ApostateAbe

OK. I don't know much about Ned Ludd. Do you happen to know if there is a solid argument to be made that Ned Ludd probably never existed? There may very well be, and I would love to learn of possibly the first confirmed example of such a thing.
Sorry, when I said, "make up for the lack of plausibility," I did not mean merely to explain the lack of plausibility. Plausibility (the hypothesis is more probable given the evidence) is one of the two main mechanisms by which probability of any claim is established, the other being explanatory power (the evidence is more probable given the hypothesis). Many things could have been different. Almost all things could have been different, but claims of ancient history are far more probable when they are confirmed to happen routinely and universally in the modern times.

aa5874

The Argument for Best Explanation show that Jesus was Myth.

100% of the activities of Jesus in gMark is implausible or fiction.

100% of the details about Jesus in the Gospels that are NOT found in gMark are fictional or implausible.

The Pauline writer a Contemporary of the supposed Jesus NEVER SAW him or met him.

The author of Acts a contemporary of the supposed Paul NEVER claimed he met Jesus.

The argument for the Best Explantion is that Jesus was NOT a real character.

graymouser

Except when he does, as in 1 Cor 11:23-26.

Why do we EXPECT Paul to mention them? Paul preached Christ crucified, as per 1 Cor 1:23. He alludes to Jesus's life as in 1 Cor 11:23-26 but it is the crucifixion, and therefore resurrection and salvation, that concerned Paul. We have seven letters, none of them particularly book-length, addressing particular issues at different religious communities. Mythicism is an explanation of it only with a ton of other baggage, which you and other "minimal mythicists" here don't seem to want to address.

aa5874

Your claim is false. HJers MUST provide BAGGAGE for their HJ that is found ONLY in their OWN HEAD.

ALL the evidence for MJ is documented in the Existing Codices and the Dated Pauline writings.

MJers did NOT invent the story that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost but HJers INVENTED the story that Jesus was SCARCELY KNOWN.

Please tell us ALL what HJers have INVENTED so we can know what NOT to look for.

Logical

Zero people trying to prove Jesus existed leads to no consensus that he did exist? I'm not a logician or anything but that seems like bad logic to me.

I think Ehrman is saying that most serious scholars never bothered to prove Jesus' historicity because it was never in doubt, meaning there is not good reason to doubt it. He's also implying that the reason he himself embarked on that very project is NOT because there is a good reason to doubt it, but because there are prominent figures casting doubt on it, with zero basis, if I may paraphrase Ehrman.

So the reason no serious scholar tried to prove it is exactly because there is a general agreement that it is true beyond reasonable doubt, not because there is no consensus!

Logical

That's a strange claim. It may be true that atheists shouldn't care, but to Christians, the human sacrifice of a historical Jesus Christ is central to their religion. Of course they should care.

aa5874

Well, after writing his book Ehrman shows the opposite. He proved without a reasonable doubt that Scholars could NOT have argued for an historical Jesus because they NEVER had any evidence to do so---- just a bunch of logical fallacies and presumptions.

Logical

Jesus wasn't an emperor. He was a failed humiliated messiah. It's not reasonable to expect him to be recorded by historians.

Listen, if you reject the Bible as proof of anything in terms of history, then your position should be this: The best that could be said about Jesus is that he MAY have existed, since his existence cannot be demonstrated.

But to say that we know he did NOT exist may be as absurd as claiming that he did indeed exist. The Bible you disqualify as historical evidence and the historical record you concede does not exist, you should then remain neutral.

spin

Aren't you lucky you've got this one church sanitized piece of Lucan gospel in Paul? It's called the exception that proves the rule, inserted into a Pauline discourse about the Corinthian abuses of his fellowship meal. It is of course—like other christological sore-thumbs—more important than the passages they find themselves in and just as obtrusive. However, because of their apologetic value in discussion, one rarely analyzes such things. It's better not to look.

Logical

All knowledge is tentative and should be open to change, including the fields of science.

It was ironic that Israeli archaeologists, whose project probably was an attempt to prove the national story of Israel, conceded that Exodus and most of its elements turned out to be mostly mythical.

I appreciate all their hard work and objectivity. And I remain open to the possible reversal in consensus on any subject among the experts. However, I can't reject expert opinions on everything today simply because it may be reversed tomorrow. When tomorrow comes, and new information is made available, I may reconsider then.