MrMacSon

Your proposal that Ehrman would be "setting up a strawman of mythicism" is the ultimate strawman.

Surely, one might expected an advocate in Ehrman's position to outline their most important source. To avoid doing so is significant; it's sleight-of-hand at least.

MrMacSon

Does he ever get challenged with such arguments?

There are so many if/then propositional arguments; many along the lines

'if Jesus had green eyes, then he would have had blonde hair', or

'if Jesus had hazel eyes, then he would have had pink hair'

ApostateAbe

The debate over "messianic expectations" has existed on the Internet for some time, with the HJ side claiming that the common Jewish expectation of the messiah at the reputed time of Jesus was that the messiah would be a conquering military hero. The MJ camp typically responds with the claim that there is no evidence for such messianic expectations. I think the HJ camp wins the debate, because the evidence is straightforward. All of the messianic prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures portray the Messiah as a military leader, and a number of failed messianic claimants in the first century apparently attempted to fill that role, each with a considerable following. See this website:

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants00.html

A clear example is "the Egyptian."

MrMacSon

What have the prophecies to do with the actual outcomes? The fact he was not a conquering military hero proves he was real?

All you have done is post a 'confirming-the-consequent' fallacy.

ApostateAbe

Expectations of the evidence are important for deciding the most probable historical explanations. A mere myth of a messiah may be expected to have massacred a legion of Roman soldiers before ascending to heaven, or to put Roman souls on trial in heaven before casting them into hell, or to fire up the spirits of the enemies of Rome, or something else of that nature. The greatest expectation following from the fact that all of the Christian myths say that Jesus was crucified is the historical reality that Jesus was crucified. It is something very much historically expected of an actual messianic claimant, like many others in his time. And, it is notably not expected of a mere mythical messiah.

MrMacSon

Evidence? You call prophecies or 'if/then' propositions, evidence??!!

Again, "confirming-the-consequent". That is circular reasoning.

Please, argue reasonably; don't post wibble.

many others??

ApostateAbe

See the evidence I already provided and you ignored. The way to establish the probability of a historical hypothesis to look at the consequences that go in both directions--the theory must be a consequence of the evidence, and the evidence must be a consequence of the theory. That isn't a logical fallacy. That is really the only way good history is done. If you disagree, then maybe you should supply an alternative. I would love to learn of it.

MrMacSon

No, you just provided an if/then proposition

Yes it is. It's 'begging-the-question", false dichotomy, and circular reasoning.

The christ story is independent of the type of messiah you might think was more likely based on Jewish prophecies.

tanya

Gee, Abe, yesterday I provided you with evidence, and you ignored both aspects of my post. I corrected your error about Radiocarbon dating of the ancient manuscripts, and I demonstrated that Ehrman erred or lied, depending on one's perspective, (his having claimed that there is no extant evidence of significant reference to known historical figures, by first century CE historians.) You ignored me. Now, today you are whining, about providing evidence, which is being ignored.

I am sorry too, for your apology excluded reference to my earlier post in that thread, addressing your error. Am I invisible, Abe?

What utter crap. What rubbish.

Let me quote again, from Philo.

Mythicists contend that the Gospels are fiction. In harmony with most fiction, the Gospels include reference to famous people, places, events. This inclusion of genuine information creates a sense of reality, for the reader.

As Philo includes reference to Hercules, a mythical being, as though he had been alive, so too, the gospels describe various characters, as though, they too had been alive.

Mythicists do not claim that there were "no messianic expectations". Mythicists claim that no matter how often one reads that Jesus had been anointed, it does not change the fact, that this is a STORY. Like all fiction, the storyline can go up, down, or sideways, as the authors desire.

If Jesus had genuinely been alive and kicking, Philo would have mentioned him. If Jesus had performed ANY of the miracles, which the fictional gospels describe, Philo would have mentioned him, as he mentioned Hercules, a figure of myth, acknowledged by Philo....

Not only did Philo not know of Jesus, he also did not know of Paul, or any of the apostles. The entire cast of 30 CE characters is a hoax, apart from the handful of genuine historical figures, (Pontius Pilate) injected into the text to add flavor to the story.

The bigger problem is treatment of Bart Ehrman. Not only NPR, but also many learned folks, even on this forum, regard him as very skillful.

I myself, made that error.

I now realize that I was wrong. Ehrman is a fraud. He is Abe's wizard, and Toto is barking at him, as was also the case, in the Emerald City. I am sorry to refute Abe, but he too, is wrong, though he may not be willing to click his heels together three times, to return to the ranks of honest, open minded investigator.

There is nothing to be gained, by bad mouthing mythicism.

ApostateAbe

If you don't like this methodology, then supply your own. Using your criticisms, you can strike down any argument for any historical conclusion you can possibly imagine.

• Me: "The evidence of a layer of ash around the area of Mt. St. Helens is an expected consequence of the hypothesis of an eruption of Mt. St. Helens a few decades ago, and conversely the hypothesis is an expected consequence of the evidence."
• You: "That is no more than an if/then argument, a confirming-the-consequent fallacy, and circular reasoning."

If you think this is a bad analogy, then, I ask again, supply an alternative methodology. Don't just overapply a guide to logical fallacies. Tell me the way a historical argument should be done.

The methodology I told you about is rooted in the "Argument to the Best Explanation." There are seven criteria on the list, and the two most relevant criteria are "plausibility" (hypothesis is consequence of evidence) and "explanatory power" (evidence is consequence of hypothesis).