Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 06-26-2011, 09:40 AM

Actually, "Did Jesus Exist" was Wells's THIRD book. The first was titled "The Jesus of the Early Christians" (1970, I think it was). Offhand, I can't remember the title of the second. Wells made a second edition of "Did Jesus Exist" in the later 80s, following his best book, in my view, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus" (1982), which introduced me to Jesus Mythicism. I very much regret that Wells fell for the Jesus Seminar's "genuine Jesus" at the root of Q, since it was on a very weak basis, and it has unfortunately compromised this "grand old man" of JM in modern mythicist circles.

As for Ehrman, this new book seems to have coalesced rather fast. Seems like only yesterday it was only a gleam in his eye, not even in the pre-natal stage. I'm wondering if he is so smug and confident that it will be a slam-dunk thing he can put together overnight, that he may not even have started the actual writing and has chosen a publication date which simply reflects that self-confidence?

Anyway, no, Ehrman never contacted me in any way to engage with my arguments, and I haven't heard that he has done so with any published mythicist. One of my sponsor/supporters in the U.S. received a number of copies of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man early on for promotion purposes and I believe he may have sent a copy to Ehrman, but I'm not sure.

What I most fear is that Ehrman will write this book without investigating in any depth the writings of today's prominent mythicists. If he does so, it will be a complete waste of time, for himself and for us, and I hope he has a taste for egg.

Earl Doherty

jgoodguy · 06-26-2011, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Paul’s letters twice mention the Lord’s brothers, once in reference to James, second in plural (1 CR 9:5) but there is absolutely no indication in Paul that he meant it as kinship to Jesus of Nazareth. For one, Paul forswore any knowledge of Jesus ‘kata sarka’.

Presumably Ehrman will say that I Cor. 9:5 multiplies the evidence by referring to several brothers.

Given that 'brothers' is repeatedly used to denote those who follow the Lord (including the 500), one might expect a clearer distinction to be drawn between two such radically different uses of the same word. Particularly if there were multiple biological brothers who were also religious brothers, one of whom was particularly important.

The "multiple attestation" argument (co-opting the gospels along with Eusebius, Tertullian, and Josephus) which I fear Ehrman may dredge up concerning adelphoi tou kuriou, is nonsense; but does the fact that Philippians 1:14 has "adelphōn en kuriō" rather than "tou kuriou", indicate such a distinction?

All true, but expectations is not evidence.

Toto · 06-26-2011, 09:42 AM

I suspect that at least a part of the book will be a refutation of Acharya S's weaker points.

hjalti · 06-26-2011, 09:52 AM

I hope he doesn't mention Rom 1:3 without discussing the case for this being a part of an interpolation. Same goes for the brother stuff in the first trip to Jerusalem in Galatians.

I know, not going to happen.

hjalti · 06-26-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I suspect that at least a part of the book will be a refutation of Acharya S's weaker points.

"Chapter 1: Why super-advanced pygmies didn't exist.
Chapter 2: Why the ramblings of 19th century spiritualists aren't a good source.
...."

:Cheeky:

ApostateAbe · 06-26-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I hope he doesn't mention Rom 1:3 without discussing the case for this being a part of an interpolation. Same goes for the brother stuff in the first trip to Jerusalem in Galatians.

I know, not going to happen.

He could write a normal-length e-book, or else he could write an online encyclopedia of myther arguments.

aa5874 · 06-26-2011, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radius

Presumably Ehrman will say that I Cor. 9:5 multiplies the evidence by referring to several brothers.

Given that 'brothers' is repeatedly used to denote those who follow the Lord (including the 500), one might expect a clearer distinction to be drawn between two such radically different uses of the same word. Particularly if there were multiple biological brothers who were also religious brothers, one of whom was particularly important.

The "multiple attestation" argument (co-opting the gospels along with Eusebius, Tertullian, and Josephus) which I fear Ehrman may dredge up concerning adelphoi tou kuriou, is nonsense; but does the fact that Philippians 1:14 has "adelphōn en kuriō" rather than "tou kuriou", indicate such a distinction?

In any investigation of a claim it cannot be the words of the claimant alone that is taken into consideration.

No reasonable investigation can be carried out on Galatians 1.18-19 using ONLY the words of "Paul".

The writings of other Apologetic sources or any relevant source MUST also be taken consideration.

The matter has been resolved.

Sources that mentioned Galatians 1.19 did NOT consider the apostle James to be a human brother of Jesus. The apostle James was simply called the "Lord's brother".

Sources that mentioned Galatians 1.19 claimed Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Origen mentioned Galatians 1.19 and claimed Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

"Against Celsus" 1.32

Quote:

....let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost....

Unless one can find a credible source EXTERNAL of apologetics that Jesus Christ was actually born of a man and a woman then it is a complete utter waste of time attempting to use the very Canon of the Church to claim Jesus was an ordinary man when in the very Canon Jesus was described as the Child of the Holy Ghost, the Creator and the Word that was God.

See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 and John 1.

To use the NT Canon to claim Jesus was an ordinary man is like using a "witness" who has committed PERJURY in a court trial.

The NT Canon is about the Jesus of Faith (God Incarnate).

An historical Jesus, an ordinary man, has ZERO theological value in the NT Canon.

An ordinary man could NOT resurrect or REMIT the Sins of Mankind.

hjalti · 06-26-2011, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I hope he doesn't mention Rom 1:3 without discussing the case for this being a part of an interpolation. Same goes for the brother stuff in the first trip to Jerusalem in Galatians.

I know, not going to happen.

He could write a normal-length e-book, or else he could write an online encyclopedia of myther arguments.

Myther arguments?

ApostateAbe · 06-26-2011, 10:07 AM

Not that the online encyclopedia of myther arguments would be a bad idea. That would probably be the most effective thing to do. When I was engaged against the creationists, the most useful resource was, in fact, the Index to Creationist Claims on TalkOrigins.org. It could fill a sizable volume if it were printed, and I estimate that the myther arguments would fill two such volumes, they being much more argumentative and literate. I am thinking maybe I'll do that--Index to Myther Claims, modeled after the the Index to Creationist Claims.

ApostateAbe · 06-26-2011, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

He could write a normal-length e-book, or else he could write an online encyclopedia of myther arguments.

Myther arguments?

Right. "Myther" is another word for "mythicist," and "myther" I think is more common among the critics.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2011, 09:40 AM	#31
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	Actually, "Did Jesus Exist" was Wells's THIRD book. The first was titled "The Jesus of the Early Christians" (1970, I think it was). Offhand, I can't remember the title of the second. Wells made a second edition of "Did Jesus Exist" in the later 80s, following his best book, in my view, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus" (1982), which introduced me to Jesus Mythicism. I very much regret that Wells fell for the Jesus Seminar's "genuine Jesus" at the root of Q, since it was on a very weak basis, and it has unfortunately compromised this "grand old man" of JM in modern mythicist circles. As for Ehrman, this new book seems to have coalesced rather fast. Seems like only yesterday it was only a gleam in his eye, not even in the pre-natal stage. I'm wondering if he is so smug and confident that it will be a slam-dunk thing he can put together overnight, that he may not even have started the actual writing and has chosen a publication date which simply reflects that self-confidence? Anyway, no, Ehrman never contacted me in any way to engage with my arguments, and I haven't heard that he has done so with any published mythicist. One of my sponsor/supporters in the U.S. received a number of copies of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man early on for promotion purposes and I believe he may have sent a copy to Ehrman, but I'm not sure. What I most fear is that Ehrman will write this book without investigating in any depth the writings of today's prominent mythicists. If he does so, it will be a complete waste of time, for himself and for us, and I hope he has a taste for egg. Earl Doherty

06-26-2011, 09:42 AM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I suspect that at least a part of the book will be a refutation of Acharya S's weaker points.

06-26-2011, 09:52 AM	#34
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	I hope he doesn't mention Rom 1:3 without discussing the case for this being a part of an interpolation. Same goes for the brother stuff in the first trip to Jerusalem in Galatians. I know, not going to happen.

06-26-2011, 10:07 AM	#39
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Not that the online encyclopedia of myther arguments would be a bad idea. That would probably be the most effective thing to do. When I was engaged against the creationists, the most useful resource was, in fact, the Index to Creationist Claims on TalkOrigins.org. It could fill a sizable volume if it were printed, and I estimate that the myther arguments would fill two such volumes, they being much more argumentative and literate. I am thinking maybe I'll do that--Index to Myther Claims, modeled after the the Index to Creationist Claims.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.