Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Cyberman]

I agree completely. My own position on the historicity of the character isn't exactly kept a secret - I'm a moderator over at the JesusNeverExisted forum, that ought to be a clue - but whatever your opinions on the issue, the fact that someone has to hide behind an hastily-constructed wall of names and thinks that somehow imparts legitimacy to their argument by some kind of osmosis is incredibly revealing. It's almost as though they either have no confidence that their argument could stand on its own merit, or even that they have no argument at all. I'm far too polite to say which.

[Atom]

Here is Bart Ehrman answering your question. It seems he and virtually all academic historians disagree with the presupposition that Jesus was not a real person.

...

Fallacy of appeal to majority, authority, and consensus.

I think I'm on more solid ground appealing to a near unanimity of peer reviewed academic scholars on the testimony of Bart Ehrman as a hostile witness than you are citing yourself as your own authority.

Fallacy of appeal to majority, authority, and consensus, right back at you, my friend.

[Cyberman]

Oh, I simply can not wait for Min to get his teeth into this (false as they may be)!

[The Grand Nudger]

Rather than simply repeating that appeal, why not just present the strongest evidence (in your estimation) that the "majority of peer reviewed academic scholars" has? What convinced them?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Fallacy of appeal to majority, authority, and consensus.

I think I'm on more solid ground appealing to a near unanimity of peer reviewed academic scholars on the testimony of Bart Ehrman as a hostile witness than you are citing yourself as your own authority.

I'm looking at what I wrote I can't see where I myself employed appeal to authority. I was merely giving you a little background to the debate. Care to be specific?

How do you know you're on "solid ground" if you never have listened to both (or more) sides of a debate?

Fallacy of appeal to majority, authority, and consensus, right back at you, my friend.

And now you're committing Tu quoque.

[Cyberman]

Two posts, two fallacies. That's what I call value for money.

[Atom]

Rather than simply repeating that appeal, why not just present the strongest evidence (in your estimation) that the "majority of peer reviewed academic scholars" has? What convinced them?

Normally I would agree with you. I'd rather talk data and evidence than exchange assertions. There is problem presenting more evidence at this stage in this discussion, however.

Making the case for Jesus' historical existence is an involved topic that starts with the presentation of data supported by the academic consensus. If the significance or existence of the academic consensus on all such data is denied, there is no point in presenting more such data.

Make sense?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Rather than simply repeating that appeal, why not just present the strongest evidence (in your estimation) that the "majority of peer reviewed academic scholars" has? What convinced them?

Normally I would agree with you. I'd rather talk data and evidence than exchange assertions. There is problem presenting more evidence at this stage in this discussion, however.

Making the case for Jesus' historical existence is an involved topic that starts with the presentation of data supported by the academic consensus. If the significance or existence of the academic consensus on all such data is denied, there is no point in presenting more such data.

Make sense?

The truthfulness of falsity of something is not determined by consensus. It's fallacious to say that "x" is true because 80 percent or 90 percent or 99.99 percent or even 100 percent of scholars are in agreement on "x is true."

There is also the whole issue of how consensus is known. (See my question to Carrier here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arch...ment-16922 )

I don't know what the others here would think, but I really don't care about consensus. All I'm concerned with is whether the interpretation of the evidence and the arguments are good.

[DeistPaladin]

I'd just love to know what Bart Ehrman means by "historical Jesus".

I've said before it's like arguing for a "historical Superman". Just like Superman but without all the superpowers? Then he's not Superman then.

Seriously, what's left once you've stripped out all the miracles and divinity? And what can we know about him even if we were to assume he existed? How can we ever know what he really taught, when exactly he really lived and what his ministry really was about?

The only details we have at all come to us from Christian mythology, and if we throw that out, we also throw out any sources we have to answer any of these questions.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Well, historical Jesus of course means human teacher who had a small set of followers and maybe was a "miracle" worker (where miracle worker = magician). Not the same as biblical Jesus.