Bart Ehrman "jesus Existed!"

[★ Citsonga ★]

There was a time when evolution and other modern scientific facts were fringe ideas in opposition to what the educated held to be true.

There's something with your statement there that just doesn't sound right to me...

 

Such as? Surely you're not suggesting that evolution and a spherical earth were the default positions, are you?

[Joshpantera]

Citsonga, you sound like you're pretty educated on the issue. I read your extimony and wow, you have been through quite a lot to get from point A to Z where your mind seems to be right now. Yeah for knowledge! Good for you.

[Ouroboros]

There was a time when evolution and other modern scientific facts were fringe ideas in opposition to what the educated held to be true.

There's something with your statement there that just doesn't sound right to me...

 

Such as? Surely you're not suggesting that evolution and a spherical earth were the default positions, are you?

Neither were really fringe ideas.

[Antlerman]

To me, "where's your hard proof!", sounds a lot like the Creationist, "Where's your so-called transitional fossils!". Time was, we didn't have those, yet was the theory wrong? Were the experts misreading the data they did have? Were similar counter-arguments of logic coming from the non-experts?

 

Interestingly, I think the science example works the other way here. There was a time when evolution and other modern scientific facts were fringe ideas in opposition to what the educated held to be true. If everyone would have just continued following what the previously established "experts" said instead of taking a good look at the facts, then we'd still be insisting that the earth is flat.

What's wrong with turning this around like this is that we are comparing what the actual experts in the field were discovering already, which was that evolution had occurred. Darwin just took that existing understanding and applied to diversification of animal species. In other words, Darwin was the expert, not the clergy in their robes or the popular masses in their speculations of the 'obviousness' that someone in the sky created us. A discussion between experts did occur, and then you had the popular masses chiming in with their own non-expert opinions.

 

So it is with modern scholarship that takes earlier scholarship (experts) and furthers its understanding and corrects its errors due to a factor of both available tools, and greater information available. It still is a case of experts, versus laity. My comparison above pits Internet Junkies against actual scholars (past, present, or future), the same way creationists using 'common sense' decry the experts in the sciences. That's the comparison - between experts within their given fields giving rise to new expert understanding, versus the laity thinking they're equally as qualified.

 

Ehrman's complaint is a valid one, even if at the end of the day his expert opinion may need to change. The laity are not experts, and to speculate at the moon and maybe get something right on occasion does not mean their opinion is 'just as good as' the experts. It is not an appeal to authority to win a debate, but a matter of degrees of educated knowledge within their given fields, versus the laity chiming in with their 'research' on the matter. There's a difference of weight here.

 

But as a bit of an aside, when you say "the evidence is what is most important", what do you mean? Towards what end? Religious faith?

 

No, not at all. Forgive me if I wasn't clear, but I guess I assumed that it would have been obvious that I meant that evidence is the most important in trying to arrive at truth. Truth is a matter of the facts, whether or not the facts are consistent with what "experts" claim.

Technically they're not the "experts", they are in fact the experts, without quotes around the word. They are the qualified researchers. Whether or not they end up being correct does not change that fact. They are still the qualified experts. It would be like saying my Doctor is not a "real" doctor because he misdiagnosed something, go into his office and say, "Excuse me Doctor," making quote motions with my fingers as I call him "Doctor". That would speak more of my own ignorance and arrogance, than his qualifications as a physician.

 

But no, actually truth is not always a matter of facts. It really depends on what you're looking at. When it comes to history, we can never really know the "facts".

 

What really happened is exactly what really happened, regardless of whether or not we could ever actually know what really happened, and regardless of what "experts" claim happened.

Anyone who claims they know for a fact what happened is a liar. If it's an expert in the field doing so, I'd say they are letting personal biases cloud their judgment within their field of expertise. Unless they could show somehow why it's valid to call it conclusive proof.

 

The most important thing (that is, the best path to getting the closest to the truth) is the evidence.

And now we enter into types of valid evidence. What type of evidence is permissible? What areas of knowledge are we looking at? What sorts of tools of investigative research are we employing? Time and again, I see people conflate one set of tools and evidences, into other areas where they don't really work effectively, or even at all. These become category errors.

 

If the teachings are the essence of what defines them as Christians, and not the "historical proof of a Jesus", then aren't the teachings "Jesus" to them? Isn't their faith in God, "Jesus" to them? Isn't what it does for them in whatever way, good or bad, "Jesus" to them? You see what I'm getting at? To say "The evidence is most important", is it really? Is it to all those who claim faith, even really the majority of them? Isn't it really the experience of faith to them, and the value of the teachings, despite protestations to arguments against the veracity of the myths mistaken as facts?

 

Well, yeah, I agree. However, practically every Christian whom I know personally believes that the Bible presents a perfectly historical account of Jesus. Thus, for them it's not simply finding an esoteric "Jesus" in their faith, but in believing in a word-for-word literal Biblical Jesus. What you describe is completely alien to them.

I have more I wish to say to this later....

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

...or even Paul and Apollonius have striking similarities. All of these storyline characters whose very existence relies on the Bible in order to prove the claims made in the Bible, ought to be viewed as questionable.

 

The problem that I have is when people like Ehrman step out and claim that scholars do know these characters existed, and then produce as evidence the very same flimsy information that caused everyone to doubt in the first place. So then we're back to square one again at the starting point for doubt. There was a lot of anticipation among mythicists over the release of "Did Jesus Exist?" Some people were thinking that Ehrman was going to introduce something new into the mix, something that could possibly settle the issue once and for all.

 

"they were wrong then, weren't they?" - Marty Feldman

Alot of people hold Ehrman in high regard. Reading his books basically brought me most of the knowledge I have on early christianity. In fact, it was his books that introduced me to it. I was hoping that he'd found evidence for Jesus having been a historical figure, I was shocked by this book of his, because usually he has pretty sound arguements. It's not just mythicists that were schocked either. There were people who agree with his position in this, who thought his book was a bit light.

[qadeshet]

There was a time when evolution and other modern scientific facts were fringe ideas in opposition to what the educated held to be true.

There's something with your statement there that just doesn't sound right to me...

 

Such as? Surely you're not suggesting that evolution and a spherical earth were the default positions, are you?

Neither were really fringe ideas.

 

The idea that the Earth is a sphere goes back over 2000 years. This was known by the educated. However, until the Enlightenment, the vast majority of Europeans were uneducated. A majority of Americans today believe in Creationism, Satan, and Hell. In the mid 19th Century, Darwin's Theory was highly controversial.

 

What sounds pretty simple was in fact controversial for Darwin's time (and it still is today in some parts of the Western world). His theory essentially stated that life on earth is the result of billions of years of adaptations to changing environments. What this theory implied, and what Darwin stated more clearly in his book The Descent of Man, is that humans, like every other organism on earth, are the result of evolution. In short, Darwin's idea was unflattering. Even worse, it contradicted what was known as natural theology, the belief that nature is evidence of God's kindness; Darwin realized that the "struggle for existence" often had cruel consequences, pointing out that sweetly singing birds were always eating insects or seeds, and "constantly destroying life."

 

Darwin could have published his theory of evolution in the early 1840s, but something stopped him in his tracks. In 1844, Robert Chambers anonymously published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, a quasi-scientific book supporting evolution. The reaction to it was fierce. One of Darwin's own mentors (Adam Sedgwick) and one of his friends (Thomas Henry Huxley, then opposed to transmutationism) wrote scornful reviews. Historians differ on whether this episode caused Darwin to put his own manuscript on hold. Besides the harsh response to Vestiges, another factor in Darwin's thoughts may have been the tumultuous political landscape in mid-19th-century England. Chartists (members of a working-class empowerment movement) were demanding such radical concessions as the right for every adult male to vote, and the abolition of property-ownership requirements for membership in Parliament. Landed gentry, if Darwin and his friends could be called as much, were nervous, and progressive-sounding theories didn't help.

 

http://www.strangescience.net/darwin.htm

[Ouroboros]

There was a time when evolution and other modern scientific facts were fringe ideas in opposition to what the educated held to be true.

There's something with your statement there that just doesn't sound right to me...

 

Such as? Surely you're not suggesting that evolution and a spherical earth were the default positions, are you?

Neither were really fringe ideas.

 

The idea that the Earth is a sphere goes back over 2000 years. This was known by the educated. However, until the Enlightenment, the vast majority of Europeans were uneducated. A majority of Americans today believe in Creationism, Satan, and Hell. In the mid 19th Century, Darwin's Theory was highly controversial.

 

What sounds pretty simple was in fact controversial for Darwin's time (and it still is today in some parts of the Western world). His theory essentially stated that life on earth is the result of billions of years of adaptations to changing environments. What this theory implied, and what Darwin stated more clearly in his book The Descent of Man, is that humans, like every other organism on earth, are the result of evolution. In short, Darwin's idea was unflattering. Even worse, it contradicted what was known as natural theology, the belief that nature is evidence of God's kindness; Darwin realized that the "struggle for existence" often had cruel consequences, pointing out that sweetly singing birds were always eating insects or seeds, and "constantly destroying life."

 

Darwin could have published his theory of evolution in the early 1840s, but something stopped him in his tracks. In 1844, Robert Chambers anonymously published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, a quasi-scientific book supporting evolution. The reaction to it was fierce. One of Darwin's own mentors (Adam Sedgwick) and one of his friends (Thomas Henry Huxley, then opposed to transmutationism) wrote scornful reviews. Historians differ on whether this episode caused Darwin to put his own manuscript on hold. Besides the harsh response to Vestiges, another factor in Darwin's thoughts may have been the tumultuous political landscape in mid-19th-century England. Chartists (members of a working-class empowerment movement) were demanding such radical concessions as the right for every adult male to vote, and the abolition of property-ownership requirements for membership in Parliament. Landed gentry, if Darwin and his friends could be called as much, were nervous, and progressive-sounding theories didn't help.

 

http://www.strangesc....net/darwin.htm

I wouldn't call either one as fringe science or even fringe ideas. My understanding of the word "fringe" might be different, but usually I relate that to a small group (like a cult) who insists on a pseudo-scientific idea that can't be proven and goes against all know and proven science. "Flag earth" believers would be the fringe elements, not the "round earth provers" 2,500 years ago. Spherical earth was argued by the Greeks, and no one really made a stink out of it, it was pretty much accepted. Fringe science tends to have a hard time to be accepted, not only by people in general, but also by scientists. Fringe is not the same as uneducated populace, nor is it the same as an educated elite. Fringe is just outside mainstream and having doubtful and unreliable sources, facts, supports, evidence for its claims. Spherical earth and evolution was never fringe in any of these senses. They were revolutionary. They were new. They were shocks to the world, but they were not fringe.

 

If controversial or jawdropping or surprising or shocking or world changing is the same as fringe, then the war in Iraq was a fringe thing. Avatar, the movie, was a fringe movie. The moon landing was a fringe event. And so on... That use of the word "fringe" just doesn't sit well with me. But go ahead, use it in this very "fringe" way if you want to.

[qadeshet]

You see, that's why it IS about the data.

Depends what you are trying to define, of course. If you are trying to speculate about plausable historical facts, which are ultimately impossible to say definitevely, again, I take the insights of those who are experts in those fields to be far more worthy than Joe Smoe armed with the Internet and a G.E.D. Are the experts always right? Of course not. Experts will disagree and debate with each other. And I take both of them, on either side of that debate, as far more qualified than some Internet Junkie. I don't see why that is so difficult to swallow. What has happened to the role of intellectuals in society?

 

Why have education at all then? Does a professor at Princeton have more chops than Joe who works at Burger King when it comes to ancient history? Sure, of course. Are they infallible? Of course not. But they are still 1000's of leagues more able to some shlep who knows how to do Google searches. Again, the Internet has a lot of information - but knowledge is another matter. That requires a rounded education. Information is not knowledge.

 

Very few, if any, Bible Scholars have degrees in ancient History from Princeton. Bible Scholars like Bart Ehrman may be experts on the Bible, but their Colleges don't require a degree in History. Ultimately, scholars like Ehrman have to resort to deconstructing the Gospels and Epistles to try and prove their Historical "Jesus".

 

Bart D Ehrman:

 

DEGREES AND HONORS

Ph.D.

 

Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985

M.Div.

 

M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981 B.A.

B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978

 

I don't see a degree in History. Bible Scholars are probably least qualified to discuss the historical Jesus. What we need are contemporary accounts and inscriptions. What we need is Primary Evidence. Otherwise, all we have are a multitude of 1st Century possible candidates, any one of whom may have inspired the Gospel accounts. One 1st Century cult leader, The Taheb, led his followers to the foot of Mount Gerazim. Pilate killed many of them, including The Tahib. Can we say that this was the historical "Jesus"?

 

Though I felt that that needed to be pointed out, I do agree that those saying that Jesus absolutely did not exist at all are overstating things just as much as those who say that he absolutely did exist. There is not a single shred of solid evidence that he did exist, but it's entirely possible that the stories are loosely based on someone (or multiple people) who did actually exist.

 

Which is my belief. I have reasons for that, supported by experts in the field who are not conservatives who have some religious agenda to prop up. I too have looked at the arguments of the experts, and I land on those who see some form of an historical personage. I have reason of my own I could add to that, but I'll defer from doing so here. My only point here was to talk about why education matters. It most definitely does, but I am not so naive as to assume it automatically makes them right. I have never suggested that.

Some of us don't see any need for such an historical personage. If he ever existed, he is undiscoverable now.

 

Deconstructing Jesus by Robert M. Price (Mar 2000)

 

What keeps historians from dismissing (Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others) as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does not form part of any legend cycle. Or they are so intricately woven into the history of time that it is impossible to make sense of that history without them. But is this the case with Jesus? No. Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure.

 

David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All

 

Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

 

Though there’s simply no way to prove that no “real” Jesus ever existed behind what Price aptly calls the Stained-Glass Curtain, the closer you look for him the harder he is to see. When we search for what we think of as new innovations brought about by Jesus, invariably we find the same ideas have already come from some other source. He was a placeholder for all the values bestowed by all the other savior gods; he taught all the things Greek philosophers and Jewish Rabbis taught; he performed the same miracles, healings and resurrections the pagan magicians and exorcists did; in other words Jesus Christ was not a real person, but a synthesis of every cherished and passionate notion the ancient world came up with – noble truths, gentle wisdom, beloved fables, ancient attitudes, internal contradictions, scientific absurdities, intolerable attitudes and all.

[mwc]

So is this thread about Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" book? Has anyone here actually read it?

 

mwc

[qadeshet]

So is this thread about Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" book? Has anyone here actually read it?

 

mwc

 

Many of Prof. Ehrman's books are on my wish list. Prof. Carrier's review of Did Jesus Exist? convinced me that my energy and resources would be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps you would like to undertake the task?

[mwc]

Perhaps you would like to undertake the task?

Already done. Just curious if anyone else had bothered.

 

mwc

[qadeshet]

Perhaps you would like to undertake the task?

Already done. Just curious if anyone else had bothered.

 

mwc

 

Have you reviewed it yet? Perhaps I missed the post.

[Antlerman]

You see, that's why it IS about the data.

Depends what you are trying to define, of course. If you are trying to speculate about plausable historical facts, which are ultimately impossible to say definitevely, again, I take the insights of those who are experts in those fields to be far more worthy than Joe Smoe armed with the Internet and a G.E.D. Are the experts always right? Of course not. Experts will disagree and debate with each other. And I take both of them, on either side of that debate, as far more qualified than some Internet Junkie. I don't see why that is so difficult to swallow. What has happened to the role of intellectuals in society?

 

Why have education at all then? Does a professor at Princeton have more chops than Joe who works at Burger King when it comes to ancient history? Sure, of course. Are they infallible? Of course not. But they are still 1000's of leagues more able to some shlep who knows how to do Google searches. Again, the Internet has a lot of information - but knowledge is another matter. That requires a rounded education. Information is not knowledge.

 

Very few, if any, Bible Scholars have degrees in ancient History from Princeton. Bible Scholars like Bart Ehrman may be experts on the Bible, but their Colleges don't require a degree in History. Ultimately, scholars like Ehrman have to resort to deconstructing the Gospels and Epistles to try and prove their Historical "Jesus".

"Resort to"? And what is wrong with this? Is this somehow invalid?

 

Bart D Ehrman:

 

DEGREES AND HONORS

Ph.D.

 

Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985

M.Div.

 

M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981 B.A.

B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978

Yep, he's a hack, alright.

 

I don't see a degree in History. Bible Scholars are probably least qualified to discuss the historical Jesus.

Are they? I love how you make yourself the arbitrar of what qualifies as appropriate scholarship, being an appropriate scholar yourself, of course.

 

What we need are contemporary accounts and inscriptions. What we need is Primary Evidence.

Says the specialist? "What we need, are transitional fossil!", says the Creationist. "Where are your transitional fossils? It's 'just a theory', having to resort of looking at things like similarities. Hah! You call that evidence? Hah!".

 

Otherwise, all we have are a multitude of 1st Century possible candidates, any one of whom may have inspired the Gospel accounts. One 1st Century cult leader, The Taheb, led his followers to the foot of Mount Gerazim. Pilate killed many of them, including The Tahib. Can we say that this was the historical "Jesus"?

Can we glean nothing from the texts themselves? I suppose not Mr. Darwin. What we need are transitional fossils!

 

Though I felt that that needed to be pointed out, I do agree that those saying that Jesus absolutely did not exist at all are overstating things just as much as those who say that he absolutely did exist. There is not a single shred of solid evidence that he did exist, but it's entirely possible that the stories are loosely based on someone (or multiple people) who did actually exist.

 

Which is my belief. I have reasons for that, supported by experts in the field who are not conservatives who have some religious agenda to prop up. I too have looked at the arguments of the experts, and I land on those who see some form of an historical personage. I have reason of my own I could add to that, but I'll defer from doing so here. My only point here was to talk about why education matters. It most definitely does, but I am not so naive as to assume it automatically makes them right. I have never suggested that.

Some of us don't see any need for such an historical personage.

Implied in this is that you somehow see us as "needing" this?

[mwc]

Have you reviewed it yet? Perhaps I missed the post.

No review. I tend to leave those to others who enjoy do such things.

 

I can say I was less than impressed.

 

The short version is that Jesus really existed (this gets stated many times). Paul says he knew Cephas and James (brother of the lord). And the crucifixion is so difficult (messiah's don't die) it must be real. Combine those with some Aramaic sources that don't exist (Greek translations of bits of Aramaic in the texts), as well as Q, M and L, (reconstructed, independent, sources) which also don't exist and the case is pretty much made, Jesus obviously existed. To know who this Jesus was you look at John the Baptist and see he was an apocalyptic preacher. Paul is the same. The man in the middle is Jesus. So he's also an apocalyptic preacher.

 

That's about it (off the top of my head so don't yell if I've got it out of chapter order or anything like that).

 

mwc

[★ Citsonga ★]

There was a time when evolution and other modern scientific facts were fringe ideas in opposition to what the educated held to be true.

There's something with your statement there that just doesn't sound right to me...

 

Such as? Surely you're not suggesting that evolution and a spherical earth were the default positions, are you?

Neither were really fringe ideas.

 

The idea that the Earth is a sphere goes back over 2000 years. This was known by the educated. However, until the Enlightenment, the vast majority of Europeans were uneducated. A majority of Americans today believe in Creationism, Satan, and Hell. In the mid 19th Century, Darwin's Theory was highly controversial.

 

What sounds pretty simple was in fact controversial for Darwin's time (and it still is today in some parts of the Western world). His theory essentially stated that life on earth is the result of billions of years of adaptations to changing environments. What this theory implied, and what Darwin stated more clearly in his book The Descent of Man, is that humans, like every other organism on earth, are the result of evolution. In short, Darwin's idea was unflattering. Even worse, it contradicted what was known as natural theology, the belief that nature is evidence of God's kindness; Darwin realized that the "struggle for existence" often had cruel consequences, pointing out that sweetly singing birds were always eating insects or seeds, and "constantly destroying life."

 

Darwin could have published his theory of evolution in the early 1840s, but something stopped him in his tracks. In 1844, Robert Chambers anonymously published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, a quasi-scientific book supporting evolution. The reaction to it was fierce. One of Darwin's own mentors (Adam Sedgwick) and one of his friends (Thomas Henry Huxley, then opposed to transmutationism) wrote scornful reviews. Historians differ on whether this episode caused Darwin to put his own manuscript on hold. Besides the harsh response to Vestiges, another factor in Darwin's thoughts may have been the tumultuous political landscape in mid-19th-century England. Chartists (members of a working-class empowerment movement) were demanding such radical concessions as the right for every adult male to vote, and the abolition of property-ownership requirements for membership in Parliament. Landed gentry, if Darwin and his friends could be called as much, were nervous, and progressive-sounding theories didn't help.

 

http://www.strangesc....net/darwin.htm

I wouldn't call either one as fringe science or even fringe ideas. My understanding of the word "fringe" might be different, but usually I relate that to a small group (like a cult) who insists on a pseudo-scientific idea that can't be proven and goes against all know and proven science. "Flag earth" believers would be the fringe elements, not the "round earth provers" 2,500 years ago. Spherical earth was argued by the Greeks, and no one really made a stink out of it, it was pretty much accepted. Fringe science tends to have a hard time to be accepted, not only by people in general, but also by scientists. Fringe is not the same as uneducated populace, nor is it the same as an educated elite. Fringe is just outside mainstream and having doubtful and unreliable sources, facts, supports, evidence for its claims. Spherical earth and evolution was never fringe in any of these senses. They were revolutionary. They were new. They were shocks to the world, but they were not fringe.

 

If controversial or jawdropping or surprising or shocking or world changing is the same as fringe, then the war in Iraq was a fringe thing. Avatar, the movie, was a fringe movie. The moon landing was a fringe event. And so on... That use of the word "fringe" just doesn't sit well with me. But go ahead, use it in this very "fringe" way if you want to.

 

I merely meant "fringe" in the sense of not being the standard, accepted view. I was thinking of things like Galileo getting in deep shit over heliocentricism. I was also thinking that when Darwin argued for evolution (though the theory did not originate with him), he initially met with resistance among the scientific community (though perhaps I was in error with that perception).

[★ Citsonga ★]

Citsonga, you sound like you're pretty educated on the issue. I read your extimony and wow, you have been through quite a lot to get from point A to Z where your mind seems to be right now. Yeah for knowledge! Good for you.

 

Thanks for the kudos. Most of what I'm "educated on" is simply a lot of Bible study in years past. Outside of that, I feel woefully inadequate.

 

What's wrong with turning this around like this is that we are comparing what the actual experts in the field were discovering already, which was that evolution had occurred. Darwin just took that existing understanding and applied to diversification of animal species. In other words, Darwin was the expert, not the clergy in their robes or the popular masses in their speculations of the 'obviousness' that someone in the sky created us. A discussion between experts did occur, and then you had the popular masses chiming in with their own non-expert opinions.

 

OK, I may have been misunderstanding some things here. I was of the impression that Darwin's conclusions were initially challenged by the scientific community, but perhaps that's just misinformation that I retained from when I was brainwashed with creationism.

 

Ehrman's complaint is a valid one, even if at the end of the day his expert opinion may need to change. The laity are not experts, and to speculate at the moon and maybe get something right on occasion does not mean their opinion is 'just as good as' the experts. It is not an appeal to authority to win a debate, but a matter of degrees of educated knowledge within their given fields, versus the laity chiming in with their 'research' on the matter. There's a difference of weight here.

 

I basically agree, except for a couple points. First, as another pointed out, Ehrman isn't actually a historian. Second (correct me if this is a misunderstanding), who would be interested in going into early Christian era historical studies? Wouldn't people with a Christian background be the most likely candidates? Could it not be, then, that the very individuals who are the "experts" are starting with a bias that is difficult to overcome?

 

Technically they're not the "experts", they are in fact the experts, without quotes around the word. They are the qualified researchers. Whether or not they end up being correct does not change that fact. They are still the qualified experts. It would be like saying my Doctor is not a "real" doctor because he misdiagnosed something, go into his office and say, "Excuse me Doctor," making quote motions with my fingers as I call him "Doctor". That would speak more of my own ignorance and arrogance, than his qualifications as a physician.

 

I agree for the most part. For clarification, when I put "experts" in quotes, I am not deriding them or saying that they aren't experts. I'm merely acknowledging that they can be in error. I'm not saying that they are in error, but that they may be.

 

But no, actually truth is not always a matter of facts.

 

With that, I could not disagree more. You're usually pretty enlightening, but that statement, as it is worded, is nonsense. Truth IS ALWAYS a matter of the facts. That doesn't mean that we can ever know all the facts or know all the truth, but the truth itself, whether attainable or not, absolutely IS a matter of the facts. To say otherwise is to equate truth with fiction, which is patently absurd. I can't imagine that you'd actually think that, though, so perhaps you didn't word it quite the way you meant it?

 

It really depends on what you're looking at. When it comes to history, we can never really know the "facts".

 

In the strictest sense, I agree. While there are things that are generally accepted as facts because of the evidence, there is always room for misunderstanding the past, because we can't have all the facts, and even the "facts" that we think we have could be tainted.

 

Anyway, it's been fun. My time will be limited for a while, since we're preparing for a vacation over the holidays, so if you reply, don't think I'm ignoring you.

 

Have a great Thanksgiving. Take care....

[Antlerman]

But no, actually truth is not always a matter of facts.

 

With that, I could not disagree more. You're usually pretty enlightening, but that statement, as it is worded, is nonsense.

In Yoda's voice, so certain are you?

 

Truth IS ALWAYS a matter of the facts.

Except of course when you step outside that understanding. Take a look through these major theories of truth, and we'll pick this up once you've processed these. I can add more, but I'll let you expand your understanding with this for now: http://en.wikipedia....eories_of_truth

 

Maybe I'm not so unenlightened?

[Ouroboros]

I merely meant "fringe" in the sense of not being the standard, accepted view. I was thinking of things like Galileo getting in deep shit over heliocentricism. I was also thinking that when Darwin argued for evolution (though the theory did not originate with him), he initially met with resistance among the scientific community (though perhaps I was in error with that perception).

Sure. I can accept that loose use of the word.

 

When I studied anthropology and the history of ToE, I was surprised that the ideas were almost there. Darwin only put one more piece of the puzzle to place. The idea of "evolving" species was already discussed by the scientists. Darwin's contribution was really just Natural Selection, not Evolution per se. Before him, there was still some idea that God (in general sense) were guiding evolution, but the idea of old Earth, changing Nature, and evolving species were already there, ready for the last part. So Darwin didn't contribute a huge fringe idea far out to the left field with the whole concept of evolution. He published his book because another scientists was threatening to do it before him (I think Darwin beat him with a week or so). So fringe? Not in the strictest sense.

 

And there's similar points to be made about flat Earth...

 

However, if you suggest that ideas like these always are revolutionary and hard to accept by the scientists at first... sure, that's true. There's research pointing to how paradigm shifts take a generation or something like that to break through.

[mwc]

Seems the lot of you should look at "Historiography." It will give you this information and links to lots of helpful related information (such as the philosophy of history).

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

And there's similar points to be made about flat Earth...

Actually no. That the church or people in the Middle Ages believed in a flat earth is unsupported historically, in fact the contrary can be demonstrated. The myth of a flat earth is something that made its way into the modern popular imagination (and strangely schoolbooks) as historical fact after Washington Irving popularized it in his highly romanticized biography of Columbus. It was really a polemic of Protestants against Catholics about how stupid and dogmatic they were, much more recently in history. Columbus was never told he would sail off the edge of the earth, but rather it was more an argument of how far of distance they imagined he would have to travel to get to India.

 

I first learned of this maybe 12 years ago after they posted an article on Nasa's site, but it's summarized in this whole Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia...._the_Flat_Earth

 

From that article, "According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."

 

I really wish this misconception of a supposedly believed flat earth would drop from our imaginations.

[qadeshet]

I don't see a degree in History. Bible Scholars are probably least qualified to discuss the historical Jesus.

Are they? I love how you make yourself the arbitrar of what qualifies as appropriate scholarship, being an appropriate scholar yourself, of course.

 

I don't care what Bible Scholars believe about the Historical "Jesus". All I'm interrested in is the evidence. And all you have are arguments, not evidence. how many times are you going to use the Argument From Authoruty? And claiming that I am not a proper scholar is an Ad Hominem argument. Bart Ehrman is a Bible Scholar, not an Historian. I don't care how many Degrees he has from Theological Seminaries.

 

What we need are contemporary accounts and inscriptions. What we need is Primary Evidence.

Says the specialist? "What we need, are transitional fossil!", says the Creationist. "Where are your transitional fossils? It's 'just a theory', having to resort of looking at things like similarities. Hah! You call that evidence? Hah!".

 

This is a straw man argument. Sarcasm is not the same as evidence. When are you going to actually present some evidence? You may be satisfied with the pronouncements of your qualified Bible Scholars. I am not. And many transitional fossils have been found. If we had any Primary Evidence for Jesus we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Otherwise, all we have are a multitude of 1st Century possible candidates, any one of whom may have inspired the Gospel accounts. One 1st Century cult leader, The Taheb, led his followers to the foot of Mount Gerazim. Pilate killed many of them, including The Tahib. Can we say that this was the historical "Jesus"?

Can we glean nothing from the texts themselves? I suppose not Mr. Darwin. What we need are transitional fossils!

 

The Gospel accounts are fiction. It's like trying to find an historical Harry Potter from Rowling's books. We can glean nothing from the Texts without external controls.

 

Some of us don't see any need for such an historical personage.

Implied in this is that you somehow see us as "needing" this?

 

Bible Scholars need an Historical Jesus. Without the Historical "Jesus" Bible Scholars are out of a job. If you continue to use every logical fallacy in the book I see no reason to continue the discussion.

 

Top 20 Logical Fallacies

[Antlerman]

I don't see a degree in History. Bible Scholars are probably least qualified to discuss the historical Jesus.

Are they? I love how you make yourself the arbitrar of what qualifies as appropriate scholarship, being an appropriate scholar yourself, of course.

 

I don't care what Bible Scholars believe about the Historical "Jesus". All I'm interrested in is the evidence. And all you have are arguments, not evidence. how many times are you going to use the Argument From Authoruty? And claiming that I am not a proper scholar is an Ad Hominem argument. Bart Ehrman is a Bible Scholar, not an Historian. I don't care how many Degrees he has from Theological Seminaries.

You didn't address my point, of course. Additionally, you don't read what I actually say in my posts, of course. Here's what I said earlier that you didn't bother to read in your "rebuttal" of me:

 

Ehrman's complaint is a valid one,

even if at the end of the day his expert opinion may need to change

. The laity are not experts, and to speculate at the moon and maybe get something right on occasion does not mean their opinion is 'just as good as' the experts.

It is not an appeal to authority to win a debate, but a matter of degrees of educated knowledge within their given fields, versus the laity chiming in with their 'research' on the matter

. There's a difference of weight here.

 

There is no logic fallacy, appeal to authority going on here. Read my actual words. I'm arguing one thing, and one thing only, education matters, not whether Ehrman is right or not. You on the other hand are saying he is not qualified, without the benefit of any credentials at all.

 

What we need are contemporary accounts and inscriptions. What we need is Primary Evidence.

Says the specialist? "What we need, are transitional fossil!", says the Creationist. "Where are your transitional fossils? It's 'just a theory', having to resort of looking at things like similarities. Hah! You call that evidence? Hah!".

 

This is a straw man argument. Sarcasm is not the same as evidence. When are you going to actually present some evidence? You may be satisfied with the pronouncements of your qualified Bible Scholars. I am not. And many transitional fossils have been found. If we had any Primary Evidence for Jesus we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's not a strawman argument. You are making the annoyingly popular, logic fallacy logic fallacy, otherwise known as the Argument from Fallacy. Your arguments consist of trying to see (or manufacture), some fallacy in order to dismiss otherwise perfectly valid arguments. I'm am making a valid, direct comparison, which is obvious if you read what I wrote.

 

The Gospel accounts are fiction. It's like trying to find an historical Harry Potter from Rowling's books. We can glean nothing from the Texts without external controls.

Glean nothing? Boy, you sure don't sound like you understand the work that they actually do. No wonder it just sounds like so much nonsense to you. Just like the creationist who can't possibly understand how scientists believe man came from monkeys! Both opinions are based on their own ignorance of the actual research. That's a direct comparison in how you see things the same way. You used to be a creationist, right? Are you sure you're not just using your available tools now in the same way as you did then?

 

(I'm sure I could cite about five logic fallacies here, but I won't be so annoying as to do so).

 

Implied in this is that you somehow see us as "needing" this?

 

Bible Scholars need an Historical Jesus. Without the Historical "Jesus" Bible Scholars are out of a job. If you continue to use every logical fallacy in the book I see no reason to continue the discussion.

Oh, you and your silly logic fallacy logic fallacy. No, you think for some reason I have some 'need' to believe in a historical Jesus that skews my rational mind, don't you? Admit it. You're using a logic fallacy logic fallacy as your own logic fallacy to avoid expanding your thinking here.

[qadeshet]

Have you reviewed it yet? Perhaps I missed the post.

No review. I tend to leave those to others who enjoy do such things.

 

I can say I was less than impressed.

 

The short version is that Jesus really existed (this gets stated many times). Paul says he knew Cephas and James (brother of the lord). And the crucifixion is so difficult (messiah's don't die) it must be real. Combine those with some Aramaic sources that don't exist (Greek translations of bits of Aramaic in the texts), as well as Q, M and L, (reconstructed, independent, sources) which also don't exist and the case is pretty much made, Jesus obviously existed. To know who this Jesus was you look at John the Baptist and see he was an apocalyptic preacher. Paul is the same. The man in the middle is Jesus. So he's also an apocalyptic preacher.

 

That's about it (off the top of my head so don't yell if I've got it out of chapter order or anything like that).

 

mwc

 

Bart Ehrman says that Jesus existed, so take that you crackpot Mythicists. Case closed.

[Joshpantera]

Says the specialist? "What we need, are transitional fossil!", says the Creationist. "Where are your transitional fossils? It's 'just a theory', having to resort of looking at things like similarities. Hah! You call that evidence? Hah!".

 

This is a straw man argument. Sarcasm is not the same as evidence. When are you going to actually present some evidence? You may be satisfied with the pronouncements of your qualified Bible Scholars. I am not. And many transitional fossils have been found. If we had any Primary Evidence for Jesus we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

This is pretty simple and already stated in the above quote, but some more depth may be necessary to make it more obvious. Transitional fossils do exist and can be provided. The creationist demands evidence and then that very evidence is given. The creationist is opposed to being scientific about the situation.

 

Now turn to mythicism and try and draw the analogy that has been attempted.

 

Contemporary source evidence to substantiate the life of Jesus does not exist. The mythicist requests the contemporary source evidence to prove historicity and yet none is given.

 

The analogy between the creationists demand for evidence and the mythicists demand for evidence is an incorrect analogy. The mythicist is being skeptical for scientific reasons, claiming that the believer or evemerist is not being scientific enough about the situation. Evolution does not depend on indirect secondary source material because we have the bones to see and consider. We do not have the bones in the case of Jesus as it were. We do not have anything that hits close to home:

 

 

And yes, I'd say that a lot of mythicists are former creationists. We generally all know quite well the fallacies of creationism and how unscientific it is. That's why after turning to science we have become very skeptical of things like claiming that a mythological storyline character (starting with Pauls cosmic Christ and then the Gospel Jesus) certainly did exist with only indirect non-contemporary source evidence to substantiate the claim. We're on the side of the scientific method now, not opposed to it in the way that creationists are. And the historicists ought to stand back and consider why in the world they're so eager to claim the historicity of a mythological supernatural storyline character in a book of obscure letters of mainly unknown authorship to begin with?

[Antlerman]

Says the specialist? "What we need, are transitional fossil!", says the Creationist. "Where are your transitional fossils? It's 'just a theory', having to resort of looking at things like similarities. Hah! You call that evidence? Hah!".

 

This is a straw man argument. Sarcasm is not the same as evidence. When are you going to actually present some evidence? You may be satisfied with the pronouncements of your qualified Bible Scholars. I am not. And many transitional fossils have been found. If we had any Primary Evidence for Jesus we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

This is pretty simple and already stated in the above quote, but some more depth may be necessary to make it more obvious. Transitional fossils do exist and can be provided. The creationist demands evidence and then that very evidence is given. The creationist is opposed to being scientific about the situation.

Both you and he have missed my explicitly stated point of the comparison. It had to do with the criticisms of the laity who did not like the implications of what Darwin was seeing in his analysis of the data that species evolved from earlier species. He did not have transitional fossils at the time, but he was able see in the data that the theory was valid regardless. So the laity says "Where's your evidence!! Show us these 'transitional fossils' if you think you're right", in order to try to detract from his credibility. Transitional fossil records only came later, but they were unnecessary to make Darwin's case. They only became later confirmation of what he had already determined.

 

So the comparison is a direct one to the mythicstists detracting from the scholars saying "Where's your hard evidence!!". It's no different. "Looking at the texts isn't valid!". Just like those who weren't scientists criticizing Mr. Darwin. It does not matter if they have coins with Jesus' name printed on them, or even contemporary authors mentioning him, or any other such 'hard evidence'. There are other things that indicate there was something there, according to how they parse apart the data. That sort of evidence is hardly the only sort of admissible data.

 

Now again, whether or not they are 'right' isn't the point. I just find this disregard of experts by the modern laity armed with Google as their education, disturbing. It's no different in effect than the creationists who dismiss the work done by actual scientists, regardless of whether or not they have "Hard evidence!". Such a demand is fallacious.

 

And yes, I'd say that a lot of mythicists are former creationists.

Dare I say it shows?