No Robots

Some other time, then, Gollum?

spin

Re: Yellum Notnef...
I can see there are no Seivom Emoh fans in this thread. Has no-one heard of Redes Mas?

2-J

Oh damn, do you think that's a possibility? I see the OP has gone on a self-ban.. and it did seem a bit too good to be true that Bart Ehrman would do this... if someone's in touch with him, might be worth giving him a mail.

No Robots

Well played, sir, well played. Who says ya don't learn nuttin' on da intrawebs?

avi

spinning on his merry way, as it were....

avi

ApostateAbe

It was no joke.

Vincent Guilbaud

ApostateAbe said march 12th:
But it's exactly the opposite!!!

Excepted some curious and free-minded amateurs on the internet,
nobody takes care about the Jesus Myth because ...
no 'profesional' scholars want to hear about it.

And the main reason they don't want to hear about it is that...
"no serious historian believes that Jesus is not historical".

I found Bart Ehrman's books rather naive. I don't see how his e-book against Jesus mythiscism will be anything else than a failure.
It would be interesting if it is followed by other attempts from leading scholars. But after Ehrman broke his teeth on it, I doubt it.

ApostateAbe

The mythicists are all over YouTube and all other interactive media on the Internet that the topic of Jesus comes up. Since the rhetorical opponents of Bart Ehrman have been only Biblicist Christians, I think you will be seeing Bart Ehrman at his most relevant in this ebook. Up til now, he has only barely touched on the arguments for the existence of Jesus, even in his book all about the life of Jesus (the existence of Jesus is somewhat assumed). However, I wouldn't claim that we should be expecting anything significantly more than the arguments that I, GakuseiDon, Chaucer, Roger Pearse, juststeve and others have advanced. In that sense, I think the hardcore mythicists here are in for a disappointment, not primarily because the arguments are especially weak, but because they tend to set the bar absurdly high.

aa5874

Incredible.

HJ Scholars have presented NOTHING credible from antiquity for their assumption.


You mean that you have all OUTPERFORMED Bart Ehrman?

Bart Ehrman ASSUMES the existence of HJ since he has no credible evidence from antiquity and you, GakuseiDon, Chaucer, Roger Pearse and juststeve have done the very same.

You all presented NO argument just ALL YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

But, that is NOTHING new. We ALREADY know that people ASSUME Jesus existed without credible evidence from antiquity.

Vincent Guilbaud

ApostateAbe said:
Yep.
But if Ehrman canno't come with more arguments than you guys, it means the case for the MJ will stay as a big open hole in the NT exegesis.

It is not placing the 'bar absurdly high' to
"suggest that only such a scenario [the myth one] of early Christological development can account for,
- the utter absence of the gospel-story tradition from most of the New Testament Epistles,
- and second, the fictive, nonhistorical character of story after story in the Gospels."
Robert Price Deconstructing Jesus

Christian records clearly show us that Christianity developed from a mythical Christ to an Historical Jesus.
The Evolution of Christian's Vocabulary