I think you misunderstand the mythicist argument, entirely.  It doesn;t rely on an argument from silence..that;s just a supporting addendum. It relies, primarily, on the contents of the gospels themselves in the character of jesus, the surrounding cultural, political, and religious context of the earliest point at which a kernel of the stories could have been concocted, the fact that magic men aren;t real no matter who;s writing about them..and then.,..finally..the fact that there is nothing to contradict this very obvious reading of a religious myth...except, for example..that you hold silly beliefs.

That last part is where the argument from silence is so amusing...not because it would mean anything by itself, but juxtaposed against how well evidenced you imagine a mythical character to be. Even the very religious understand the mythicist argument..they seemlessly apply it to a whole range of other heroes..but when it comes to their hero we;ll hear "but what about all the evidence!?!"...there;s only one cogent response...what evidence...?

(July 12, 2018 at 12:07 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I think you misunderstand the mythicist argument, entirely.  It doesn;t rely on an argument from silence..that;s just a supporting addendum.  It relies, primarily, on the contents of the gospels themselves in the character of jesus, the surrounding cultural, political, and religious context of the earliest point at which a kernel of the stories could have been concocted, the fact that magic men aren;t real no matter who;s writing about them..and then.,..finally..the fact that there is nothing to contradict this very obvious reading of a religious myth...except, for example..that you hold silly beliefs.  

That last part is where the argument from silence is so amusing...not because it would mean anything by itself, but juxtaposed against how well evidenced you imagine a mythical character to be.  Even the very religious understand the mythicist argument..they seemlessly apply it to a whole range of other heroes..but when it comes to their hero we;ll hear "but what about all the evidence!?!"...there;s only one cogent response...what evidence...?

I don't think that once you are making a claim, you can then fall back on skepticism.  At least not without retracting the claim.  Even as supporting evidence, it isn't that strong, when you start asking (looking at) who and where you think should have wrote otherwise.

Quote:I do think that this is false, there is contemporary evidence from the writers of the new testament.

Hey, asshole.  The writers of your fucking gospels do not even claim that they witnessed this happy horseshit.  That's your first hurdle to get over.

Recently some apologetic asswipe tried to claim that he had knowledge of a first century version of "mark".  This was Dan Wallace of the (where else?) Dallas Theological Seminary during a debate with Bart Ehrman in 2012.  No one knew what the fuck he was talking about.


Since Ehrman was the victim of this fraud I'll let him give the final report on the outcome....6 years later.

https://ehrmanblog.org/what-the-new-frag...tury-mark/

Quote:Like many of you I have many questions about the bizarre way the discussion of the so-called “First-Century Gospel of Mark” unfolded.  I was intimately connected with the first announcement of the discovery, which was made precisely in order to trump me in a public debate.  As it turns out the announcement was based on false information acquired through hearsay.  But that’s the past, and Dan Wallace has apologized, so that is that.

There are still questions about how the affair unfolded, but I’m not going to go into that here.   What there is now no longer any doubt about is the manuscript fragment that is involved.  It is not from the first century but from the late second or early third.  That’s not nearly as impressive but it is still mighty impressive.   Until now we had only one manuscript of Mark that dated that early.  Now we have two.

So Ehrman is being the bigger man and accepting the apology.  But I have no doubt that 50 years from now some xtian shithead....you perhaps...will be be ranting and raving about the discovery of a "first century copy of mark."  You fucks are so predictable.

(July 12, 2018 at 1:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I do think that this is false, there is contemporary evidence from the writers of the new testament.

Hey, asshole.  The writers of your fucking gospels do not even claim that they witnessed this happy horseshit.  That's your first hurdle to get over.

Recently some apologetic asswipe tried to claim that he had knowledge of a first century version of "mark".  This was Dan Wallace of the (where else?) Dallas Theological Seminary during a debate with Bart Ehrman in 2012.  No one knew what the fuck he was talking about.


Since Ehrman was the victim of this fraud I'll let him give the final report on the outcome....6 years later.

https://ehrmanblog.org/what-the-new-frag...tury-mark/

Quote:Like many of you I have many questions about the bizarre way the discussion of the so-called “First-Century Gospel of Mark” unfolded.  I was intimately connected with the first announcement of the discovery, which was made precisely in order to trump me in a public debate.  As it turns out the announcement was based on false information acquired through hearsay.  But that’s the past, and Dan Wallace has apologized, so that is that.

There are still questions about how the affair unfolded, but I’m not going to go into that here.   What there is now no longer any doubt about is the manuscript fragment that is involved.  It is not from the first century but from the late second or early third.  That’s not nearly as impressive but it is still mighty impressive.   Until now we had only one manuscript of Mark that dated that early.  Now we have two.

So Ehrman is being the bigger man and accepting the apology.  But I have no doubt that 50 years from now some xtian shithead....you perhaps...will be be ranting and raving about the discovery of a "first century copy of mark."  You fucks are so predictable.

Should I take your choice to attack Wallace, and the silence on the argument of silence to mean that you know you have no case? 

Ehrman's  article was fair and balanced and contained  a lot of good information.  It's still an earlier piece of the Gospel of Mark, than we had before (although tiny), just not as early as Dan Wallace had been lead to believe.  And Wallace only found out later (after he had signed a contract not to speak on the matter), that the person that he had heard from had did not have possession of the papyri as he had thought.  He shouldn't have spoken on it in the debate, but your hyperbole and angry tantrum seems unwarranted.   You could learn a lot from the way Ehrman composed himself.

(July 12, 2018 at 12:45 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 12, 2018 at 12:07 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I think you misunderstand the mythicist argument, entirely.  It doesn;t rely on an argument from silence..that;s just a supporting addendum.  It relies, primarily, on the contents of the gospels themselves in the character of jesus, the surrounding cultural, political, and religious context of the earliest point at which a kernel of the stories could have been concocted, the fact that magic men aren;t real no matter who;s writing about them..and then.,..finally..the fact that there is nothing to contradict this very obvious reading of a religious myth...except, for example..that you hold silly beliefs.  

That last part is where the argument from silence is so amusing...not because it would mean anything by itself, but juxtaposed against how well evidenced you imagine a mythical character to be.  Even the very religious understand the mythicist argument..they seemlessly apply it to a whole range of other heroes..but when it comes to their hero we;ll hear "but what about all the evidence!?!"...there;s only one cogent response...what evidence...?

I don't think that once you are making a claim, you can then fall back on skepticism.  At least not without retracting the claim.  Even as supporting evidence, it isn't that strong, when you start asking (looking at) who and where you think should have wrote otherwise.

Falling back on skepticism?  Here again, that;s was at the very end of the line and for people who don;t believe in fairies..it;s hardly worth mentioning.  The only reason I have to say it..is because I;m speaking to someone who does. The primary support for the mythicist argument..again...is your precious gospel...lol.

The question regarding the NT isn;t whether or not it;s true..we know that it isn;t. The question is whether or not the fiction contained within is primarily legendary, or uniquely mythological. The contents of the NT, the composition of the NT, and the circumstances if its construction strongly point to the latter.

(July 12, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The question regarding the NT isn;t whether or not it;s true..we know that it isn;t.

How do you know that?

Ask your own friendly christian scholarship how it knows that the entire book of acts is fiction, as one example.  The determination is even easier for people who don;t have an overriding ideological commitment to magic books.

This is why, btw, that these convos go poorly. You have a compelling need to exclaim "its twoo, it;s twoo, it;s twoo" in every possible variation of the phrase....and that means that you'll never actually get around to discussing the mythicist position. That the character of christ found in the NT was constructed specifically as a vehicle for theology.

(July 12, 2018 at 3:59 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Ask your own friendly christian scholarship how it knows that the entire book of acts is fiction, as one example.  The determination is even easier for people who don;t have an overriding ideological commitment to magic books.

I asked you!

Don;t you think that;s a bit pointless?  Unless I tell you that christ died on the cross for our sins and rose three days later...you;re not going to believe that a word I have to say is accurate, lol.  Any discussion of the composition of mythological narratives is going to have -you- "falling back on skepticism".......

(July 12, 2018 at 4:05 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Don;t you think that;s a bit pointless?  Unless I tell you that christ died on the cross for our sins and rose three days later...you;re not going to believe that a word I have to say is accurate, lol.  Any discussion of the composition of mythological narratives is going to have -you- "falling back on skepticism".......

I can speak for myself thanks.   So what is your reasons and or evidence for that claim you made?