Sheshbazzar

Perhaps, to some degree. But belief in the Gospel tales has always sufficed for those that believe.
And as these are NOT looking for, seeking, nor desiring any way OUT of their faith,
they could care less if their situation seems to constitute a conundrum to you, or to anyone else that might not believe.

jdboy

I'm with aa, the human jesus has the same source of evidence as the godman jesus. This is the problem for both. Even Ehrman admitted that he had to use the NT and the criterion of dissimilarity to put his jesus someplace in history. I actually felt sorry for Ehrman.

Yellum Notnef

Maybe not that kind of tragic but watching them go at it is sort of a theatrical tragedy.
I have over 300 cable channels and often there's nothing on that's nearly as amusing as this.

Sheshbazzar

There are plenty of real and wholly unnecessary human tragedies that have arisen out of their religious beliefs and practices.

aa5874

The Catch 22 is that Ehrman is claiming that an historical Jesus was NOT derived from written or oral sources but Ehrman himself Believes he can extract a historical Jesus from the SAME written and oral sources.

Ehrman used the NT, A WRITTEN source, to claim Jesus existed but DENIES that people of antiquity could have done so.

Finally, it has been shown the HJ argument has DESTROYED itself.

The HJ argument has been devoured by its own fallacy.

Derlid

I hate to be pedantic but it is not a situation where there is no way out, but a situation where a decision you make within the confines of the system will lead to the same conclusion regardless, even when such a decision seems to logically render a way out at face value.

The examples are good you give, but there is a way out of a Catch-22 such as Heliers, but it may seem extreme and self defeating. For example one could go AWOL or commit suicide. The Catch-22 of Hellers only exists if we accept the rules of war, or better said we conform to our sides interest and rules.

I know very pedantic but it had to be said, or the Thought Police would arrest you.

Sheshbazzar

You may be correct in this with regard to Eherman's arguments, but it cannot be extrapolated from there so as to apply such conclusion to all other HJ arguments.

And I'll remind you that I absolutely DO NOT believe that any HJ ever existed, not even so much as an obscure but inspiring teacher.

aa5874

Well, kindly tell me of another HJ argument that do NOT use the NT in order to express their Belief that there was an HJ.

ALL HJ arguments from Fundamentalists, Christians and HJers use either WRITTEN or Oral sources dated by Paleography or C14 not earlier than the 2nd century.

HJers will attempt to do what they claim could NOT have been done in antiquity.

HJers are claiming Jesus MUST have existed or was likely to have existed based on stories that are 1800 years old and yet think that people of antiquity could NOT have also BELIEVED Jesus did exist with ONLY written and oral sources.

The HJ argument is essentially dead--it is in a NO-WIN situation--a Logical conundrum with NO way out--a classic case of CATCH 22.

Sheshbazzar

And any of them will point out to you that you do NOT have positive evidence that these oral or written sources did not exist before these rare remaining Paleographically or C14 dated COPIES.
Absence of evidence IS NOT the evidence of absence.

Are you suffering under some strange delusion that those Paleographically and C14 dated copies that remain are the actual ORIGINAL manuscripts that were actually written by the hand of the original composers?
You don't know when the originals of these texts were first written, and Paleography and C14 results do not, and cannot provide that information. Only that they are early exemplars of likely even earlier originals.

It may please you to think so, but those who see the huge holes in your conclusion will concede no such thing.

aa5874

Well, you identified the CATCH 22 in the HJ argument. HJers MUST BELIEVE that there is earlier evidence for an HJ but that is exactly what happened in the 2nd century.

People in the 2nd century also BELIEVED there were earlier when there was NONE.
No, No, No!!! Absence of Evidence is PRECISELY EXACTLY needed to argue for Non-existence.

Defendants are EXONERATED when there is ABSENCE of evidence of guilt.

Again, CATCH 22 for the HJ argument.

HJers MUST BELIEVE that there are earlier documents from the 1st century although they have NONE and people of antiquity BELIEVED the same thing but HAD NONE.


Name some one who can see any holes in my conclusion.??

Show any hole in my conclusion??

Diogenes the Cynic claimed the Gospels are "Akin to Bullshit reenactments and UFO abuductions....." so I don't know how any HJer can find any holes in my conclusion.

Effectively, the HJ argument has been laid to rest now that it is EXPOSED to be a Logical conundrum with NO way out--Catch 22.

HJers--NO CAN WIN!!!