Bart Ehrman "jesus Existed!"

[Antlerman]

It's the position of mythicists and others that Jesus MAY have been based on a real historical person.

Not in my understanding. The mythicists believe he was created out of whole cloth by ripping off other religions. It's the more modern, liberal scholarship, like Ehrman, who believe the myths were created surrounding an actual human. It's the conservative Biblical scholarship that believes what you see in the Bible is who Jesus really was. I go with option 2 here. It has the greater support in my opinion. Not too many liberal scholars take the pure mythicist position.

 

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.

You shouldn't expect hard fact in history. That's why it's frustrating talking to those who take some science like physics and expect the same rules of 'hard evidence' to apply across the board to all areas of knowledge. That's just not a valid expectation, and lacking that does not make it 'questionable'. I ask, where is the "hard evidence" of the mythicists? You really don't even have that a lot of time in something as well-established as Evolution. The mythicists will use the same sorts of deductive reasoning, using a different set of eyes, and not looking at some important other areas, IMO. That doesn't mean a qualified scholar making such a proposal if full of it. I'm more than happy to listen to such debates amongst scholars, when that actually occurs.

[midniterider]

LETS JUST AGREE TO AGREE WITH MY POSITION , OK??

 

Not unless you have a PhD. Sorry.

[mcdaddy]

LETS JUST AGREE TO AGREE WITH MY POSITION , OK??

 

Not unless you have a PhD. Sorry.

 

I was THIS close to having one. seriously.

[Antlerman]

If tassel is more hassle, then fringe is more .......singe?

 

fuck, nothing rhymes with "fringe".

Seriously? Binge? Hinge? Singe?

[Antlerman]

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

If all you need is the consensus of qualified Bible Scholars, then that's fine.

I've never stated what I need, or what I actually believe and why. Fascinating how you assume my thinking. Sounds to me you like you need to be able to put people into categories, nice and neat. That way you can assume things, rather than make the effort to understand them.

 

I need Primary Evidence, contemporary accounts, Archeological evidence or inscriptions.

You must have a very thin history of the world book at home then....

 

You don't think you can glean anything from textual criticism?

 

Say! Here's one! Are you familiar with Walter Bauer, the German theologian who deduced from reading all the existing material of church history, that earlier Christianity was an extraordinarily diverse affair, contrary to later myth by the church fathers creating what Bauer called the Master Story? You know what he did? He was able to read the texts, and see what it wasn't saying on the pages, but what is was saying implied in why the things were being said.

 

Now to you this is crap. Worthless, without primary evidence supporting it! But guess what? A mere few years later they discovered the Nag Hamadi texts in 1945, and guess what it did? It confirmed what he saw which other scholars had accepted from his work about early Christianity, that it in fact was an extraordinarily diverse playground of ideas and that there was no single message taught to the disciples who trained their disciples who became the bishops of Rome, and that later heresies crept in. He saw all this, believed all it, concluded all of this - and accurately - without primary evidence!

 

So..... insist all you want. That's pretty poor scholarship on your part, IMHO.

 

Now, do you have any actual evidence to present?

Do you have any that he was a created myth? Come on now, where's your primary evidence, since that's what you insist we have to have?

[mcdaddy]

If tassel is more hassle, then fringe is more .......singe?

 

fuck, nothing rhymes with "fringe".

Seriously? Binge? Hinge? Singe?

 

dammit. you and your fucking knowledge of words that rhyme with fringe. somebody's ALWAYS gotta be the smartypants

[Antlerman]

If tassel is more hassle, then fringe is more .......singe?

 

fuck, nothing rhymes with "fringe".

Seriously? Binge? Hinge? Singe?

 

dammit. you and your fucking knowledge of words that rhyme with fringe. somebody's ALWAYS gotta be the smartypants

Better to be a smartypants than to be a fartypants and ruin the party and dance.

[Ouroboros]

I think that's correct. Boy, I'm glad I asked!

Remember you can only use it once. Then they'll learn how to block. Use a crotch shot instead.

[mwc]

Not in my understanding. The mythicists believe he was created out of whole cloth by ripping off other religions. It's the more modern, liberal scholarship, like Ehrman, who believe the myths were created surrounding an actual human. It's the conservative Biblical scholarship that believes what you see in the Bible is who Jesus really was. I go with option 2 here. It has the greater support in my opinion. Not too many liberal scholars take the pure mythicist position.

How many times have we crossed paths on this issue? I also recently provided a quick link to Wikipedia, in this last thread (which I recall you referencing), which states this isn't the case for mythicism. I'm disappointed to say the least that this is your takeaway after all this time and effort. It just shows me that making an argument, even repeating stuff ad nauseum, is pointless.

 

I'm more than happy to listen to such debates amongst scholars, when that actually occurs.

 

From the introduction to the book "Did Jesus Exist?":

Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?

 

But the questions kept coming, and soon I began to wonder: Why are so many people asking? My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles—misquoted rather—as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.

 

I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, and the history of the church’s first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware—as are most of my colleagues in the field—of this body of skeptical literature.

What debate? Scholars are entirely ignorant that anyone is even asking the question.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

There's no evidence of anyone of them. They're all myth.

So you would place the gospels in the same category as Antiquities and Wars?

 

mwc

Absolutely not.

 

The Gospels are to most extent mythical, but it's wrapped in partial truths. Those few truths are based on just regular, natural, and historical foundations and nothing more. Exactly how small part is true or not, of course we can't be sure about it all.

[Joshpantera]

It's the position of mythicists and others that Jesus MAY have been based on a real historical person.

Not in my understanding. The mythicists believe he was created out of whole cloth by ripping off other religions. It's the more modern, liberal scholarship, like Ehrman, who believe the myths were created surrounding an actual human. It's the conservative Biblical scholarship that believes what you see in the Bible is who Jesus really was. I go with option 2 here. It has the greater support in my opinion. Not too many liberal scholars take the pure mythicist position.

That's because your understanding is based on an incorrect analysis of mythicism. That's all. It's a situation of doubt, not certainty that he (the gospel character) never existed. He MAY have, but that remains unsettled.

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.

You shouldn't expect hard fact in history. That's why it's frustrating talking to those who take some science like physics and expect the same rules of 'hard evidence' to apply across the board to all areas of knowledge. That's just not a valid expectation, and lacking that does not make it 'questionable'. I ask, where is the "hard evidence" of the mythicists? You really don't even have that a lot of time in something as well-established as Evolution. The mythicists will use the same sorts of deductive reasoning, using a different set of eyes, and not looking at some important other areas, IMO. That doesn't mean a qualified scholar making such a proposal if full of it. I'm more than happy to listen to such debates amongst scholars, when that actually occurs.

So if I shouldn't expect hard fact in history then I shouldn't expect to see a Theologian like Bart Ehrman boldy claiming the NT Jesus of Nazareth certainly was based on one particular historical prophet, right? We're not dealing with an area of study devoted to hard fact as you say. But instead of what should be logically expected of Ehrman and historianship, I find the opposite of a logical claim. Some one is taking the uncertain field of history and asserting certainty by use of it. Something about that just doesn't jive. That's why I say it's a house of cards built from sand foundations.

[mcdaddy]

I think that's correct. Boy, I'm glad I asked!

Remember you can only use it once. Then they'll learn how to block. Use a crotch shot instead.

 

you are my new god.

[qadeshet]

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

 

And who decides for you? Bart Ehrman?

 

If all you need is the consensus of qualified Bible Scholars, then that's fine.

I've never stated what I need, or what I actually believe and why. Fascinating how you assume my thinking. Sounds to me you like you need to be able to put people into categories, nice and neat. That way you can assume things, rather than make the effort to understand them.

 

Since you have never stated what you believe or why, and show no inclination to do so, we have to try reading you mind, which is rather difficult.

 

I need Primary Evidence, contemporary accounts, Archeological evidence or inscriptions.

You must have a very thin history of the world book at home then....

 

If all History were written by Bible Scholars, I would trust none of it. Real Historians use Primary Evidence to determine Historical facts. Ancient historians who relied heavily on hearsay are not considered reliable.

 

You don't think you can glean anything from textual criticism?

 

If the texts in question are fictional, then no. Performing Texual Criticism on Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone wouldn't get us very far. The Gospels are fiction.

 

Now, do you have any actual evidence to present?

Do you have any that he was a created myth? Come on now, where's your primary evidence, since that's what you insist we have to have?

 

Do you have Primary Evidence that Santa doesn't exist? Jesus was originally the Cosmic Christ of Paul's visions. The Gospel writers alegorized Jesus and later Christians took the story literally. All Religions are Myths and Christianity is no different. If one or another 1st Century cult leader inspired the story of Jesus, he is now unknown to us.

[mwc]

Absolutely not.

 

The Gospels are to most extent mythical, but it's wrapped in partial truths. Those few truths are based on just regular, natural, and historical foundations and nothing more. Exactly how small part is true or not, of course we can't be sure about it all.

Super. So they're not histories like Antiquities or Wars.

 

How do you know what is "myth" and what is "truth?" You say we can't be sure but you know they're there so I don't think I'm understanding you.

 

I also don't know if there is a difference between "myth" and "truth" is there? Can't something be mythical and true? For example, looking directly at Medusa will turn you to stone (not all versions). This is myth and it is true. I would consider it a fact as well. If you looked at Medusa and didn't turn to stone I would say this is a myth and is false. It is now internally broken. But in the real, natural, world that we live in there is no such thing as the gorgon Medusa and none of these matter. People don't turn to stone with a look (beyond, say, allegory which is not what the story literally says).

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

Not in my understanding. The mythicists believe he was created out of whole cloth by ripping off other religions. It's the more modern, liberal scholarship, like Ehrman, who believe the myths were created surrounding an actual human. It's the conservative Biblical scholarship that believes what you see in the Bible is who Jesus really was. I go with option 2 here. It has the greater support in my opinion. Not too many liberal scholars take the pure mythicist position.

How many times have we crossed paths on this issue? I also recently provided a quick link to Wikipedia, in this last thread (which I recall you referencing), which states this isn't the case for mythicism. I'm disappointed to say the least that this is your takeaway after all this time and effort. It just shows me that making an argument, even repeating stuff ad nauseum, is pointless.

Not necessarily. I appreciate you taking the time to link to this. From that Wiki article it lays out four main positions:

Definition of the theory

 

Further information: Jesus Christ in comparative mythology

Philosopher George Walsh argues that Christianity can be seen as originating in a myth dressed up as history, or with a historical being mythologized into a supernatural one: he calls the former the Christ myth theory, and the latter the historical Jesus theory.^[17]

 

....

1. The Jesus myth theory: the gospels describe a virtually, and perhaps entirely, fictitious person. There are no grounds for supposing that any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history. This view is represented to varying degrees by Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, G.A. Wells, and Robert Price.^[18] Mythicists do not agree on a single theory of the actual origins of Christianity.
   
2. There is enough evidence to conclude that Jesus existed, but the reports are so unreliable that very little can be said about him with confidence. This view is represented by Rudolf Bultmann and Burton Mack.^[18]
   
3. Historical research can reveal a core of historical facts about Jesus, but he is very different from the Jesus of the New Testament. His sayings and miracles are myths. Robert Funk and Crossan represent this view, one that Eddy and Boyd write is increasingly common among New Testament scholars,^[18] particularly those associated with the Westar Institute's Jesus Seminar and Jewish New Testament scholars such as Paula Fredriksen or Amy-Jill Levine.
   Within this camp there remains a significant gulf between those who hold Schweitzer's view that Jesus had apocalyptic end-time beliefs such as Bart Ehrman and Paula Fredriksen, and those who do not hold this such as Marcus Borg.
   
4. The gospels are reliable historical sources, and critical historiography should not rule out the possibility of supernatural occurrence, a view represented by John P. Meier and N. T. Wright.
   

I say I would fall somewhere between 2 and 3 above, probably closer to 2. But that is what I've been saying all along. What is said at the opening is how I too am defining the 'historical Jesus' with the "mythicist postion". Because I fall on 2 or 3, that makes me the historical Jesus position, right?

 

I'm more than happy to listen to such debates amongst scholars, when that actually occurs.

 

From the introduction to the book "Did Jesus Exist?":

Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?

 

But the questions kept coming, and soon I began to wonder: Why are so many people asking? My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles—misquoted rather—as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.

 

I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, and the history of the church’s first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware—as are most of my colleagues in the field—of this body of skeptical literature.

What debate? Scholars are entirely ignorant that anyone is even asking the question.

 

mwc

If I'm reading Ehrman right, I think he's just annoyed by what some call Internet Junkies, over actual scholarly debate. What I hear here is that he is taken aback a bit but the so-called 'skeptics' and atheist crowd who insert him into their arguments, whereas to him these were really no-questions, or at least not meriting enough reason for serious attention. For right or for wrong, it was not coming from the academic community, but popular atheism trying to make him side with their popular opinions on the subject. That's how I hear what he's saying.

[Antlerman]

And who decides for you? Bart Ehrman?

The Lord God Almighty does. There, happy?

 

Man, get a clue already.

 

Since you have never stated what you believe or why, and show no inclination to do so, we have to try reading you mind, which is rather difficult.

Or... you could ask!! Novel idea!

 

And yes, don't try to fit me into your little categories.

 

If all History were written by Bible Scholars, I would trust none of it. Real Historians use Primary Evidence to determine Historical facts. Ancient historians who relied heavily on hearsay are not considered reliable.

Real Historians™, use primary evidence? Okay....................

 

If the texts in question are fictional, then no. Performing Texual Criticism on Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone wouldn't get us very far. The Gospels are fiction.

You're excluding yourself from actual debate here in responses like this......

 

Do you have any that he was a created myth? Come on now, where's your primary evidence, since that's what you insist we have to have?

 

Do you have Primary Evidence that Santa doesn't exist?

So then the answer is you do not. Then why are you insisting I should when you can skate off free from your own demand?

 

Jesus was originally the Cosmic Christ of Paul's visions.

What's your primary source on that?

 

The Gospel writers alegorized Jesus and later Christians took the story literally.

Pure speculation. Where's your primary source?

 

All Religions are Myths and Christianity is no different.

False assertion. Back that up with Primary evidence.

 

If one or another 1st Century cult leader inspired the story of Jesus, he is now unknown to us.

Oh... so you're saying a real person may have existed now? First steps are the hardest.....

[Ouroboros]

I think that's correct. Boy, I'm glad I asked!

Remember you can only use it once. Then they'll learn how to block. Use a crotch shot instead.

 

you are my new god.

I can't be... I'm only a myth.

Absolutely not.

 

The Gospels are to most extent mythical, but it's wrapped in partial truths. Those few truths are based on just regular, natural, and historical foundations and nothing more. Exactly how small part is true or not, of course we can't be sure about it all.

Super. So they're not histories like Antiquities or Wars.

 

How do you know what is "myth" and what is "truth?" You say we can't be sure but you know they're there so I don't think I'm understanding you.

Agree. I don't think you're understanding me.

 

But if I continue to debate you, I'll get a response from one of the other members telling me that I'm misrepresenting the official stance of mythicists around the world and I therefore must be wrong. So I can't really explain to you what I'm saying.

 

I also don't know if there is a difference between "myth" and "truth" is there? Can't something be mythical and true?

Yes. Myth can be true too, or contain truth, or wrap truth in a blanket of story, or ...

 

I learned once that "myth" isn't really a term for "untrue story" but for a truth wrapped in a story, like midrash (I think it's called, you probably know that better than me).

 

For example, looking directly at Medusa will turn you to stone (not all versions). This is myth and it is true. I would consider it a fact as well. If you looked at Medusa and didn't turn to stone I would say this is a myth and is false. It is now internally broken. But in the real, natural, world that we live in there is no such thing as the gorgon Medusa and none of these matter. People don't turn to stone with a look (beyond, say, allegory which is not what the story literally says).

Myth stories aren't necessarily intended to be taken literally.

[Ouroboros]

The Gospels are fiction.

That's a very general statement. The Gospels contain fictions. They're mostly fiction. Can you say for sure they are 100% completely fiction? Nothing in there is true at all? There was no Jerusalem? No Tiberius, no Ceasar, no fishermen, no lake, no people in Judea...

 

If we don't know what is true or not, we can't say it's all fiction since that's a very absolute statement contrary to what we "don't know".

 

 

Do you have Primary Evidence that Santa doesn't exist? Jesus was originally the Cosmic Christ of Paul's visions. The Gospel writers alegorized Jesus and later Christians took the story literally. All Religions are Myths and Christianity is no different. If one or another 1st Century cult leader inspired the story of Jesus, he is now unknown to us.

Yes. He's unknown to us. But there were some 20-30 or more Jesuses and Christs at that time before Paul (Saul, Simon, or whoever). So no evidence is not correct. It's just that the evidence we have isn't conclusive enough to point what parts were taken from their stories.

[mwc]

I say I would fall somewhere between 2 and 3 above, probably closer to 2. But that is what I've been saying all along. What is said at the opening is how I too am defining the 'historical Jesus' with the "mythicist postion". Because I fall on 2 or 3, that makes me the historical Jesus position, right?

You're actually in near agreement with Ehrman (after reading his book and, trying, to have this discussion here with you). You, in the past at least, tend to think that this historical Jesus was the cynic sage as opposed to the apocalyptic. But overall I think you would feel right at home with this book.

 

Anyhow, the first position is different from how you're presenting it in that you're trying to say "whole cloth from other religions," which I take to mean that it's a type of "cut and paste" from pagan religions (maybe D.M. Murdock or something along those lines?). That *is* a mythicist position but just one of many. Consider mythicists to be like early xians. There are a number and no one monolithic position at the moment (nearly as many theories as mythicists it seems). It makes us a bit difficult to deal with as a result. I'm a mythicist and don't agree with everything the others say. Historical and divine Jesus is easy by way of comparison.

 

If I'm reading Ehrman right, I think he's just annoyed by what some call Internet Junkies, over actual scholarly debate. What I hear here is that he is taken aback a bit but the so-called 'skeptics' and atheist crowd who insert him into their arguments, whereas to him these were really no-questions, or at least not meriting enough reason for serious attention. For right or for wrong, it was not coming from the academic community, but popular atheism trying to make him side with their popular opinions on the subject. That's how I hear what he's saying.

That's part of the larger issue he's going on about. It would basically be questions from people like us, at this site, reading his books and posting in these forums and sending him an email asking him this most basic question: "Dear Bart, Did Jesus really exist? It's not seriously addressed by anyone anywhere. It's just assumed. Help. Signed, Ex-C." It's absolutely reasonable to want to know the answer and he sees it as superfluous, practically common sense. Anyhow, the reason I posted it was to say that there is no scholarly debate on this issue so you're going to be waiting a very long time unless things change (and it doesn't appear they're going to any time soon).

 

mwc

[qadeshet]

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?

 

Primary Evidence is used to confirm Historical facts. With external controls, Secondary Evidence can be helpful. If the facts of a document composed a hundred years after a particular event can be confirmed by other means, like Archaeological evidence, then the Secondary Evidence can be confirmed. The excavation of Troy helped to confirm Homer's account of the Trojan War.

Primary sources are original materials.^[1] Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary, although it may be used by historians in the absence of a primary source. In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight primary are secondary.^[2] A secondary source may also be a primary source depending on how it is used.^[3] "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.

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

 

 

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?

 

Robert M Price is now Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute. Bible Scholars who want to keep their jobs at Christian institutions toe the party line. Prof Ehrman teaches at a conservative school in North Carolina. I doubt that he could safely come out as a Mythicist, even if he wanted to.

 

 

(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?

 

Bible Scholars, including former Baptist preacher Robert Price, start out with the assumption of an historical Jesus. Most of us who live in the United States begin with that assumption, myself included. A few manage to question the assumption, most do not. This was a generalization for effect.

 

 

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

 

I was simply pointing out that Prof Ehrman equates Mythicists and Creationists.

[qadeshet]

Oh... so you're saying a real person may have existed now? First steps are the hardest.....

 

I have been saying this all along. Any one of a number of 1st Century cult leaders may have inspired the Christian Myth. My favorite is the Samaritan "Jesus", The Tahib. Does that make him the Historical Jesus? Or maybe it was one of a hundred other 1st Century "Jesuses". We don't know. I do know that if he existed at all, he was not born of a Virgin, performed no Miracles, and stayed dead. It is only the Gospel "Jesus" that absolutely never existed.

[mwc]

Agree. I don't think you're understanding me.

 

But if I continue to debate you, I'll get a response from one of the other members telling me that I'm misrepresenting the official stance of mythicists around the world and I therefore must be wrong. So I can't really explain to you what I'm saying.

Hmmm. One of these days I'm going to have to just drive down and shake your damn hand then maybe we can hash this out real quick. It would probably take 5 minutes instead of 5 years.

 

Yes. Myth can be true too, or contain truth, or wrap truth in a blanket of story, or ...

 

I learned once that "myth" isn't really a term for "untrue story" but for a truth wrapped in a story, like midrash (I think it's called, you probably know that better than me).

I think I see where you're wanting to go here. I don't disagree but it can get nuanced.

 

Myth stories aren't necessarily intended to be taken literally.

I know. I wasn't saying they should be (I just didn't want my statement taken the wrong way).

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Robert M Price is now Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute. Bible Scholars who want to keep their jobs at Christian institutions toe the party line. Prof Ehrman teaches at a conservative school in North Carolina. I doubt that he could safely come out as a Mythicist, even if he wanted to.

That doesn't defend your position though. Or are you saying that a "Bible Scholar" is a definition or label of a specific profession, a person who works at only certain kinds of Universities? Or are you saying that the label "Biblical Scholar" is by definition someone who says that Jesus existed, and as soon as they don't, they stop being a Biblical Scholar somehow?

 

I'd like to know what your definition of "Biblical Scholar" is.

 

Bible Scholars, including former Baptist preacher Robert Price, start out with the assumption of an historical Jesus. Most of us who live in the United States begin with that assumption, myself included. A few manage to question the assumption, most do not. This was a generalization for effect.

Got it.

 

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

 

I was simply pointing out that Prof Ehrman equates Mythicists and Creationists.

Alright. Accepted.

[Ouroboros]

Oh... so you're saying a real person may have existed now? First steps are the hardest.....

 

I have been saying this all along. Any one of a number of 1st Century cult leaders may have inspired the Christian Myth. My favorite is the Samaritan "Jesus", The Tahib. Does that make him the Historical Jesus? Or maybe it was one of a hundred other 1st Century "Jesuses". We don't know. I do know that if he existed at all, he was not born of a Virgin, performed no Miracles, and stayed dead. It is only the Gospel "Jesus" that absolutely never existed.

Agree. The specific Gospel Jesus didn't exist.

 

But I do think we have to separate the questions of "did a person or more exist that contributed to some core parts of the story" and the issue of "who was this person if he existed."

 

On the question "was there a person or more that parts of the story could have been built upon", I think the answer is more of "probably yes" rather then "probably no." The simple reason being there were enough of them (Jesuses) to fill a village. I think one of them at least could have inspired some small parts of the stories.

 

On the question, "who was it", there's not enough evidence to tell.

[Ouroboros]

Hmmm. One of these days I'm going to have to just drive down and shake your damn hand then maybe we can hash this out real quick. It would probably take 5 minutes instead of 5 years.

You're probably right.

 

If you do, I'll serve some of my home brewed beer and strawberry gelato. Good stuff.

 

I think I see where you're wanting to go here. I don't disagree but it can get nuanced.

Yes. It can. That's why it's so friggin' hard to discuss.

 

I know. I wasn't saying they should be (I just didn't want my statement taken the wrong way).

Ah. Understand.