sweetpea7

Maybe I'm a bit slow tonight...but I'm kinda lost as to what you mean by that.

Perhaps a better question would have been has Mr. Ehrman ever debated Mr. Price or Mr. Doherty or been invited to do so?

ApostateAbe

I mean that Dr. Ehrman doesn't have nearly as much free time as the rest of us.
No, never. I am sure he has been invited, though.

sweetpea7

Ah, makes sense to me now. I need to stop drinking red wine while posting. :redface:

Toto

Robert Price reported that there was interest in having him debate Ehrman on the historical Jesus, but that no one could afford it - Ehrman commands too high a fee.

sweetpea7

Are there any other scholars in the HJ camp who might be willing to debate Mr. Price or Mr. Doherty?

aa5874

Well, you have trapped yourself again. You do the very same thing with passages you don't like in the NT.

The passages you don't like you just don't take them literally.

You believe that there was a LITERAL Jesus but you don't take the birth of Jesus literally as described in the NT.

Mt 1:18 - You believe Jesus was LITERALLY baptized by John but do not accept that the Holy Ghost literally entered Jesus in the body of a dove.

Lu 3:22 - You do NOT accept that Jesus was LITERALLY tempted by the Devil on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

Lu 4:9 - You are really no different to those of whom you talk about except that your gullibility level is a little lower than the Christians.

Your gullibility level do not extend beyond that which you consider implausible.

In other words, you are more prone to accept events in the NT as LITERAL providing they appear plausible to you which is exactly what Christians do.

They think that it is EXTREMELY Plausible that God's Son Jesus Christ LITERALLY was on earth and died and resurrected for the Sins of Mankind.

Upon reflection, I now think you are no different to the Christians of antiquity since they accepted the Jesus story as LITERAL because it was plausible in antiquity.

ApostateAbe

I imagine that there are a handful, but the willingness needs to come from two sides, and I don't think either Dr. Price or Mr. Doherty would be willing to get his ass handed to him by someone with a small name in the field.

Toto

Neither Price nor Doherty have shown any fear of losing a debate, although Doherty is not a regular on the debate circuit.

Price did contribute to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (or via: amazon.co.uk), which was something of a debate.

judge

But if for some reason they become necessary you can argue for them then.
Thats the problem with much of the mythicist approach.
First get some crazy idea about mythicism, even though there is no trace of anyone having this view until relatively recently. I mean it's suspiciously absent from the entire corpus of early christianity, until someone such as yourself suddenly sees it.
Next step is to identify troublesome verses, and then lastly make up some argument for why they are probably an interploation. But, remeber to leave yourself an escape hatch that there are interpolations no one has identified yet, just in case you might need them later.
Next step try for peer review but when rejected invent excuses as to why you need best avoid it.

I mean, wouldn't a reasonable person, trying to adopt a rational approach be just a tad cynical?

aa5874

You don't even know what you are talking about.

The quest for the "historical Jesus" began over 200 years ago.

Since the 18th century HJers began to argue AGAINST the written evidence in the NT Canon not against MJers.

It is the failure of HJers to present an "historical Jesus" for the last 200 years why the MJ theory has now taken over.

For 200 years, HJers can only say, and without any corroboration from historical sources of antiquity, what they BELIEVE about HJ.

It is HJers who IGNORE written evidence in the NT and impose their imagine on others.

In the NT, Jesus was described as the Child of the Ghost, which implies we are dealing with a Myth character but HJers have claimed without a single shred of corroborative evidence that Jesus in the NT was a man.

In the very NT, a Pauline writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a man and did NOT get his gospel from man but from Jesus who was RAISED from the dead yet HJers still claim that Jesus was a man using the very same "Paul" who claimed that Jesus was NOT a man.

For over 200 years, HJers have been arguing AGAINST the written evidence in the NT without any credible historical sources of antiquity and have UTTERLY failed to deliver HJ.

Now, they want to blame Doherty for ALL their failures of 200 years.

And Bart Ehrman will magically present HJ later in the year.

Jesus is coming soon.