Diogenes the Cynic

I'd say the last one is far more probable than not, the second one is not inherently implausible, is independently attested and is religiously dissimilar to the beliefs of the authors.

As to the first item, I have no idea. I don't think I've seen persuasive evidence that current site of Nazareth can definitely be identified as the Nazareth of the Gospels or if the site was basically just invented down the line like many other sites alleged to have Biblical connections.

I also think a case could be made that Jesus was from somewhere on the northern shores of the Galilee in the vicinity of Caparnaum/Bethsaida/Magdala etc., where his ministry is alleged to have begun.

I don't have to be able to know where someone was born or grew up to be reasonably sure that they existed, though. I am reasonably sure that a Galilean preacher went nuts at the Temple and got crucified. After that it gets murky.

tanya

And you know this, because...?

I am reasonably sure that Babe the blue ox was born cyanotic, which accounts for his blue color.

:huh:

Diogenes the Cynic

Does the Roman crucifixion of a provincial revolutionary have the same historical plausibility of a Giant blue ox?

aa5874

Where is the EVIDENCE for your certainty?? Fundamentalist are equally certain of their Beliefs.

However, fundamentalists do NOT discredit their sources.

HJers have discredited their sources and have imagined that there is history is the very same discredited sources.

I am not really interested in your perceived certainty ONLY the source by which it is derived.

You have NO credible source, no evidence and is exhibiting the blindest of faith. Your Jesus is whatever you have IMAGINED is history in sources that are essentially Myth Fables.

The Baptism and crucifixion events of Jesus as described are implausible yet you slice away the bad parts and partake of the rest.

Toto

There is a clear connection between Peter and cock/rooster, and and there seems to be a connection between cock and penis going back to classical times.

But I don't know what Archarya S's original point was. She included a line drawing of this priapic statue which is labeled "The Savior of the World," and linked it to Saint Peter, although no one has ever, TMK, described Peter as the Savior of the World.

Bart Ehrman accused her of making things up, although she clearly did not make this up. Barbara Walker might have made up the cock-Peter connection, and Acharya undoubtedly is insufficiently critical of her sources, and failed to include enough nuance in her language, but Ehrman is not going to be able to refute popular mythicism if he does not take it seriously.

tanya

Good. You are beginning to see the light....

Zero = Zero.

Myth #1 is not "more plausible" than myth #2. They are both myths.

Is Hercules more plausible than Babe the Blue Ox? The computer algorithm "falls through" (fails the test) once supernatural attribution appears on the scene.

ApostateAbe

Errorman (*laugh*) accused Acharya S of sourcing from other authors that like to make things up, and I have no disagreement, so, no, I won't be harassing Errorman.

Dave31

Errorman makes no mention of: "sourcing from other authors."

There's no way around it, Errorman did a "hack job" with this book as Dr. Price says and Errorman completely got this one wrong and embarrassed himself in the process because he got it sooooo sloppily and egregiously wrong.

No surprise that you (AAbe & others here) would be incapable of acknowledging that Acharya S wasn't wrong here and that she may be correct about anything. No surprise with your hypocritical inconsistency of giving Errorman a free pass on something far worse than Acharya has ever done yet, you still harass her 8 years later just because you lost a debate 8 years ago. It's just another demonstration of the severe biases, discrimination and misogyny here and elsewhere. How long ya going to keep riding that little scooter?

The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican

ApostateAbe

See pages 21-22 of Errorman's Did Jesus Exist?:

Mythicists of this ilk should not be surprised that their views are not taken seriously by real scholars, that their books are not reviewed in scholarly journals, mentioned by experts in the field, or even read by them. The book is filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to believe that the author is serious. If she is serious, it is hard to believe that she has ever encountered anything historical scholarship. Her "research" appears to have involved reading a number of nonscholarly books that say the same thing she is about to say and then quoting them. One looks in vain for the citation of a primary ancient source, and quotations from real experts (Elaine Pagels, chiefly) are ripped from their context and misconstrued.

aa5874

Is that diatribe the evidence for an HJ???

Ehrman is FREE to give his NEGATIVE opinion of those who do not hold his position on Jesus but we NEED to see the EVIDENCE that supports an Historical Jesus.

Let us assume that everybody that do NOT agree with Ehrman is wrong and MOVE to the EVIDENCE for an historical Jesus.

Come on, ApostateAbe!!!! Why is it YOUR Jesus is different to Ehrman's Jesus??? Surely you MUST have MORE and BETTER evidence that him or is it a matter of BEST Guesses??

Ehrman's Jesus MUST be the WRONG Jesus if your Jesus is right.

And the Reverse is also true.

Or is that NONE of you have any evidence but are just GUESSING??