ApostateAbe

Right. I would recommend relying on the consensus of only nonreligious scholars.

aa5874

What a load of BS. Your statement is like relying on the consensus of former atheists who now believe God exist as the evidence for God's existence.

The fact is that the arguments for an historical Jesus are extremely horribly weak and are directly based on admitted sources filled with fictional accounts of Jesus.

Such a position is the very worse in order to make a convincing argument.

If it is pre-announced in a court that all the witnesses for the prosecution are NOT credible then we know that their arguments would be worthless.

It is the very same thing with the HJ argument---it is just worthless based on known discredited sources of fiction, forgeries and falsely attributed authors.

EarlDoherty

When mainstream "expert" scholars have been shown to indulge in all manner of fallacious reasoning to demonstrate the existence of Jesus (which I and others have demonstrated in spades), they automatically remove themselves from the category of reliable experts. They automatically can no longer be appealed to as authorities.

You know, I am still waiting for people like Apostate Abe to actually engage with mythicist arguments and refute them, instead of this constant harping on experts, authority, and the crazies who would dare to buck received wisdom. I recently completed a book-length series on Vridar which demonstrated historicism's utter failings (and especially those of Ehrman himself) to discredit mythicism. Apart from one excerpt which I myself posted here (on the Philippians hymn, and I have no hesitation in saying that no one succeeded in discrediting my analysis), not a single anti-mythicist on this board undertook on his own to address any of it, while all the time continuing to pontificate their empty and empty-headed condemnation of all things mythicist. All we get are endless and pointless debates about the nature and reliability of hallowed academia. Arguing principles of consensus means nothing if you don't take into account how that consensus is arrived at, or whether the actual arguments and counter-arguments within the debate are legitimate. Arguing principles is worthless without arguing practice.

What are they here for? To hear the sound of their own voices, no matter how vacuous? Mr. Cynic is another who constantly parrots himself claiming that no mythicist argument or case is worth the time of day, yet he has done nothing himself to actually demonstrate that by taking it, examining it in detail and actually refuting it. The appeal to authority is NOT refutation. Neither is the argument from personal incredulity. I'm sure Abe holds the record on this DB for the most words spouted saying nothing of any value.

No clear-cut proof? I've challenged I don't know how many people, including here, to refute my analysis of Hebrews 8:4 (ten pages in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man--or you can even use the abbreviated version in Part 16 of my Vridar series if determined anti-mythicists here are too cheap to spend $14.95 on the e-book) which tells us in no uncertain terms that his Jesus had never been on earth. Jiri was the only one who even commented on it, and he had no actual counter-arguments for it. Paul's failure to show any awareness of an historical physical Jesus in 1 Cor. 15:35-49 has not been refuted (despite spin's vainglorious attempt a couple of years ago). GDon's devious methods at trying to discredit mythicist positions have long been exposed. As for the rest of you, you're the chorus of flutes in Charles Ives' Unanswered Question.

Put up or shut up.

Earl Doherty

TedM

I've put up. See new thread.