Huon

The answer to this question is well known. But iti is not the problem of this thread.

outhouse

false

we know who wrote what, and what epistles were not attributed to paul. And can see the redactions.

Some of the epistles are not up for dispute by anyone.


True

but not the parts being used to build historicity.


False


like all writings of this time, historicity can and is pulled from this much early material

the hellenized early writers often wrote mythically of mortal men not in question by anyone. mortal men were deified all the time that we know existed.

aa5874

Your statement is UTTERLY erroneous. You very well know that there is an ON-GOING QUEST for the Historical Jesus for the last 250 years because the NT is about Myth Jesus [the Jesus of Faith] and want to give people the absurd and mis-leading impression that all Scholars have agreed about the existence.

Please, I will NOT allow you to make blanket statements that are unsound and completely unsubstantiated.

There is ZERO credible sources for an historical Jesus so the SEARCH for HJ is still on going.

You very well know that historians/Scholars consider Jesus to be MYTH or are unable to re-construct the history of Jesus if he did live based on the very fact that the NT is historically unreliable and there are ZERO credible non-apologetic sources.

May I remind you that we are NOW on the THIRD QUEST, the THIRD SEARCH for an historical Jesus and so far we have come up EMPTY-HANDED.

By the way, you do not even understand what is meant by "false dichotomy".

There is a VAST difference between EVIDENCE for Myth Jesus and "false dichotomy".

You should have known, but it appears you don't, that in order to argue that Jesus was a MYTH character that I MUST produce written statements from antiquity which describe Jesus as a MYTH.

1. Matthew 1.18-20 is EVIDENCE of Mythological Jesus--not a false dichotomy.

2. Luke 1.26-35 is EVIDENCE of Mythological Jesus--not a false dichotomy.

3. John 1 is EVIDENCE of Mythological Jesus--not a false dichotomy.

4. Mark 6.48 and 9.2 are EVIDENCE of Mythological Jesus--not a false dichotomy.

5. Acts 1.9 is EVIDENCE of Mythgological Jesus--not a false dichotomy.

5. Galatians 1.1 and 1 Cor.15 are EVIDENCE of Mythological Jesus--not a false dichotomy.

In fact, people who call themselves HJers have presented NO evidence but LOGICAL fallacies to support their Jesus.

Please PRESENT some actual evidence for HJ instead of Rhetoric and logical fallacies and bring the SEARCH for HJ to an end.

Well, you found Troy, congratulations.

NOW find your Jesus!!!

You will NOT ever find your Jesus!!!

You know the evidence for TROY is NOT evidence for YOUR Jesus.

Again, your statement is NOT really credible. You very well know that there is an ON GOING QUEST for the historical Jesus for over 250 years which has been abandoned more than once due to a lack of credible evidence.

The present support for the Historical Jesus comprises of LOGICAL fallacies and forgeries.

LegionOnomaMoi

Wouldn't dream of it. It seems you're going for a monopoly on such statements, and far be it from me to stop you.




I tried to give a simple example (the coin toss problem) of a logical/reasoning problem people often get wrong, and then had to spend many posts trying to explain why your fallacious reasoning prevented you from seeing the correct answer. If the logic behind probability is so difficult for you (and history is about what most likely happened), why on earth would I accept your claims of what is or isn't a logical fallacy?


I did. He's a regular on family guy and lives in South Park.


Let me give a brief and what I've no doubt will be a futile example of logical reasoning to illustrate one of the many problems behind your claims. I'm going to assume you don't have a background in mathematical or symbolic logic, so rather than formally representing your argument I'll use English, but I'll set it up in the same way.

Premise: The NT texts are mythical

Premise: If a text is mythical, such as the NT or the Iliad, then it is wholly mythical and cannot contain any historical information

Premise: If all our texts about an event, person, place, etc., are either mythical or based on myths, then anything they say about this event, person, place, etc., must also be discounted as ahistorical.

Conclusion: As the NT and the Iliad are mythical, and no author we know of ever wrote anything about Troy or Jesus which wasn't based on such myths, neither Troy nor Jesus existed.

This is, in essence, a major part of your argument. The problem is it leads to a contradiction. Using the same argument I can conclude Troy didn't exist, but it did. Even if one were to accept that the NT, like the Iliad, is completely mythical, it is clear that myth can contain history. If it this were not true, then Troy wouldn't exist.

Sheshbazzar

I don't have any goal posts to move.
Of course I'm talking about Biblical Jeebus, because that is the only Jeebus (the deity) that exists, or to the best of human knowledge, ever has existed.

There are no existing contemporary descriptions of any other Jeebus of Nazareth other than those found within the Gospels.
The only texts or records you have of this Jeebus are these highly fictional Gospels. There is nothing within these writings that present the fictional character portrayed therein as being any normal human being.

All existing early Christian writings are unanimous in their reporting that their Jeebus was either the Jewish God himself, or an utterly unique manifestation of the Jewish-Christian God, with supernatural abilities and superior in all respects to any human, and was NOT any normal human being.

There is no other 'Historical' Jeebus described anywhere in any of these early writings or reports.

The ONLY Historical Jeebus is the God of the Christians, and the God of the Christians is the ONLY Historical Jeebus.

Now if you are attempting to reach some imaginary set 'goal posts' it is only because you are trying to carry the ball of your vivid imaginations towards a non-existent goal line.

You deny MJ? What do you mean by that?

Do you mean that your imagined non-MJ Jeebus was not conceived by the 'overshadowing of the Holy Ghost'?

How then was your imagined non-MJ Jeebus conceived? How do you know this?

Who was your imagined non-MJ Jeebus's mother? How do you know this?

Who was your imagined non-MJ Jeebus's father? How do you know this?

Where was your imagined non-MJ Jeebus born? How do you know this?

Where is your imagined non-MJ Jeebus buried? How do you know this?

How do you know that these are the remains of that one and only Jeebus of Bible fame?

I don't deny the ONLY historical J-C that has ever existed.
The ONLY J-C that IS accounted for, anywhere, by history, is that fictional character employed within old religious propaganda writings.

No material evidence for the existence of any flesh and blood figure behind these myths has ever been produced.

You have produced no evidence at all supporting the existence of any other Jeebus than the historical fictional one, as the founder for your favorite cult.
If you have the real Jeebus, bring out his bones, and irrefutable evidence that they are indeed the bones of the one and only J-C of NT fame.
Put up or shut up.

Solo

It appears that Ehrman himself coined the term "separationist". See The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford 1993, p 14.

Best,
Jiri

Zenaphobe

Just saw Bart's Facebook message about the new book, and here is a link to some of the content http://www.harpercollins.com/browsei...=9780062204608

Adam

You state questions. So what?
Nor is there is evidence for anything affirmative you do state. It's all your opinion.

maryhelena

Thanks for the link. I had a quick look at the introduction - and found this end sentence rather disturbing:

It's sad to read such words from a respected scholar.

Agenda? Yes, we all have agendas - we all do what we do for a reason. But, seemingly, Ehrman would like to credit the mythicists with something of the order of a negative agenda. And that, to my mind, is not a way forward in this HJ verse MJ debate. Good faith needs to be credited to the mythicists before any meaningful dialogue with the historical JC camp can open up a road forward. Ehrman is not being scholarly here.

I would suggest to Ehrman that he reconsider this approach if he wants his contribution to the HJ/MJ debate to be taken seriously.


my bolding for 'good faith'

Steven Carr

Bart's introduction explains that a lot of Biblical scholars are expert and can read Greek and Hebrew and other languages.

So they must be right.