dog-on

To be fair, Ehrman is a bit more nuanced in his definition of dependence.

aa5874

Give me a break!!! What is so nuance when EHRMAN argued that the Gospels were NOT written by the Aramaic followers of Jesus and based on HEARSAY decades later.

It is EXTREMELY terrifying to see how people can defend absurdities.

This is how the Gospel stories were derived based on Ehrman.

See http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm

It is time we bring this charade to an end if people here are NOT willing to accept that Ehrman has made Massive BLUNDERS that undermine his own credibility.

dog-on

Again, to be fair, Ehrman is not saying that the Gospels are historically reliable, per se. He is saying that they all serve as independent, or at least partially independent, evidence for the historical existence of Jesus.

tanya

Oh, I see the light.

To be fair, tanya is not saying that the newspaper accounts of Paul Bunyan are historically reliable per se. She is writing that they all serve as independent, or at least partially independent, evidence for the historical existence of that heroic logger.

?
How about really being fair--> Ehrman is writing opinion, not providing data.

*************************

denarius???

WHAT???

What are you thinking, kiddo?

Yes, Ehrman writes that, but, where are these Aramaic documents?

I may possess documents in French, about Paul Bunyan, but does that make his existence more credible?

Certainly NOT.

you are confusing ANALYSIS, with EVIDENCE. My analysis of Paul Bunyan is that he is a mythical character. I don't produce EVIDENCE showing that he is a mythical character, I produce evidence that demonstrates, logically that he is a supernatural being. The conclusion that Paul Bunyan was a myth, is not based on EVIDENCE, but on an understanding of the limitations of hominid physiology-->supernatural characteristics, ergo: MYTH.

No. It is pure conjecture. It is conjecture based, not upon EVIDENCE, but upon whim. You have no idea from where, the Jesus story originates. You do not know the name of the author, or the date of publication, of the first story about Jesus.

So, if I argue that the story of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox originates with the Iroquois, should you believe me, just because those were the folks originally inhabiting the land from which the myth of Paul Bunyan arose?
WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE? You confuse one man's conjecture with data. The two are not the same.
Which first hand source is this? What nonsense.

Well, how does Ehrman know that Jesus had a brother? How absurd.

:huh:

denarius

I should try to give you a better answer than I gave in my previous posting.

Gods and fictional characters would be expected to have fictional brothers and sisters. In this case Paul claims to have personally known a real brother of Jesus. This strongly suggests that Paul did not believe in a phantom Jesus as I have seen posted on this forum many times, but in a real historical person.

Richard Carrier seems to think the issue is important because he goes to great lengths to try to explain it away by saying that the word 'brother' in Galations does not mean 'sibling'.

aa5874

Your reply shows a rather limited knowledge of the Pauline writings and the nature of Jesus by apologetic sources of antiquity that made references to the Pauline writings.

In the first instance, the Galatians author made CLEAR that:

1. He was NOT the apostle of a human being.

2. He did NOT get his gospel from a human being.

3. He did NOT please human beings as a disciple of Jesus.

4. Jesus was the Son of God.

Please, we have hundreds of references to the Pauline Jesus and there is NOT one claim that the Pauline Jesus was human with a human father.

Now, secondly, the mere description of a character as human with human parents does NOT in any way exclude such a character from being a Myth or Fictional.

This so basic that i cannot even comprehend why you don't take it into account.

Are you not aware of fictional accounts???

Now, please say how we confirm the veracity and historical accuracy of any statement in the Pauline writings.

I am sick and tired of the Presumptions about the Pauline writings.

How in the world can writings that are suspected of being manipulated be PRESUMED to be historically accurate at the very same time???

aa5874

Please, that is EXACTLY what Ehrman is NOT saying. You are NOT being fair.

Ehrman made the claim that the Gospels were stories DERIVED from as it were from a "buisiness man in Ephesus" from an UNKNOWN source.

Why can't people here even accept what is written in front of their very eyes???

Ehrman is clear the Gospels are many stories derived from a source of UNKNOWN origin and credibility.

Please, let us be fair.

denarius

No, I am not under the impression that Creationists have successfully poked holes in the theory of natural selection.

As I think about it I think it would be more appropriate to compare Jesus mythicists with global warming deniers than with creationists even though many of their tactics are the same.

Your list of problems with historicity don't strike me as all that compelling, and you admit that there could be a historical figure behind the Jesus legends. What you haven't done is demonstrate that the scholarship consensus is false.

aa5874

The consensus among Scholarship is that the NT is about the Jesus of Faith and that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an historical Jesus.

Toto

So you admit your analogy is false.

And then you compound your error. Global warming deniers have no evidence but a lot of oil money on their side.

I don't expect you to be impressed with anything I write, but Richard Carrier, a credentialed historian, will publish a book next month, and another next year, demonstrating the problems in the scholarship.