Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Cyberman]

This site might help:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

or any of the sites mentioned in this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14437.html

---

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

Indeed, it's almost a shame really. I feel like I'm beating up a newborn puppy.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

It's so cute when Christians try to use our lingo.

[Minimalist]

The above is the fallacy of ad homenum.

No, asshole. When I tell you to go blow fucking jesus out your ass THAT will be an ad hominem. And eventually all of you get there.

[FallentoReason]

Any explanations for why the epistles don't seem support a human Christ yet, Atom?

[Strongbad]

Any explanations for why the epistles don't seem support a human Christ yet, Atom?

Be careful - you're in danger of committing the "appeal to negative explanations" fallacy, along with the "non-supportive epistles" fallacy and the "Aunt Sally ate an ad hominem" fallacy.

[FallentoReason]

Any explanations for why the epistles don't seem support a human Christ yet, Atom?

Be careful - you're in danger of committing the "appeal to negative explanations" fallacy, along with the "non-supportive epistles" fallacy and the "Aunt Sally ate an ad hominem" fallacy.

Tough, that's just how I roll. I live on the edge!

[Cyberman]

I can't find the clip, I've been trying for the last half hour or so, but there was a caller to The Atheist Experience (hosted by Matt and I think Jeff) who kept throwing around the accusation "that's a strawman fallacy!" at just about everything the hosts said, even when they were making no arguments of any kind and certainly no strawmen. For some reason I can't put my finger on, that caller reminds me of someone; for the life of me I can't figure out who.

No, asshole. When I tell you to go blow fucking jesus out your ass THAT will be an ad hominem. And eventually all of you get there.

Even then there won't necessarily be an ad hominem attack. It all depends on whether Atom was trying to make some point or other. There's a difference between saying "you're an idiot, so your argument fails" and simply expressing an insult couched as an opinion. If he had set out arguments regarding Jesus and you just responded with "blow fucking jesus out your donkey", that's an ad hominem.

The last bit of your sentence is perfectly valid though and sadly so true.

[greneknight]

Atom said that most scholars accept the following:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

I don't think that is correct. Even Bart Ehrman says for example that the idea that Christ's body was placed in a tomb is wrong. Executed criminals would be dumped in a mass unmarked grave. Ehrman supported his argument with the fact that St Paul's epistles which predate the Holy Gospels did not mention the empty tomb even when he tried to show that Christ rose from the dead. So, it could be that this idea of the empty tomb was concocted at a much later time. Likely time would be when St Mark's Gospel was written. It's the first Gospel. But the early Christians would wonder why they never heard of the empty tomb until St Mark's Gospel was written. So, the writer of St Mark cleverly wrote that only women saw the empty tomb and they ran away and told no one for they were sore afraid. This would pave the way for early believers to accept the story of the empty tomb. They would say to themselves, "Why hasn't anyone heard of the empty tomb? Oh of course! Only the women saw the empty tomb and we know women wouldn't be believed anyway and besides, St Mark says they told nobody".

There is also no evidence that the disciples turned from being afraid to being bold. Absolutely no evidence that St James, the brother of our Lord, converted to the faith because he saw the resurrected Jesus.

This led Bart Ehrman to conclude that Jesus probably existed but he was an apocalyptic zealot who wanted to chase away the Romans. He thought he would return from the dead in the 1st century AD to free Israel from Roman rule but of course, as history tells us that didn't happen.

[Minimalist]

Even then there won't necessarily be an ad hominem attack.

It's a question of "intent," Stim. When I decide to tell them off the intent will be clear.

---

This led Bart Ehrman to conclude that Jesus probably existed but he was an apocalyptic zealot who wanted to chase away the Romans.

And that is what Ehrman has absolutely no fucking evidence for. But he apparently can't see it.

[DeistPaladin]

The above is the fallacy of ad homenum.

No, asshole. When I tell you to go blow fucking jesus out your ass THAT will be an ad hominem. And eventually all of you get there.

And even that would only be an ad hominem if it were presented as a substitute for an argument. If you're just telling someone to "fuck off" and have no interest in any further discussion, that's OK.

---

EDIT TO ADD: Sorry Stimbo, I didn't see you'd already made that point.