Hi Robert..I think Erhman besides fence sitting is not really sure of himself with regards to the Jesus Myth and Mythicism....I think, and this is my opinion only that his last book was nothing more than an appeasement to his christian right.

I don't understand why he would care about appeasing the Christian right. He has come out in earlier works as an atheist.

Time Bandit wrote: his last book was nothing more than an appeasement to his christian right.

I agree. People who are not familiar with church do not comprehend how shocking the argument that Jesus did not exist can be for religious people who see Jesus as their framework of meaning and comfort. I think Ehrman wanted to say that although he himself is sympathetic to modern reason, he wants to maintain dialogue with his Christian friends, and denying Jesus would see him cast into the outer darkness to wail and gnash his teeth, despised and rejected as beneath contempt.

It is not just the conventional right wing of Christianity who take such an emotional stance but also many liberal Christians. Ehrman wants to argue that anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is not just an Antichrist, as per 1 John 2:22, but is a kook and a crank and a crackpot and is incapable of reasoned thought.

What Doherty shows is that such emotional diatribes from Ehrman and his supporters are illogical and wrong. The subconscious agenda visible here is that Ehrman is preaching, using evangelical tools to divide people up as good or bad, revealing his emotional commitments. The trouble is that he puts the methods of scientific evidence and rigorous historical enquiry on the side of bad. That is not sensible or sustainable. He thought it would be easy to refute mythicism, but he was mistaken.

Time Bandit wrote:

tat tvam asi wrote:^And what truth would that be Doulos? Lay it on us.

My guess is he cannot tell you and if he does he's going to claim the bible told him so. You gonna love that circular logic.

More a matter of not responding to what I assume people already know. My interest is not in argument for the sake of argument.

If you see me using circular reasoning, then might I suggest you deal with it... with logic. As it is, you're dealing with your imagination, and not any response of mine.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Time Bandit wrote: his last book was nothing more than an appeasement to his christian right.

I agree. People who are not familiar with church do not comprehend how shocking the argument that Jesus did not exist can be for religious people who see Jesus as their framework of meaning and comfort. I think Ehrman wanted to say that although he himself is sympathetic to modern reason, he wants to maintain dialogue with his Christian friends, and denying Jesus would see him cast into the outer darkness to wail and gnash his teeth, despised and rejected as beneath contempt.

It is not just the conventional right wing of Christianity who take such an emotional stance but also many liberal Christians. Ehrman wants to argue that anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is not just an Antichrist, as per 1 John 2:22, but is a kook and a crank and a crackpot and is incapable of reasoned thought.

What Doherty shows is that such emotional diatribes from Ehrman and his supporters are illogical and wrong. The subconscious agenda visible here is that Ehrman is preaching, using evangelical tools to divide people up as good or bad, revealing his emotional commitments. The trouble is that he puts the methods of scientific evidence and rigorous historical enquiry on the side of bad. That is not sensible or sustainable. He thought it would be easy to refute mythicism, but he was mistaken.

As a Christian, whether or not I agree with Ehrman's thesis has nothing to do with friendship or 'maintaining dialogue.' It simply has to do with whether I find his evidence compelling. In that regard, I don't find Ehrman to be particularly thorough or deep in his writing. I would still agree that Jesus was historical based upon the broader evidence however.

Might I simply ask:
a) what would you consider sufficient proof (speaking for yourself personally) that Jesus existed in history?
b) do you use this same measure for other historical personages from that time period?

tbarron wrote:I don't understand why he would care about appeasing the Christian right. He has come out in earlier works as an atheist.

Then you apparently do not understand anyway.................

Doulos wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:

Time Bandit wrote: his last book was nothing more than an appeasement to his christian right.

I agree. People who are not familiar with church do not comprehend how shocking the argument that Jesus did not exist can be for religious people who see Jesus as their framework of meaning and comfort. I think Ehrman wanted to say that although he himself is sympathetic to modern reason, he wants to maintain dialogue with his Christian friends, and denying Jesus would see him cast into the outer darkness to wail and gnash his teeth, despised and rejected as beneath contempt.

It is not just the conventional right wing of Christianity who take such an emotional stance but also many liberal Christians. Ehrman wants to argue that anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is not just an Antichrist, as per 1 John 2:22, but is a kook and a crank and a crackpot and is incapable of reasoned thought.

What Doherty shows is that such emotional diatribes from Ehrman and his supporters are illogical and wrong. The subconscious agenda visible here is that Ehrman is preaching, using evangelical tools to divide people up as good or bad, revealing his emotional commitments. The trouble is that he puts the methods of scientific evidence and rigorous historical enquiry on the side of bad. That is not sensible or sustainable. He thought it would be easy to refute mythicism, but he was mistaken.

As a Christian, whether or not I agree with Ehrman's thesis has nothing to do with friendship or 'maintaining dialogue.' It simply has to do with whether I find his evidence compelling. In that regard, I don't find Ehrman to be particularly thorough or deep in his writing. I would still agree that Jesus was historical based upon the broader evidence however.

Might I simply ask:
a) what would you consider sufficient proof (speaking for yourself personally) that Jesus existed in history?
b) do you use this same measure for other historical personages from that time period?

a) what would you consider sufficient proof (speaking for yourself personally) that Jesus existed in history?

Archeological, Forensic or Documentary evidence that proves this fellow existed......there are none and that question has been ask by me on numerous other forums. No one has produced anything yet and won't either.

b) do you use this same measure for other historical personages from that time period?

Nope don't have to because your next question or statement is going to be we have less evidence for Casaer.

Doulos wrote:It simply has to do with whether I find his evidence compelling. In that regard, I don't find Ehrman to be particularly thorough or deep in his writing. I would still agree that Jesus was historical based upon the broader evidence however.

what broader evidence? THERE ISN'T ANY. except in the retarded minds of literalists who refuse to let go of their idol, good ole HJ.

there is as much evidence that jesus historically existed as there is that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. specifically NONE! because DUH! you dont expect to find literal evidence for an ALLEGORY.

jesus personally appeared to me and said "behold, i am an allegory" "literalists are pig headed" "but be not discouraged, for people once believed the earth was flat". "yea, even now there are those who have no idea how crap nickelback is, but i have raised them up for this very reason, that they may show just how bad an absence of critical thinking and discernment can be."

"let them alone, for the blind shall follow the blind into a ditch, and the dead shall bury the dead, and a little child shall lead them."

Doulos wrote:

Time Bandit wrote:

tat tvam asi wrote:^And what truth would that be Doulos? Lay it on us.

My guess is he cannot tell you and if he does he's going to claim the bible told him so. You gonna love that circular logic.

More a matter of not responding to what I assume people already know. My interest is not in argument for the sake of argument.

If you see me using circular reasoning, then might I suggest you deal with it... with logic. As it is, you're dealing with your imagination, and not any response of mine.

Imagination? It's imagination when you believe in the Tooth Fairy, it's imagination when you believe in Santa Claus. It's imagination when you sit around thinking a man is coming back after 2000 years and your still waiting.....just as the NT writers did. Explain how a man that cannot be killed even by the most brutal method known at the time just disappears off the face of the earth? If I could not be killed I would have hung around to torment my tormentors for the last 2000 years. Imagination is just what it takes to believe this stuff because in the end the only ones that are going to suffer for this belief is the believers......

More a matter of not responding to what I assume people already know.

And just what do people already know?