Bart Ehrman "jesus Existed!"

[Ouroboros]

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 think you misunderstood me, that's what I was thinking about. The Spherical Earth idea was not really any fringe idea at any point. Flat Earth was however a fringe idea even into the 19th century. The knowledge that Earth was spherical was mainstream rather than fringe. I was unclear in my post there.

 

I don't think evolution ever was a fringe science either, simply because "evolution" was almost completely there as a science before Darwin came up with the missing key, natural selection. He completed the mainstream science, not invented a fringe science and fought hundreds of years to get this unbelievable science approved against everyone else's best judgements.

 

So I think you misunderstood me there.

 

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."

Yup. I knew that. But I didn't have time to argue this with anyone. It's each one's responsibility to do some research instead of throwing out phrases like "fringe" about something that was mainstream.

 

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

That's why I call it a "flat earth myth" too. I think it comes from the fact that the heliocentric idea was challenged by the church. There have been opposition from the church or society for new sciences and ideas at times, but not all the time. Spherical v Flat Earth was most definitely not one of them, and Darwin's natural selection was, however much it was radical, accepted fairly quickly in the educated crowd. It was mainstream in quite a short time.

 

My argument was only about the use of "fringe" for new ideas. It makes me cringe a bit to hear that word used for new proper scientific ideas.

 

Silicon chips a fringe science up there with remote viewing and alchemist's stone? Don't think so.

[Ouroboros]

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?

Funny thing I was thinking of. Authors, and even Rowling's did this, usually build their characters on real people. They know someone or met someone who they study and take ideas from to create their character in the story. Now, did the person exist on which she drew ideas from to make her fictional character, or should we assume that both templates and author and publishers and perhaps even the readers themselves are all just figments of imagination?

 

Thanks for the "argument from logical fallacy". I've been waiting for that fallacy to eventually be listed. Seen it happening for years. Remember LNC?

[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 think you misunderstood me, that's what I was thinking about. The Spherical Earth idea was not really any fringe idea at any point. Flat Earth was however a fringe idea even into the 19th century. The knowledge that Earth was spherical was mainstream rather than fringe. I was unclear in my post there.

 

I don't think evolution ever was a fringe science either, simply because "evolution" was almost completely there as a science before Darwin came up with the missing key, natural selection. He completed the mainstream science, not invented a fringe science and fought hundreds of years to get this unbelievable science approved against everyone else's best judgements.

 

So I think you misunderstood me there.

 

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."

Yup. I knew that. But I didn't have time to argue this with anyone. It's each one's responsibility to do some research instead of throwing out phrases like "fringe" about something that was mainstream.

 

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

That's why I call it a "flat earth myth" too. I think it comes from the fact that the heliocentric idea was challenged by the church. There have been opposition from the church or society for new sciences and ideas at times, but not all the time. Spherical v Flat Earth was most definitely not one of them, and Darwin's natural selection was, however much it was radical, accepted fairly quickly in the educated crowd. It was mainstream in quite a short time.

 

My argument was only about the use of "fringe" for new ideas. It makes me cringe a bit to hear that word used for new proper scientific ideas.

 

Silicon chips a fringe science up there with remote viewing and alchemist's stone? Don't think so.

Yes, I was confused. I thought you knew about the flat earth myth thing from before. It's worth pointing it out here though as it was brought up in his argument as a comparison to what happened in history. That never happened. And I fully agree about Darwin not being fringe either. Unpopular in the laity, yes. And that kind makes another comparison to the mythicists versus scholars. How many scholars are mythicists? Oh wait, it's because they have an "agenda". Just like the accusation of the creationists that scientists "believe in evolution" because they have an atheist "agenda". Identical? You tell me.

[qadeshet]

 

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

 

I get to decide for myself which Scholars I put the most faith in. And ultimately it comes down to the actual evidence. Even a Bible Scholar, degreed Historian or not, should be able to make a good case for the Historical Jesus, if there was one. I'm sure Prof Ehrman knows the Bible backward and forwards, but if anything he has shown just how weak the case is for an Historical Jesus. If it finally comes down to the Christian writings themselves, we are arguing in a circle. The Gospels say that Jesus existed, the Gospel writers wouldn't lie, so Jesus existed.

 

And attacking me as an unqualified scholar is Ad Hominem.

 

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

 

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.

 

"Reasonable Bible Scholars tell us that Jesus existed and we should take their word for it" is the Argument from Authority. Ehrman tells us that reasonable Bible Scholars are the only ones qualified to discuss the subject. Prof Ehrman has a PhD in Bible Studies from Princeton Theological Seminary. How does this qualify him to pontificate on 1st Century History? If Prof Ehrman had a degree in 1st Century Roman History, he might have made a better case in his book Did Jesus Exist? The various Criteria used by Bible Scholars can be used to prove the existence of anyone, including Santa.

 

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.

 

Arguments, whether vaild or not, are not the same as evidence. We know that all Bible Scholars agree that Jesus existed. Bible Scholars have always known that Jesus existed. It says so in the Bible. Therefore Jesus existed. And anyone who denies it is just like Creationists or Flat Earthers.

 

Prof Ehrman from the Huffington Post article:

 

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

 

This is not an open mind diligently seeking the truth.

 

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 know about the various Criteria used by Bible Scholars. When you're starting with a work of fiction, then you are certainly going to find your historical Harry Potter. That's why external controls are needed.

 

Source criticism

Textual criticism

Form criticism

canonical criticism

Rhetorical criticism

Criterion of dissimilarity

Criterion of embarrassment

Criterion of multiple attestation

Criterion of coherence

criterion of the Crucifixion

 

 

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.

 

I don't believe you base your opinion on the actual evidence. If you can make a good case for an Historical Jesus, then please do so. If your Historical "Jesus" is the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness" or "Teller of Lies", then make your case. If the Historical "Jesus" was not born of a Virgin named Mary, did not perform any miracles, died and stayed dead, then how can we know which of the many 1st Century Cult leaders might have inspired the Gospel legends?

 

In recent years, Robert Eisenman has advanced the theory that some scrolls describe the early Christian community. Eisenman also attempted to relate the career of James the Just and the Apostle Paul / Paul of Tarsus to some of these documents.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

[Antlerman]

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?

Funny thing I was thinking of. Authors, and even Rowling's did this, usually build their characters on real people. They know someone or met someone who they study and take ideas from to create their character in the story. Now, did the person exist on which she drew ideas from to make her fictional character, or should we assume that both templates and author and publishers and perhaps even the readers themselves are all just figments of imagination?

You know, I didn't even really get into the point that the "historicity" of Jesus is not actually even the real point of them. It's only today in the light of science that some Christians want to make that the focus. It's my view that those Christians themselves, as well as these mythicists, miss the actual point. They are arguing opposite sides of the same irrelevant coin. The purpose of the stories, whether embellished or manufactured from whole cloth are about the teachings of the communities. The actual argument should be 'are they relevant and meaningful, or not?". Are they "true" in any way? Reducing them to questions of science and history is besides the point. It's bad scholarship on both their parts.

 

Thanks for the "argument from logical fallacy". I've been waiting for that fallacy to eventually be listed. Seen it happening for years. Remember LNC?

Oh crap yes! The Fallacy Fallacy Master himself! His legacy grows!!

 

I seem to recall you making a post where you took every other word he said and turned it into a fallacy. It was hilarious, and pertinent.

[Ouroboros]

You know, I didn't even really get into the point that the "historicity" of Jesus is not actually even the real point of them. It's only today in the light of science that some Christians want to make that the focus. It's my view that those Christians themselves, as well as these mythicists, miss the actual point. They are arguing opposite sides of the same irrelevant coin. The purpose of the stories, whether embellished or manufactured from whole cloth are about the teachings of the communities. The actual argument should be 'are they relevant and meaningful, or not?". Are they "true" in any way? Reducing them to questions of science and history is besides the point. It's bad scholarship on both their parts.

Agree. I think that would be a more appropriate critique of Ehrman. He's trying to prove something that can't be proved to either side. It's almost better to leave the historicity debate alone until more material shows up. Until then, it's probably better to argue other points.

 

(Like the historicity of Socrates... just kidding. )

 

Oh crap yes! The Fallacy Fallacy Master himself! His legacy grows!!

 

I seem to recall you making a post where you took every other word he said and turned it into a fallacy. It was hilarious, and pertinent.

I learned it from a philosophy teacher talking about dialogue and argumentation. He explained that almost everything we say can be analyzed through googles of "logical fallacies". I've learned it's kind of how the police works too, they can always find something to stop you for. You're breaking the law without knowing it. (I know a few cops. And so they've told me.) Same way with argumentation. You make a claim, you support it, but even when the claim is solid, the support many times is only about agreement. We agree on premises. And because, as you know, language is more art than fact, and very arbitrary at times, we don't always know what premise we really agreed on.

[Antlerman]

I get to decide for myself which Scholars I put the most faith in.

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.... "I decide who I put the most faith in". Yes, appeal to authority fallacy right there.

 

If it finally comes down to the Christian writings themselves, we are arguing in a circle. The Gospels say that Jesus existed, the Gospel writers wouldn't lie, so Jesus existed.

Nonsense. Only if you are reading what the surface structures are as literal facts. And if you are, you're defintiely not understanding the use of the various textual criticisms modern scholarship employes. Rather than just offering a list of them like you 'understand them', you need to actually understand them.

 

And attacking me as an unqualified scholar is Ad Hominem.

No, Mr. Fallacy, it is not. You are in fact, not a qualified scholar. It pertains to you sitting in your arm chair and dismissing scholars based on your lack of education. If I were in fact making an actual ad hominem attack, it would be like calling you a simpleton, or something like that. I have no need to resort to those.

 

Saying you are unqualified is not an attack. But it is interesting, and perhaps telling, that you take it as one.

 

Arguments, whether vaild or not, are not the same as evidence.

They aren't? What about circumstantial evidence?

 

What do you offer as evidence of a black hole, if you are unable to directly detect one?

 

We know that all Bible Scholars agree that Jesus existed. Bible Scholars have always known that Jesus existed. It says so in the Bible. Therefore Jesus existed.

If this is the extent of your understanding why modern scholars say so, then it's not wonder you are a mythicist. You don't know the arguments, just like creationists don't know the science of evolution.

 

And anyone who denies it is just like Creationists or Flat Earthers.

Where's your evidence?

 

I know about the various Criteria used by Bible Scholars. When you're starting with a work of fiction, then you are certainly going to find your historical Harry Potter. That's why external controls are needed.

 

Source criticism

Textual criticism

Form criticism

canonical criticism

Rhetorical criticism

Criterion of dissimilarity

Criterion of embarrassment

Criterion of multiple attestation

Criterion of coherence

criterion of the Crucifixion

You cite all these, but then say it amounts to starting with a work of fiction and ending with a fiction? If this is your take away from these, than your lack of understanding is made fully manifest here.

 

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.

 

I don't believe you base your opinion on the actual evidence.

I don't believe you do either. But again, what qualifies as evidence to you?

 

My real point here however is you and your Fallacy Fallacy.

[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.

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?

 

So do you propose that it was wrong of the laity to demand hard evidence before accepting the theory whole cloth?

 

Shame on those skeptics, is that your angle?

 

I'd say we ought to expect that large claims demand large evidence to substantiate the claims. Darwin was not really justified until the hard evidence came into possession. The common people were right to question the truth of it. The burden of proof rested on the evolutionary sciences and they eventually did provide it. If the hard evidence had never arrived then the theory would be that much more questionable, and with good reason.

 

What about a multiverse? Should we all accept credulously that because scientific theory points towards the existence of such a thing and can attempt to explain origins with the model(s) we shouldn't doubt the authorities in physics presenting the idea because years later that might be proven right with hard evidence? Or should we be skeptical until the point that such a thing has been firmly substantiated with hard evidence?

 

This is a much better analogy. Because if you believe that healthy skepticism was justified back then how could you not see the skepticism of the laity right now as equally justified and correct in proceedure?

 

And if you think that the laity were unjustified in the their skepticism back when hard evidence was lacking then you are promoting a credulous appeal to authority type of world view. If so then no wonder you'd have a difficult time trying to understand healthy skepticism. All of the indirect evidence presented by Ehrman has been thoroughly refuted chapter by chapter by Earl Doherty, a work in progress that was laid out at the Vridar blog as it unfolded and is now published in the link I posted earlier. The historical Jesus argument suffered a tremdous blow. It isn't as simple as asserting a black hole by watching it's gravitational effects. The historical claims aren't anywhere near that strong as indirect evidence....

[mwc]

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.

Sure he did. He explained them. Look here (under quote 2.6).

 

The fact that he could do this, no matter who brought the issue to his attention (I didn't look to see if it was the "laity" or not), should tell us that he took all comers seriously and his theory could pass muster.

 

So we can leave this and move onto the topic at hand. It should be able to do the same just as easily.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Arguments, whether vaild or not, are not the same as evidence.

I'm curious, what is evidence in your opinion? What's your definition of the word? What constitutes evidence to you? Artifacts? First hand reports? Expert opinions?

 

We know that all Bible Scholars agree that Jesus existed.

No we don't know that. If that's true, then you would have to agree that anyone who argues that Jesus didn't exist cannot be a Bible Scholar. It kind of suggests that those without any proper education are better at knowing how to interpret the data than those who does.

 

What about Robert Price? He's not a scholar?

 

Bible Scholars have always known that Jesus existed. It says so in the Bible.

I think you're making a huge generalization and assumption there. You don't have evidence for this. And if evidence is so important to you, why are you making unsupported claims?

 

Therefore Jesus existed. And anyone who denies it is just like Creationists or Flat Earthers.

There are no "flat earthers". Their existence is more of a myth, like trolls and elves and such.

[mwc]

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

Indeed. I got the book out and this is at the conclusion (of chapter 3):

We have a number of surviving Gospels—I named seven—that are either completely independent of one another or independent in a large number of their traditions. These all attest to the existence of Jesus. Moreover, these independent witnesses corroborate many of the same basic sets of data—for example, that Jesus not only lived but that he was a Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans at the instigation of Jewish authorities in Jerusalem.

These seven gospels are the usual four, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Then there is Thomas, Peter and Papyrus Egerton 2.

 

Even more important, these independent witnesses are based on a relatively large number of written predecessors, Gospels that no longer survive but that almost certainly once existed. Some of these earlier written texts have been shown beyond reasonable doubt to date back at least to the 50s of the Common Era.

Now we're into Q, M, and L. The "problem" (depending on your point of view) here is this begins to happen:

 

whether or not Q included an account of Jesus’s death and resurrection, it appears that the source must date to a period no later than Mark, and a good number of scholars have dated it earlier, say, to the 50s.

...

I have been speaking so far only of the four canonical Gospels. It cannot be determined with absolute certainty whether any of the later Gospels—say the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas—go back to written sources although in both of these cases some scholars have mounted strenuous arguments that they do. The most plausible case has been made for the Gospel of Thomas by April DeConick, who makes a strong argument, based on a careful literary study of the text, that the core of the surviving Gospel of Thomas goes back to a Gospel in circulation prior to 50 CE.¹³

...

If scholars are right that Q and the core of the Gospel of Thomas, to pick just two examples, do date from the 50s, and that they were based on oral traditions that had already been in circulation for a long time, how far back do these traditions go?

I think we differ on "beyond a reasonable doubt" is exactly.

 

But most significant of all, each of these numerous Gospel texts is based on oral traditions that had been in circulation for years among communities of Christians in different parts of the world, all of them attesting to the existence of Jesus. And some of these traditions must have originated in Aramaic-speaking communities of Palestine, probably in the 30s CE, within several years at least of the traditional date of the death of Jesus.

There are some Aramaic phrases/fragments in the gospels and maybe some small fragments that make sense only in Aramaic. So translate it into Aramaic. If it makes sense then it may be original. There are some things that make sense only in Greek. If it doesn't make sense in Aramaic then it's not original. Because Aramaic is the original you see? We know this because that's what Jesus spoke (which seems to be begging the question but that's what is said): "Jesus could not have said these things since he spoke Aramaic." This happens a lot. I guess since you already know Jesus existed it stands to reason but, to me, it seems to be begging the question.

 

Anyhow, that's enough. It doesn't get to Paul or the crucifixion but that's the slam-dunk type evidence at the start of the book. It's only nine chapters and only something like 4 or 5 deal with this getting Jesus alive. This is pretty much the bulk of it. Chapter 3 is where it really starts doing much of anything and it's not much.

 

mwc

[Joshpantera]

There are no "flat earthers". Their existence is more of a myth, like trolls and elves and such.

Uh, just an FYI before you get too carried away about Flat Earther's because they do exist now because they did exist in the past the whole time even after the spherical earth was proposed:

 

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

http://en.wikipedia....t_Earth_Society

[Ouroboros]

There are no "flat earthers". Their existence is more of a myth, like trolls and elves and such.

Uh, just an FYI before you get too carried away about Flat Earther's because they do exist now:

 

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

http://en.wikipedia....t_Earth_Society

Okay. I take it back. I wonder if they're just a satirical organization and not really serious though.

 

And if you argue that they have come in response to the myth of the existence of flat eather's which never really existed in the first place, then of course you now see how a group of believers can start out based on purely mythological origins, which, might be the case with the modern flat earth society...

So the Earth is a myth? Oh, wait, the founder... Let's see if we can quote your source:

Modern hypotheses supporting a flat Earth originated with English inventor Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884).

To argue that no one was part of the origin or got something started is akin to say that Samuel Rowbotham didn't exist and the Flat Earth society grew out of nowhere from preexisting myths.

 

This organization, and having a founder, proves my point that groups/cults do not just grow up from a group of people idling their thumbs and suddenly have a equal meme arising in their minds independent of each other. There tend to be someone at the center of the storm

 

So to argue that Jesus didn't exist because Flat Earth society had a founder is like ... eh... what?h

 

Besides, they are an example of "fringe" science. Not evolution. Not spherical earth. Mainstream science supports spherical earth, and has done so before science even was science. Flat earthers are the fringe elements. That's how the word "fringe" is usually used.

 

You may want to investigate this lead and see if they have in fact arose out of purely mythological origins.

So Rowbotham is a myth and not a historical person. Got it.

 

I guess anyone considering that people, and most of the time, leaders in groups, start groups and lead groups is a "fringe" idea. The mainstream idea, I'm forced to believe now, is that groups and ideas spontaneously arise in groups of people without anyone ever taking the lead. Steve Jobs is a mythical person too...

 

Here's the thing about the historical Jesus. You gave me a list of people who called themselves Jesus and Christ. We don't know if the stories about none, one, or more of them seeped through in the Gospel stories. It's more likely that at least one did than none. It's more likely that at least one bean of coffee gave flavor to the coffee than none of the beans, more likely even if all or most of the beans did. So did a historical Jesus exist? Yeah. But not just one, but probably several. Why? Because you gave me the list of them. Each one, or most of them, could very likely have contributed to parts of the story. To argue that there's "no evidence" and giving evidence of "too many of them" is contradictory. There are too many trees to make a forest?

[Joshpantera]

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

Indeed. I got the book out and this is at the conclusion (of chapter 3):

We have a number of surviving Gospels—I named seven—that are either completely independent of one another or independent in a large number of their traditions. These all attest to the existence of Jesus. Moreover, these independent witnesses corroborate many of the same basic sets of data—for example, that Jesus not only lived but that he was a Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans at the instigation of Jewish authorities in Jerusalem.

These seven gospels are the usual four, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Then there is Thomas, Peter and Papyrus Egerton 2.

 

Even more important, these independent witnesses are based on a relatively large number of written predecessors, Gospels that no longer survive but that almost certainly once existed. Some of these earlier written texts have been shown beyond reasonable doubt to date back at least to the 50s of the Common Era.

Now we're into Q, M, and L. The "problem" (depending on your point of view) here is this begins to happen:

 

[Joshpantera]

There are no "flat earthers". Their existence is more of a myth, like trolls and elves and such.

Uh, just an FYI before you get too carried away about Flat Earther's because they do exist now:

 

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

http://en.wikipedia....t_Earth_Society

Okay. I take it back. I wonder if they're just a satirical organization and not really serious though.

 

And if you argue that they have come in response to the myth of the existence of flat eather's which never really existed in the first place, then of course you now see how a group of believers can start out based on purely mythological origins, which, might be the case with the modern flat earth society...

So the Earth is a myth? Oh, wait, the founder... Let's see if we can quote your source:

Modern hypotheses supporting a flat Earth originated with English inventor Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884).

To argue that no one was part of the origin or got something started is akin to say that Samuel Rowbotham didn't exist and the Flat Earth society grew out of nowhere from preexisting myths.

 

This organization, and having a founder, proves my point that groups/cults do not just grow up from a group of people idling their thumbs and suddenly have a equal meme arising in their minds independent of each other. There tend to be someone at the center of the storm

 

So to argue that Jesus didn't exist because Flat Earth society had a founder is like ... eh... what?

 

You may want to investigate this lead and see if they have in fact arose out of purely mythological origins.

So Rowbotham is a myth and not a historical person. Got it.

 

Here's the thing about the historical Jesus. You gave me a list of people who called themselves Jesus and Christ. We don't know if the stories about none, one, or more of them seeped through in the Gospel stories. It's more likely that at least one did than none. It's more likely that at least one bean of coffee gave flavor to the coffee than none of the beans, more likely even if all or most of the beans did. So did a historical Jesus exist? Yeah. But not just one, but probably several. Why? Because you gave me the list of them. Each one, or most of them, could very likely have contributed to parts of the story. To argue that there's "no evidence" and giving evidence of "too many of them" is contradictory. There are too many trees to make a forest?

No, you missed the point. You said that there are no flat earthers, or never were to begin with. So what then did Rowbotham base his society on? Pure myth - the myth that a belief in a flat earth ever existed in the first place? That's the point.

 

And then the assertion that they are continuing an ancient belief would be false if no one in ancient times ever did believe in a flat earth in ancient times. That would be a belief based on taking the myth or rumor that people used to believe in a flat earth and then trying to carry it on into the future. The parallel can be found by putting the apostle Paul in place of Rowbotham as the originator of a belief system based on a mythological view point. And then have people come behind you trying to historicize it.

 

You also over shot the point about the many Jesus's. A composition of many people is no one in the end, no one historical founder. Combined together they make for a mythological character, not one fixed historical one as presented in the gospels...

[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?

 

So do you propose that it was wrong of the laity to demand hard evidence before accepting the theory whole cloth?

I think it is wrong of the laity to say the science is not good unless it satisfies them. Do you think its valid for Billy Smith who shines balls at the bowling ally to say Evolution is crap because, "It just don't make no sense to me how we came from monkeys if they are still here! Show me a croc-a-duck if you want me to believe that crap!"?

 

Shame on those skeptics, is that your angle?

Not at all. Shame on cynics who see experts as creationists see scientists.

 

I'd say we ought to expect that large claims demand large evidence to substantiate the claims.

What "large claim"? That a person who inspired the myths about him may have been a real person? We're not talking about turning wine into water or walking on H2O here.

 

Darwin was not really justified until the hard evidence came into possession.

*yawn* I'm out of here....

[Ouroboros]

No, you missed the point. You said that there are no flat earthers, or never were to begin with.

Right. And I still suspect they're a joke.

 

So what then did Rowbotham base his society on? Pure myth?

Eh? You're missing my point.

 

My point isn't that EVERYTHING is true about Jesus just because a TINY part in it might be based on real life person(s). Of course the majority of the Gospel stories are myths and legends taken from old religions and such. But that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that the list of "Jesuses" and "Christs" that you gave me suddenly had no effect or influence at all on anything in the stories, or that there were leaders behind the growing cult. When there's a cult, there's a cult leader. That's history. If his name was Bob, doesn't matter, a leader existed.

 

That's the point. And then the assertion that they are continuing an ancient belief would be false if no one in ancient times ever did believe in a flat earth. That would be a belief based on taking the myth or rumor that people used to believe in a flat earth and then trying to carry it on into the future. The parallel can be found by putting the apostle Paul in place of Rowbotham.

It could, but it also could put it in someone called Jesus just before Paul. The evidence is circumstantial, but there were a bunch of "Jesuses" during that time walking around saying religious things and starting cults. To believe that all of them died out and were buried, and then suddenly resurrected out of the blue with no relationship years later, is mystical thinking. If there were "Jesuses" walking around preaching, then there was. If there wasn't, then the evidence shouldn't have any preaching Jesuses or Christs at all. But there were...

 

Think about it. A whole bunch of cult leaders, named Jesus and Christ (or Messiah), all of them gone. Then later, Paul has a great idea, "hey, let's invent someone called Jesus, a cult leader!" Oh, great. A myth created from real people, but the real people didn't exist, even though they did, but they were myths...? Really? When is too many the same as none?

[Joshpantera]

][/b]What "large claim"? That a person who inspired the myths about him may have been a real person?

No, the claim in question by scholarship is where Bart Ehrman asserts that 'Jesus did exist.' as the topic of the thread reads and is mentioned in the video at the top of the thread.

 

It's the position of mythicists and others that Jesus MAY have been based on a real historical person. We just don't know for sure. That's the heart of the question. But where's the evidence to turn that MAYBE into hard fact? No one has provided that yet.

[Joshpantera]

No, you missed the point. You said that there are no flat earthers, or never were to begin with.

Right. And I still suspect they're a joke.

 

So what then did Rowbotham base his society on? Pure myth?

Eh? You're missing my point.

 

My point isn't that EVERYTHING is true about Jesus just because a TINY part in it might be based on real life person(s). Of course the majority of the Gospel stories are myths and legends taken from old religions and such. But that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that the list of "Jesuses" and "Christs" that you gave me suddenly had no effect or influence at all on anything in the stories, or that there were leaders behind the growing cult. When there's a cult, there's a cult leader. That's history. If his name was Bob, doesn't matter, a leader existed.

 

The problem here is that I never claimed that none of the Jesus's influenced the story, I claimed that several of these people seem to have been used by when the second century Gospel writing efforts were under way. To take the cosmic Christ of Paul and try to bring it down to earth in a historical setting I think that Josephus's historical writings were consulted to aid in the process. And there were multiple leaders, not one. You have to familiarize yourself with plurality of early Christianities and the argument from Doherty that oultines how these diverse beliefs don't really point back to one fixed historical leader and actually contradict such an assertion.

That's the point. And then the assertion that they are continuing an ancient belief would be false if no one in ancient times ever did believe in a flat earth. That would be a belief based on taking the myth or rumor that people used to believe in a flat earth and then trying to carry it on into the future. The parallel can be found by putting the apostle Paul in place of Rowbotham.

It could, but it also could put it in someone called Jesus just before Paul. The evidence is circumstantial, but there were a bunch of "Jesuses" during that time walking around saying religious things and starting cults. To believe that all of them died out and were buried, and then suddenly resurrected out of the blue with no relationship years later, is mystical thinking. If there were "Jesuses" walking around preaching, then there was. If there wasn't, then the evidence shouldn't have any preaching Jesuses or Christs at all. But there were...

 

Think about it. A whole bunch of cult leaders, named Jesus and Christ (or Messiah), all of them gone. Then later, Paul has a great idea, "hey, let's invent someone called Jesus, a cult leader!" Oh, great. A myth created from real people, but the real people didn't exist, even though they did, but they were myths...? Really? When is too many the same as none?

This is a good demonstration of your lack of understanding the myth position presented by Doherty and others. It doesn't make sense because that's not how it's presented in the first place. You're actually making up a scenario and then attributing it to the MP and then trying to knock it down. Is it fair enough to just come out and say that you've raised a straw man on mythicism? Because that's exactly what the above paragraph is.

 

If you read up on the issue you'll find that the actual claim is that Paul was only one of many different Gnostic type sects all of which had different savior ideas in play. Jesus means "savior." So many different Jesus ideas were circulating. Some of these were coming from historical angles and some were not. The orthodox tradition grew out of some that were trying to put an exoteric angle on the esoteric mythological stories. And was able to eventually over take the rest but only after a long hard fight.

[Ouroboros]

][/b]What "large claim"? That a person who inspired the myths about him may have been a real person?

No, the claim in question by scholarship is where Bart Ehrman asserts that 'Jesus did exist.' as the topic of the thread reads and is mentioned in the video at the top of the thread.

And I think Ehrman is going too far to argue it as a fact or as one person.

 

It's the position of mythicists and others that Jesus MAY have been based on a real historical person. We just don't know for sure.

But we do know that there were a bunch of them. The chance that not a single one of them inspiring parts of the story while the story was written would be incredible. What are the chances that Jesusus and Messiahs running around and Paul talking about Jesus and Messiah and not talking about any one of them? Sure. It could be. But it could just as easily be that he did build some story from one story he heard about one person who actually did exist, and then the myth built more on top of that. That's just as plausible. Not less.

 

That's the heart of the question. But where's the evidence to turn that MAYBE into hard fact? No one has provided that yet.

The hard fact is that Jesuses and Messiahs did exist.

 

Put it this way. Even if the stories about jesus are myths from old, the name "Jesus" wasn't taken from Greek mythology, or Egypt, or any other place then... Palestine. Hmm... the name Jesus taken from a myth from real people from a real place, and there's no evidence at all? Obviously the myth was built on stories about these guys who already did call themselves Jesus and Messiah. And the stories we built on other stories too. And myth. And... Not just everything but any person. It seems to me that the "pure myth" theory is intentionally disregarding one piece of the evidence puzzle. Why? Of course 99.999999% in the Gospel is myth. Of course it is. No debate from me there. But that 100% is myth and there's no evidence that these walking around people calling themselves Messiahs didn't exist and didn't even influence the story at all?

[mcdaddy]

My crazy pet theory is that the mythical cosmic super duper awesome Christ got the name Jesus simply because of its meaning, i.e. "Savior" (loosely).

 

Maybe also some influence from Ezekiel where Yeshua or some derivation thereof was one of the two "messiahs" / branches/ whateverthefuck.

[mcdaddy]

No, you missed the point. You said that there are no flat earthers, or never were to begin with.

Right. And I still suspect they're a joke.

 

So what then did Rowbotham base his society on? Pure myth?

Eh? You're missing my point.

 

My point isn't that EVERYTHING is true about Jesus just because a TINY part in it might be based on real life person(s). Of course the majority of the Gospel stories are myths and legends taken from old religions and such. But that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that the list of "Jesuses" and "Christs" that you gave me suddenly had no effect or influence at all on anything in the stories, or that there were leaders behind the growing cult. When there's a cult, there's a cult leader. That's history. If his name was Bob, doesn't matter, a leader existed.

 

The problem here is that I never claimed that none of the Jesus's influenced the story, I claimed that several of these people seem to have been used by when the second century Gospel writing efforts were under way. To take the cosmic Christ of Paul and try to bring it down to earth in a historical setting I think that Josephus's historical writings were consulted to aid in the process. And there were multiple leaders, not one. You have to familiarize yourself with plurality of early Christianities and the argument from Doherty that oultines how these diverse beliefs don't really point back to one fixed historical leader and actually contradict such an assertion.

That's the point. And then the assertion that they are continuing an ancient belief would be false if no one in ancient times ever did believe in a flat earth. That would be a belief based on taking the myth or rumor that people used to believe in a flat earth and then trying to carry it on into the future. The parallel can be found by putting the apostle Paul in place of Rowbotham.

It could, but it also could put it in someone called Jesus just before Paul. The evidence is circumstantial, but there were a bunch of "Jesuses" during that time walking around saying religious things and starting cults. To believe that all of them died out and were buried, and then suddenly resurrected out of the blue with no relationship years later, is mystical thinking. If there were "Jesuses" walking around preaching, then there was. If there wasn't, then the evidence shouldn't have any preaching Jesuses or Christs at all. But there were...

 

Think about it. A whole bunch of cult leaders, named Jesus and Christ (or Messiah), all of them gone. Then later, Paul has a great idea, "hey, let's invent someone called Jesus, a cult leader!" Oh, great. A myth created from real people, but the real people didn't exist, even though they did, but they were myths...? Really? When is too many the same as none?

This is a good demonstration of your lack of understanding the myth position presented by Doherty and others. It doesn't make sense because that's how it's presented in the first place. You're actually making up a scenario and then attributing it to the MP and then trying to knock it down. Is it fair enough to just come out and say that you've raised a straw man on mythicism? Because that's exactly what the above paragraph is.

 

If you read on the issue you'll find that the actual claim is that Paul was only one of many different Gnostic type sects all of which had different savior ideas in play. Jesus means "savior." Some of these were coming from historical angles and some were not. The orthodox tradition grew out of some that were trying to put an exoteric angle on the esoteric mythological stories. And was able to eventually over take the rest but only after a long hard fight.

 

wow, i totally didn't read that before my above comment. just letting you all know im not stealing.

[Ouroboros]

The problem here is that I never claimed that none of the Jesus's influenced the story, I claimed that several of these people seem to have been used by when the second century Gospel writing efforts were under way.

And that's fine with me. But you responded to one post I made in response to Qadesh, not you. So you're making the argument that you two have the same views?

 

To take the cosmic Christ of Paul and try to bring it down to earth in a historical setting I think that Josephus's historical writings were consulted to aid in the process. And there were multiple leaders, not one. You have to familiarize yourself with plurality of early Christianities and the argument from Doherty that oultines how these diverse beliefs don't really point back to one fixed historical leader and actually contradict such an assertion.

Sure. It wasn't one "Jesus". But I still maintain that the evidence points to "at least one Jesus" for parts of the story.

 

That's the point. And then the assertion that they are continuing an ancient belief would be false if no one in ancient times ever did believe in a flat earth. That would be a belief based on taking the myth or rumor that people used to believe in a flat earth and then trying to carry it on into the future. The parallel can be found by putting the apostle Paul in place of Rowbotham.

Ok. I'm not sure I agree with you though.

 

This is a good demonstration of your lack of understanding the myth position presented by Doherty and others.

What about the myth position presented by other members on this board instead? I'm not arguing for or against Doherty or a single dogma or creed by the Official Mythicist™ position, but rather what is being discussed by other members on this site. Pointing to Doherty or the Official Mythicist Creed or such is only a red herring. We're not talking about them. We're talking about what people are talking about here.

 

It doesn't make sense because that's how it's presented in the first place. You're actually making up a scenario and then attributing it to the MP and then trying to knock it down. Is it fair enough to just come out and say that you've raised a straw man on mythicism? Because that's exactly what the above paragraph is.

Sigh. Whatever. Red herring again.

 

If you read on the issue you'll find that the actual claim is that Paul was only one of many different Gnostic type sects all of which had different savior ideas in play. Jesus means "savior." Some of these were coming from historical angles and some were not. The orthodox tradition grew out of some that were trying to put an exoteric angle on the esoteric mythological stories. And was able to eventually over take the rest but only after a long hard fight.

Whatever again.

[mcdaddy]

whatever.

[Ouroboros]

My crazy pet theory is that the mythical cosmic super duper awesome Christ got the name Jesus simply because of its meaning, i.e. "Savior" (loosely).

Of course he did. And there were plenty of kids named Jesus in hopes of bringing abut that savior. And there were plenty of them running around preaching their little thing. So there were many of them.

 

 

Maybe also some influence from Ezekiel where Yeshua or some derivation thereof was one of the two "messiahs" / branches/ whateverthefuck.

Which means that some people did start the train.

 

It's like urban legends. They don't just grow subconsciously out of the blue from a group of people. They tend to have a source. Sometimes they even have some truth mixed in. Someone got stung on some sharp edge on a gas station handle... later, watch out for those AIDS needles. Even if most is myth and urban legend, doesn't necessarily mean there's nothing in there grown from a simple beginning.