outhouse

I havnt seen a myther yet, make a reasonabe case


still waiting to see what Carrier pulls, and if he is willing to get off his usual middle of the road position. he wil probably tick all the other mythers off by making a attempt at his own view, that will not be shared by anyone as of yet

Steven Carr

Ehrman is not a terrible scholar, at least not when he gets his graduate students to check over his work.

aa5874

We know that you have NOT seen a HJer make a reasonable case because you have REJECTED the HJers Jesus and is now arguing for "NO TAX" Jesus who healed people for Scraps of food.

If HJers had a reasonable case for their Jesus then you would NOT have argued for your "NO TAX" Jesus.

You have confirmed that there was "NO Known Jesus".

Sheshbazzar

ouch!

dockeen

Ironically, I don't know how many times I have heard Robert Price refer to the high
quality of scholarship in most of his work.

Joan of Bark

Anyone who disagrees with you clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

youngalexander

Indeed.
True, but it does not negate Toto's point.

Steven Carr

And mas many astrologer would tell you, proving that the constellation Orion is just a random collection of stars is no evidence whatever that there was not an historical Orion the Hunter.

Isn't that how historicists work? No matter how many times you show that the stories in the Gospels are based on Old Testament stories , they claim this is not evidence of non-historicity.

Just like astrologers claim that proving that constellations are pretty random is no evidence that Castor and Pollux did not exist.

ApostateAbe

That's OK. Toto's point was merely a contradiction of mine.

ApostateAbe

Sounds about right. The way to make a good historical case is by explaining the evidence best, not by negating the available evidence as unreliable and finding nothing left. If the evidence is reliable, then we need to explain the evidence. If the evidence is unreliable, then we still need to explain the evidence. Too many Jesus-mythicists (notably you of course) do not understand this. They don't understand that historical documents of all types count for evidence of some sort, and it is all a matter of finding the best explanations. For them, it is not a matter of finding the best explanations, but it is all a matter of making judgments of reliability, so the unreliability of the gospels lends support for mythicism, because the gospels are evidence for nothing. It is analogous, as you pointed out, to making the argument that the randomness of the stars lends support for the conclusion that Orion is merely mythical. You think that is a good argument!