ApostateAbe

OK, sort of, Ehrman claims that "...Marcion included a Gospel in his canon, a form of the Gospel of Luke," which I take to mean that Ehrman thinks that Marcion's source was hardly different from the gospel of Luke we have today.

Toto

"Hardly different" is much more definite that is warranted by the evidence.

Ehrman's statement leaves open the possibility that canonical Luke includes material that was added to the version that Marcion used - something that can be suspected, but can't be proven.

ApostateAbe

OK, I'll give you that.

GakuseiDon

:notworthy: ... And so the final piece of the puzzle falls into place, and the mystery that is Toto stands explained. THAT's why you keep making those non-sequiturs about how my arguments "won't convert people". You thought my ultimate aim was to convert people to Christianity! And that's why you are always so confused over my 'motives' -- since I've always denied that I was here to convert (I don't think God cares what you believe or whether you believe at all) BUT since I was arguing for a secular Jesus, I had to be hiding something... my REAL intentions to convert people! Toto, I think I understand where you are coming from completely now! >< I'm actually kind of glad, since now I know how to take your occasionally weird responses.

I'll submit that this is one reason why the MJ/HJ debates are so feisty: assuming motives that just aren't there. "Denying a HJ? They are trying to destroy Christianity" vs "Supporting a HJ? They are trying to convert you to Christianity."

Petergdi

Making the nativity story in Luke very late, in order to be part of a response to Marcion, may tend to conflict with the idea that the nativity story in Luke was written at a time when Matthew's nativity story was not yet well known.

Peter.

Toto

Abe's new reading material by Van Voorst directly charges that mythicists are trying to destroy Christianity. Some of them might be.

Layman (Chris Price) is in fact a Christian apologist, not a disinterested scholar of history. Bill Bright's Campus Crusade for Christ makes the agreed upon historical existence of Jesus a key point in its propaganda.

There are also humanists who have an interest in the existence of a historical Jesus who supports their social agenda.

So those motives are there. You need to take them into account in evaluating any conclusions to see how the data is being spun.

That's why it is rather naive to just rely on a consensus of experts without looking into the actual evidence that supports the consensus.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, I haven't really found any significant exception to the charge that Jesus-mythicists are trying to destroy Christianity, though I wouldn't draw the conclusion that all of them are trying to do that. It just seems to be the general rule. And I don't blame them for that tendency--I share in it; I only blame them for letting their wishful thinking influence their theories about objective reality. I honor much less the charges that lack significance or truth, especially if they are used as arguments against the reasonability of someone's claims (ad hominem arguments).

Yellum Notnef

FWIW, I've followed the arguments here for years and I never got the impression you were looking to convert anyone. You're not a conservative evangelical like Price is. I'm not sure about Toto, but I've always thought your "motive" was that you want to believe that Jesus is god. The lack of some kind of historical Jesus removes any possibility of that.

Steven Carr

Of course, Price is going to recommend books that do not even mention mythicist arguments, let alone refute them.

That is the historicist way. Claim mythicism is refuted, praise books which don't even address mythicist arguments and then walk away, enjoying the look of bafflement on mythicist faces.

Mythicism is like creationism.

Just like there are evolution web sites and books, which refute all creationist claims , there are non-existent historicist books and web sites which refute all mythicist arguments.

So a perfect analogy :-)

dog-on

So?

When, btw, was Matthew's nativity story well known?