dr. Richard Carrier has a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia University and he will debate Michael Horner, Philosopher and Christian apologist.
Please join us for an engaging and informative afternoon.
If the event is sold out, please contact Nancy via email with your interest in attending. We have an option to add more seating based on demand for this event.
To Register click here.
Edited 08/14/2014
Abbotsford Atheists should at least attempt to play fair, though without a base in God, who alone gives us motivation to live on a higher plane, I guess there is no compelling reason to do anything beyond, “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow I die.”
But if they want a real debate, with a quality debater, arguing for God, who tells us throughout Scripture that His word is truth, then they should at least chose someone who actually believes the Bible.
Last I knew, Michael Horner does not believe the Genesis account of creation, as the Creator himself has recorded in His word. Michael, joins the long list of ‘academics’ who compromise God’s revelation, in order to be accepted by the ‘wise’ of this fallen world.
Evolutionists MUST have millions and billions of years, in order to prattle their ever evolving ‘just-so’ stories of how we came to be.
The straight-forward reading of Genesis does not leave room for those imagined long-ages.
For anyone interested in seeing the diametrically opposed the Biblical account of creation ex nihilo versus the unscientific imaginings of ‘slime growing up to become scientists’, see Richard’s lecture, ‘Theistic Evolution: Can This Marriage Be Saved? ….. see link, http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=126&Itemid=62
Michael Horner may be a Christian, but he seriously compromises the word of God, so expect pablum, not a real dinner at this debate.
Gerda,
Richard Carrier is a Historian our group has been looking to bring in for some time. He has a new book coming out
http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=264
in which he questions the historicity of Jesus. Rather than just present his view we thought it would be interesting to present two opposing arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus.
The question for this debate is Did Jesus Exist? Michael was gracious enough to agree to support this claim and debate Richards thesis in his book.
If you are interested in setting up any other events or debate topics please contact one of us at FVASH and we would be happy to discuss for a future event.
Thanks
Hi Jeff: The primary historical record of the Lord Jesus Christ is in the Bible. The Old Testament looks forward to the coming of the Messiah, the Saviour of the world. But why would anyone take the Old Testament seriously, if the first two chapters are not true?
Michael Horner, along with many ‘learned’ scholars from Trinity Western, and Regent College, will pontificate about the Genesis account being ‘allegorical, or lovely poetry, or……….. whatever the learned decree it to be. But Genesis is clearly not meant to be taken as allegory or poetry. It is God telling us of his astounding work of creation. He spoke the world into existence, and He could not make it clearer that he did so in 6 literal days, some 6, maybe as much as 7 thousand years ago.
Is that a miracle? Obviously. Read the all over the map accounts of evolution. Are they miraculous. Oh yes, only their scenarios require untold numbers of miracles, stuff we never see happen in real life. Stuff that does not fit into testable, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable predictable – hard data science. Miracle upon miracle ‘anomalies’ are needed to keep evolution afloat.
So when Christians like Michael Horner compromise Genesis to accommodate the looooooooong ages that evolutionists must be given, while distorting the clear reading of Scripture, I cannot respect his ability to defend the truth of God in a lecture about atheism versus Christianity.
Did Jesus Christ, Emmanuel, God with us come in history, to take a human body, so that he as a historical human could die on Calvary for the sins of all humanity? Yes Jesus did that.
If Genesis is not historical, there was no need for the Saviour to leave the glory of heaven to die this terrible death on our behalf.
Genesis tells us of our being created perfect, in the image of our God and creator. Genesis describes our original parents sin, our loss of innocence, our loss of Eden, and God’s terrible wrath against a world of rebellion, resulting in a world-wide catastrophic flood.
Michael Horner and his ‘learned’ brethren compromise the clear word of God when they try to inject millions and billions of years into the Genesis record, to please the evolutionists, (who sneer at such compromisers)
Sure, if you ever want an honest debate between your atheist pick and a true Biblical apologist, let me know. Set a date and I’ll ask Richard to meet with you.
Gerda,
Your response is confusing. Why bring up evolution? It is not a topic being debated nor does it have any relevance to it.
I am not 100% sure what information Richard and Michael will use in their arguments but I suspect they will likely not refer to the Old Testament. But I am intrigued by you reference to it. I thank you for setting me straight. ne thing I am not clear on, perhaps you could help. Since Genesis is the account of the creation of all things, what did God creat first ? Man or the animals?
Hello Jeff: Here is the topic of your debate,,,,,,”Did Jesus exist ? Was there a historical figure named Jesus? Did Jesus the man really exist or was he a myth.
This question and others will be debated by two experts in their fields…..”
Jesus Christ is God come to earth in Christ. The Bible is his written account of the creation of all things, including your two mere mortals, who will both hold forth on a topic far beyond their ken.
But Michael will pretend to be the defender of truth, while having seriously crippled his defence of the revelation given to us by God, by knuckling under to the pressure to accept vastly long ages for the creation, ages that are contrived and injected into the text in the hope that the secular world will be appeased by this cowardly compromise.
The so-called science backing billions of years of time is based on the need to bolster the theory of evolution. First there was nothing and then IT exploded. Somehow, someway, somewhere proto-life came into being from non-life. Somehow little proto-life pulled up its little sockies and by might and main and luck and …….. well miracle upon miracle transformed itself and things just miraculously kept defying any and all real science to finally arrive at the pinnacle of all fact defying science to …… US! Kazillion, bazillion unseen, unexplainable, unrepeatable miracles contrived by materialistic evolutionists, in their desperate attempt to remove God from his throne.
Takes FAITH to believe in those bazillion miracles, and it takes FAITH to believe in our all-wise, all-powerful, everywhere-present God.
Guess what? That makes both sides RELIGIOUS. Only Christianity produced some of the world’s finest scientists, because they saw in nature, in the heavens, in the microscopic word the hand of an awe-inspiring creator, and they wanted to study his works.
Not only is this question of evolution versus creation, relevant to any debate about the existence of Jesus Christ, who alone can save us from our lost estate and separation from our creator God,……Genesis to Revelation is central to any such discussion.
The answer to your question is found in Genesis. God created all plants, animals and fish before creating man, in his own image on day six. Mankind is God’s crowning glory, created to rule over the earth. Only when we walk with the Lord, in the light of his word can we begin to fulfill his mandate for our lives.
(Jeff Says – Via email):
Gerda,
Genesis Chapter 2
1 – 6 God creates heavens and earth ( summary )
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. ( god creates man )
8 – 17 ( Garden of Eden information )
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Here god creates Man first and then the animals. Is the bible wrong ? Why is there a contradiction ?
Verse 18 clearly states the animals were made afterwards so man would not be alone.
Hello Jeff: You devote quite a bit of your time to promoting atheism. So it is fair to say you are not a Christian, and therefore you do not have the Holy Spirit to illuminate the word of God.
“No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God…….The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
So by your own statement of unbelief you simply cannot comprehend the Bible. But in case you have a genuine desire to understand Genesis 1 and 2, I would recommend an article by Dr. Don Batten,
http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions
Dr. Batten’s degree is in science but he does a good job on theology too. “The entrance of thy word gives light.” Hope this begins to light the path for you, in the direction of God.
Thanks for the link Gerda but I am interested in what you think. I am familiar with the rationalization of the contradiction by playing with the interpretation of the Hebrew word for ” formed”. This does not explain why in Gen 2:18 ..the Lord God said “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Then in Gen 2:19 he goes on to create all the animals. This context clearly shows the animals were created after Adam. How do “you” explain that contradiction from the order in Gen 1?
No offense Gerta but it certainly appears that if someone isn’t defending exactly like you would, he’s not christian enough but even worse is if inconsistencies and contradictions are pointed out in the jewish big book of fairy tales, then its because we don’t have the “proper” spirit’ like somehow we need magical enchantments to understand what goat herders wrote during the bronze age. Give it up! This is just getting sad. Seriously
Kevin: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements –– surely you know!” God …… to Job.
About your upcoming atheist club debate ….. maybe Michael Horner has a clearer mind now, on the authority of the word of God, so perhaps he now believes that God, the Almighty creator of the heavens and the earth, and everything in them, actually knows what he is talking about, and the one who created such profound, astounding complexity does not find it hard to communicate to us, the beings created in his own image. The human beings created to rule over all of creation, for our Creator.
So while Michael and his fellow compromisers can indeed be Christians, since salvation is never based on anything good or wise within the sinner, nonetheless those who attempt to bend, twist, minimize and even discard the words of God, cannot adequately ‘defend’ Scripture within any of your aetheist debates.
I’m a Charlie Brown fan, but I will never defend the existence of The Great Pumpkin.
Whatever compromisers call themselves, ‘Theistic evolutionists’, day-agers, gap theorists, progressive creationists, framework hypothesis, ……. these are all cowardly compromises with the ruling paradigm of evolution. The emperor evolution has no clothing to cover his nakedness, but unless Michael has ‘evolved’ in his thinking, he only pretends to fight for the truth of Scripture.
If the first chapter of the revelation of God to fallen humanity cannot be trusted, no one in his right mind would expect the middle, end or in-between parts to be the infallible word of God.
The Bible is the word of life. The Bible is truth. The Bible tells us about Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, the Messiah, the redeemer of mankind.
I hope you will see the Saviour and fall at His feet in worship, Kevin.
Hi Jeff: Thanks for being interested in what I think. But I am not a linguistics scholar. I only took one year of Bible school, with one year of Greek as part of the curriculum. I’m half way through to a Bachelor of Arts, something I may complete some day. That hardly qualifies me to speak with authority on the translation of ancient Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into English, Dutch, French or Zulu.
The Bible has been translated with meticulous care, beginning with the Hebrew scribes. Jesus spoke of every jot and tittle of his word being true.
Biblical translation cannot be done by people like you or me. We are not qualified for the task.
If your question is a sincere desire for understanding I will offer here an article Richard wrote. Rich is not a linguist either but he has a bachelor of Theology as well as a bachelor of Science. He excelled in Hebrew and Greek classes, and is currently translating the Bible, for the pure joy of studying the precious word of God.
So for your edification,… Richard: ……”[From a comment I made under a MB Herald article]
There is just one creation account in Genesis (1:1-2:3). What follows that (2:4-25) is not a separate creation account but an expansion of the events that took place on Day Six, locally focused on the garden of Eden. Genesis 2:4-25 is clearly not a full “creation story” since it does not touch on the origin of the heavens, the earth, light, day, night, the dry land, the seas, the sun, the moon, the stars, or water life.
[And from my sermon on Matthew 19:1-6]
Now, not only does Jesus go to the Bible, and not only does he go to Genesis, he does something else that’s very striking here. Jesus quotes from both the first chapter and the second chapter of Genesis. The phrase “made them male and female” is from Genesis One verse 27, and the statement “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” — that is from Genesis Two verse 24.
Remarkably, Jesus combines those two quotations into one saying; and by so doing, he presents those two chapters as complementary to one another. Perhaps even within a single breath, Jesus quotes first from chapter one, and then right away from chapter two. Plainly, Jesus would not have agreed with those modern critics who claim that these are two separate and conflicting creation stories, two distinct accounts that arose from different sources and as a result are at odds with each other.
The critics would attempt to point out that these two chapters each have a different sequence of creation: they would say, for example, that in the second chapter man is created before plants and animals, but in the first chapter he is created after plants and animals. But reconciling the two chapters is really not that difficult, if we keep two simple points in mind.
Point Number One: just be aware that the second chapter is focused specifically on the account of the creation of man, and the setting is local, whereas the first chapter is broader, taking into view the creation of the whole heavens and earth. In other words, chapter 2 takes one small (but important!) section of chapter 1, and enlarges on it, giving some additional detail. It is not a “second creation account.” The purpose of chapter 2 is to expand on chapter 1, providing information that the reader will need to have, in order to be able to understand man’s fall into sin, which is about to be explained in the following chapter, chapter 3. So chapter 2 should not be seen as contradictory to chapter 1, but as supplementary to chapter 1.
And Point Number Two: be aware that Hebrew verbs have essentially only one kind of past tense, which can quite properly be translated either as a simple past (such as “formed”), or as a perfect (like “has formed”), or as a pluperfect (“had formed”). So Bible translators have to make decisions. Within any particular passage, translators will have to ask: Which of the possible English past tense options best suits the context?
For instance, in Genesis 2:19, which comes after the detailed account of the creation of Adam, the New International Version has decided to use the pluperfect English verb: “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.” That is, according to the NIV rendering, the LORD God actually had already made these beasts and birds prior to the creation of man. And that is one legitimate and possible understanding of the Hebrew verb which the King James Version has rendered as simply “formed.”
[For a technical discussion of the issues raised here, see C. John Collins’s article on the Hebrew pluperfect: .]
So if we just keep these two points in mind, it’s not that hard to propose reasonable ways to reconcile the apparent conflicts between these two chapters.
But in any case, Jesus himself must have regarded Genesis 1 and 2 as genuinely reconcilable, because he quoted both of them together, within one sentence!”
Of course it’s easy to reconcile the two accounts when you say one doesn’t count. That’s really the only way to deal with all the contradictions and errors in the bible. Neither you nor Richard still have not spoken to Gen 2:18 God said ” it’s not good for man to be alone, I will make a helper for him ” you do not need to be a PhD to see the order in this verse.
Kevin: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements –– surely you know!” God …… to Job.
About your upcoming atheist club debate ….. maybe Michael Horner has a clearer mind now, on the authority of the word of God, so perhaps he now believes that God, the Almighty creator of the heavens and the earth, and everything in them, actually knows what he is talking about, and the one who created such profound, astounding complexity does not find it hard to communicate to us, the beings created in his own image. The human beings created to rule over all of creation, for our Creator.
So while Michael and his fellow compromisers can indeed be Christians, since salvation is never based on anything good or wise within the sinner, nonetheless those who attempt to bend, twist, minimize and even discard the words of God, cannot adequately ‘defend’ Scripture within any of your aetheist debates.
I’m a Charlie Brown fan, but I will never defend the existence of The Great Pumpkin.
Whatever compromisers call themselves, ‘Theistic evolutionists’, day-agers, gap theorists, progressive creationists, framework hypothesis, ……. these are all cowardly compromises with the ruling paradigm of evolution. The emperor evolution has no clothing to cover his nakedness, but unless Michael has ‘evolved’ in his thinking, he only pretends to fight for the truth of Scripture.
If the first chapter of the revelation of God to fallen humanity cannot be trusted, no one in his right mind would expect the middle, end or in-between parts to be the infallible word of God.
The Bible is the word of life. The Bible is truth. The Bible tells us about Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, the Messiah, the redeemer of mankind.
I hope you will see the Saviour and fall at His feet in worship, Kevin.
Sorry, Jeff, my link to the C. John Collins article got omitted. Here it is: http://tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1995_46_1_08_Collins_WAYYIQTOL_Pluperfect.pdf
The last two paragraphs in particular deal with your objection. Hope that helps.
Jeff Says (via email)
Gerda,
It always strikes me as amusing when Christian apologists take bible verses literally when it suits them and invoke Cirque De Soleil rationalizations using literary devices like the pluperfect interpretation to explain obvious contradictions and problems. You should familiarize yourself with Ockham’s Razor.
Hello Jeff: You asked me to explain the order of events in Genesis 1 and 2. And I, not being a Biblical scholar, nor a linguist capable of translating the ancient Hebrew must defer to those who are. Your sneering retort …..” invoke Cirque De Soleil rationalizations using literary devices like the pluperfect interpretation……..” suggests that not only are you not a linguist, you really are not interested in scholarship.
Perhaps being an atheist makes you guard against all knowledge that might start a crack in your untenable platform.
Obviously the Lord God, whom you desperately wish to deny, is evident in all his astounding creation, all around you. He gives you freedom to rail against him. But you cannot escape the truth of God, because you are fearfully and wonderfully made, in his own image.
Blaise Pascal would tell you, you have a God-shaped vacuum in your heart, and only God can fill that hole.
Gerda – you just keep getting it wrong. My retort was not sneering but honest and sincere. What did you find improper about the Cirque De Soleil sentence? What you should have gathered by it was that I read your entire link. I merely did not agree with its conclusion. That should demonstrate that I am very much interested in scholarship. You on the other hand are not. You are seeming engaged in the matter of this upcoming debate. My question to you, will you read Richard Carriers book? You can borrow my copy if you like? Or are you only interested in reading material that confirms your current beliefs?
Hey Jeff,
I actually read the cirque du soleil bit as having an unpleasant tone, as well.
I think it’s pretty clear that Gerda brought up evolutionism to point out that she feels Michael Horner isn’t the best to argue whether Jesus was an actual historical figure because he ignores some of the most important aspects of the bible. The Bible does say that the world was created and is between 6000 – 10000 years old. I understand that she is coming from a place of “if he can’t comprehend the clearest points of the bible he might not be the best representative of the bible”
And Kevin,
Gerda is a creationist. She’s not going to “get over it.” I think that is abundantly clear to everyone. There’s absolutely no point in you popping in to tell her that because she is rooted in her faith and that isn’t changing. Expecting her to abandon her faith over one paragraph in a comment section is sad….
….says this atheist who loves her creationist friend.