Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

Sorry, Crash. But as in the other thread, you show a complete ignorance of the issues being debated.Like I said before, please investigate the Mythicist position. I think you will find it is much more than 'Jesus didn't exist'.

The argument from silence is old. Mythicists no longer make it the 'crux' of their arguments anymore because even they are aware of it's inadequacies.It's a lot like moon dust...

As I already said, I think Ehrman puts too much weight on the gospels and his reconstructed sources. Ehrman takes as given many things still up for debate.

Then please explain the mythicists arguments.The mythicist arguments are responses to the historicist arguments. The mythicist take those arguments and explain why the arguments are flawed.The mythicists cannot provide evidence showing there was no Jesus. To expect so is silly. They can and do demand evidence for jesus and explain why the "evidence" presented is not actually evidence.Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the debate.

So your backing off your comments about the Q material?Do you agree Ehrman is speaking crap when he talks about

quote:

---

numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life

---

?

I think I have mentioned more than enough times now what I think of Ehrman's claims to multiple sources, and his heavy reliance on them.Edited by Jon, : , → 's

Mythicists also make claims to explain the origins of Christianity; that is, afterall, the goal behind proposing an historical Jesus in the first place. Once Mythicists get rid of the historical Jesus, they have to come up with an alternative explanation to take his place. And that's where all the nonsense gobbledygook comes in about dying-rising god-men and other silly goofiness.Anyway; we already had a thread on this that didn't go anywhere. I think it was closed, but if we want to keep discussing this perhaps the admins will open it back up for us.As far as the matter goes here, I'm going to try to keep this thread more geared toward a discussion of Ehrman's book as it was intended.Jon

If the mythicist position is something other than "the evidence put forth to substantiate the historical existence of Jesus is insufficient" then I'm happy for you to not consider me a "mythicist." I'm not interested in defending any positions but my own.

But Theodoric was not making the "argument from silence."

An alternative explanation of what?

I never was impressed much with "absence of evidence equals no Jesus as default position. I concur that for many, the idea of no Jesus...historical or otherwise, is a biased position.For an argument supposedly based only on facts or the lack of same, there is quite a bit of emotionalism from either side...and it seems to me that there has to be a reason why the atheist side invests so much emotion into these arguments. Just what feels so good about your (not you personally,Crash) position, exactly?

Isn't that just the result of your prior ideological commitment to the existence of Jesus as the central figure in your faith?How much evidence would you need to believe that there's no such thing as fairies? Surely all I'd have to do is point out that there's no evidence of the existence of fairies. Why would I have to do more? Or the existence of dragons? Again, the lack of evidence in support should be sufficient.But for some reason, for you, the rules are different when it comes to Jesus. I kind of think I know why.If you've learned anything about me in all these years, you should have learned that I'm completely puzzled by what people think they gain when they relax their standards of evidence. The downside seems pretty obvious - it becomes a lot easier for people to fool you and take advantage of your self-imposed gullibility. What, on Earth, is the upside to that? I'm sorry but I don't see any emotion in my posts at all, aside perhaps from the usual emotion of being excited to be involved in an interesting discussion. Can you elaborate on what you're talking about? Usually the invocation of "too much emotion" is used as an attempt at misdirection when someone is losing the debate.

ok, but lets let Jon have his topic back. We can argue this one elsewhere....should I simply start a new topic? Lets go hereEdited by Phat, : linkEdited by Phat, :

Personal incredulity is no argument. All it shows is a close mindedness. Now if you want to present arguments against mythicist arguments please do. Maybe you will be more convincing then Ehrman.Isn't it amazing that christianity is devoid of all the influences of myth that most other religions are.Was Buddha a real person? Was Confucius? Modern scholarship puts there existence into question also. This is not an anti-christian proposition. The mythicist argument is following where the evidence leads. It is not an attack on a particular relgion or worldview. That is what we are discussing. As you admit this book is sorely lacking. You seem to have some sort of personal animus toward people that are criticizing arguments you yourself have criticized. That seems a bit weird.

Please show that this was made.