Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Most critical scholars not only believe Jesus existed, but they also believe the following are true of Jesus.

"Most'? Arguable,but let's not quibble. What any expert believes about anything is irrelevant in and of itself.The only thing which matters is what he/she can prove. So, far,NONE of the claims you made have been proved.

About Bart Ehrman: You are the first Christian apologist I have come across who refers to Bart Ehrman as 'credible' . Perhaps have a read of one of his books,then see how you feel. I recommend "Misquoting Jesus"



0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is a book by Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[1] The book introduces lay readers to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Ehrman discusses a number of textual variants that resulted from intentional or accidental manuscript changes during the scriptorium era. The book, which made it to the New York Times Best Seller list, is available in hardcover and paperback.[2]

Summary

Ehrman recounts his personal experience with the study of the Bible and textual criticism. He summarizes the history of textual criticism, from the works of Desiderius Erasmus to the present. The book describes an early Christian environment in which the books that would later compose the New Testament were copied by hand, mostly by Christian amateurs. Ehrman concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to deemphasize the role of women in the early church, to unify and harmonize the different portrayals of Jesus in the four gospels, and to oppose certain heresies (such as Adoptionism). Ehrman contends that certain widely held Christian beliefs, such about the divinity of Jesus, are associated not with the original words of scripture but with these later alterations.

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

[Minimalist]

Let me put this in context for you, Pad. Ehrman recently wrote a book about the "historicity" of jesus. Discounting everything else he has done to demolish their claims, lots of xtian fuckheads are willing to forgive him for his earlier assaults on their holy books because he has used the word "historical" in connection with "jesus" without bothering to learn what he means by the terms.

As in everything else about theists, all they are concerned with is the outward appearance.

[DeistPaladin]

Demanding negative proof fallacy: Attempting to avoid the burden of proof for some claim by demanding proof of the contrary from whoever questions that claim.

Wow.

OK, I know Christian apologists are often known to make accusations of logical fallacies inappropriately but I've never seen one that twists the definition inside out.

Fine, I'll go slow:

"X event happened" = positive claim
"Prove it" = call for evidence for said positive claim

You see, you made a dozen positive claims. That places the burden of proof in your backyard. This shouldn't be a problem since you claimed these beliefs were all based on data. So, produce the data, then.

When I respond with "prove it", that's not a call for negative proof but for proof for your positive claims.

Did I go too fast for you?

[Jackalope]

These elements in particular are not proof. They are part of the claim.
Try again.

This appears to be a straw man or Aunt Sally fallacy. Maybe you didn't see the disclaimer at the end of my post. I can see how it could easily be missed.

I did not mean "proof" in the context of "logical proof" but rather as a synonym for "evidence". As you yourself said...

This isn't a proof, just powerful inductive evidence.

The meaning of my response was intended to address the claim that it is "powerful inductive evidence".

Um, no. No, it isn't.

---

Demanding negative proof fallacy: Attempting to avoid the burden of proof for some claim by demanding proof of the contrary from whoever questions that claim.

That's funny. He wasn't demanding proof of contrary claims, but rather asking for proof of YOUR positive assertions.

You're new at this, aren't you?

[Minimalist]

Did I go too fast for you?

Probably. These people tend to be on the slow side of the ledger.

[Atom]

Let me put this in context for you, Pad. Ehrman recently wrote a book about the "historicity" of jesus. Discounting everything else he has done to demolish their claims, lots of xtian fuckheads are willing to forgive him for his earlier assaults on their holy books because he has used the word "historical" in connection with "jesus" without bothering to learn what he means by the terms.

As in everything else about theists, all they are concerned with is the outward appearance.

The above is the fallacy of ad homenum.

If you listened to the recording you should know Ehrman is very unambiguous and definitely irritated about being quoted as having said that Jesus didn't exist.

I'm well acquainted with Bart Ehrman's positions on matters concerning the reliability of the Bible. Claiming that supporting one of his positions means supporting his other opinions is the fallacy of false generalization.

[Cyberman]

No it's not. An ad hominem is the fallacy of attacking the person instead of addressing the argument. If someone were to say in response to any argument you might make that you are a stupid or dishonest idiot and therefore your arguments aren't even worth bothering with, ignoring those arguments at the expence of attacking your character, that would be an ad hominen fallacy. Min was simply putting Ehrman's reutation into a more digestible context: he attacked neither the man nor his arguments.

Granted, he did the character of theists desperate enough to defend their stories at all costs and against all reason, but such is the nature of apologetic theism anyway. So no ad homs there either, since no specific theistic arguments entered the discussion.

[Atom]

"As in everything else about theists, all they are concerned with is the outward appearance."
^An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Wikipedia line 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Cyberman]

Yet as I pointed out there was no claim being made. Min was simply expressing an opinion as to the nature and behaviour of theists. That is not an ad hominem. If you can find a theistic argument, that is an argument made by theists in general or any one theist in particular, in the quote of Min's you just gave, please point it out. I'll give you a reputation point if you can show even one such.

However, in return, if you can't comply with my request, you should retract your accusation of ad hominem. Fair?

[Strongbad]

This guy throws around "fallacies" like beads at Mardi Gras. The only thing is, he hasn't seen a single tit yet.