Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Tonus]

I'd say Mary got the shitty end of the deal.

Only if god picked the wrong hole.

[Statler Waldorf]

It's called cherry picking. You declared Ehrman to be the ultimate authority but I did not. You then backpeddle from that when Ehrman is debunking the Bible and writing about the problems of changes, pseudo-epigraphy, interpolation and heterodox Christians.

Where did I declare that Ehrman was the ultimate authority? I simply pointed out that he thinks your position is nuts. Appealing to a hostile witness can work wonders.

Your defense is Tu Quoque. But I didn't exalt Ehrman. So your tu quoque fails.

No, it was an appeal to a hostile witness, and a very good one at that. By appealing to Ehrman I have cast light upon the marginal absurdity of your position. I also do enjoy watching you flail about trying to discredit someone that your side normally worships.

Wrong. Even authorities need to have good reasons to believe what they do. Otherwise, it's the fallacy of "because I said so".

That’s not accurate at all; I made a valid appeal to authority and the historical consensus which means the onus is now on you. Ehrman has very good reasons for believing what he does; so you’re wrong again. It is you in fact who has no good reason (nor even appropriate authority to appeal to) for believing what you believe as we will see later. We are not required to waste our time proving the Earth is spherical to “flat-Earthers” over and over again; the onus is on the fringe skeptic in such situations.

On the Bible, yes. On history, peripherally.

He’s a historian.

His degree is in Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. He's more a theologian than a historian. He's an expert on textural criticism in the Bible. He doesn't swing quite the same bat in history.

His Master’s degree is in divinity but his PhD is in New Testament history, and since we’re discussing the central figure of the New Testament that makes him an appropriate authority on the matter.

No...
it's...
not.

Yes.

It…

is.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one who is making a claim.

According to whom? You’re making the claim that the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, so prove it. Secondly, you’re also claiming that Jesus was a myth, so prove that as well. You just cannot win.

Even experts need to defend their conclusions based on their research and the evidence they can bring to the table.

And they already have, where have you been?

The whole world could declare something to be true and the burden of proof would still *not* be on the skeptic.

In matters of history it would be. I love how you criticize Ehrman for allegedly claiming things as true merely “because he says so” but everything you claim in your posts apparently is true simply because you say so. You’re just not very consistently reasoned.

I don't believe in evolution because Richard Dawkins says so. If you challenged him to prove evolution, he would not just tell you to "shut up, the experts all say so". He would bury you under the mountain of evidence for evolution and against a 6,000 year old earth.

Actually Dawkins refuses to debate young Earth creationists, so that was probably not the best example to use. You’ve been buried by the evidence for Jesus though, you simply arbitrarily reject it, which makes you irrational.

A. There is no such evidence.

Where have you been? Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Paul, Luke, Jude, Matthew, and Mark. The evidence is overwhelming.

B. Why should I care if some-guy-named-Yeshua existed.

If you valued having an accurate understanding of history and being a rational thinker then you would care.

All four "horsemen" (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet) all either accept a historical Jesus or, in the case of Hitchens, passionately argued for it. Yet all these men are (or were, RIP Hitchens) atheists. I once believed in a historical Jesus and was never a Christian. You could prove the historical Jesus to me and all your work would still be ahead of you. So stop asserting I have ulterior motives. It just aint so.

You’re proving my point! Why did all four men believe in the historical Jesus? If no evidence actually existed as you assert, then why would they believe? Were they irrational men then?

You changed the subject. I was discussing his research on the Bible and all the evidence he brings to the table. That's why I accept his research on the Bible but not his bare assertions and logical fallacies about the historical Jesus.

You missed my point, he references the evidence for Jesus in his book, and it is overwhelming. You’ve been relegated to closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears while shouting that there is no such evidence.

But he didn't do that. He just wrote "stooopid mytherz" (paraphrasing to summarize).

Obviously you have not even looked at his book.

Bullcrap. They couldn't even get a basic timeline together, hence the OP.

So now you want to use Josephus when it serves your purpose? The same Josephus who mentions Jesus twice; you’re falling apart at the seams. Luke got the timeline correct; you simply do not understand Greek.

We discount Newton's assertions on alchemy because he provides no proof. We accept Newton's discoveries in physics because he did provide proof and repeatable experiments.

Nope, you said that if any of it is crap then it is all crap; I notice you do not like to play the game by the absurd rules that you set in place.

I discount Ehrman's assertions on The Historical Jesus ™ because he provides no proof. I accept his discoveries on the Bible because he did provide proof and information that can be discovered by anyone following his research.

You have not read his book, so you are not in a position to comment upon what he does and does not provide. Secondly, please stop using the word “proof” incorrectly you are going to give me an aneurism. We’re talking about history, not mathematics or deduction.

Take away the supernatural and you've gutted the whole story.

What? We’d still have a person named Jesus of Nazareth brother of James who was believed to be the Messiah and who was crucified by the Romans. Are you now saying you accept that?

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a cable station comes up with a new series called "Clark Kent". It's about a guy adopted as a baby-foundling by childless farming couple. He grows up in a small town and moves to some big city to become a reporter. Through his courageous investigation, he exposes corruption in the city government and becomes known as a super crime fighter (by exposing crime as a reporter). No cape. No costume. No super powers. No super villains. No super feats. Just a mortal but still incredible reporter.

It might be an interesting series but how much would it resemble the classic DC comic story? Would he be anything like "Superman"?

So you are now saying that you have altered your position and are accepting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? If not, then your analogy is irrelevant.

This would be a completely different story about a completely different person.

No it wouldn’t. There was a Jesus of Nazareth who had brothers named James and Jude, who was the son of Mary and Joseph, whose followers believed was the Messiah, and who was crucified by the Romans. If you want to reject everything else about him, then fine; but rejecting these historical facts is irrational. It is not a completely different person though because Christians also believe the same person existed.

This is how I feel about The Historical Jesus ™ sans the super powers. And also sans the super successful ministry that supposedly dwarfed that of John the Baptist. And also sans any knowledge of what he actually taught in his ministry.

So you are now renouncing the “the Christ Myth”? You now believe in a historical Jesus?

I've never heard a historist have anything to offer aside from "some guy named Yeshua who was some sort of end times preacher or something." If that's your criteria, there were likely several Historical Jesuses. Jesusi?

No, we know there was a Jesus of Nazareth and we know more about his life than any other Jew from that region and time period.

What parts are true? How can you prove that?

Answer my question please, if one part of the gospels is false all parts of the gospels are false?

Except we can prove Newtonian physics. We can't prove alchemy.

That is not what you asserted; you asserted that if one part of the gospels is crap then all parts of the gospels are crap (fallacy of composition).

How many times must I tell you that for you to finally get it?

You can give me irrational arguments until you are blue in the face, however I will never accept them as being valid; I am sorry.

You and Ehrman live in the same dream world. It doesn't matter what he believes. It only matters what he can prove.

You used that word incorrectly yet again. Yes, we live in the world where Jesus existed, the Holocaust happened, the Earth is a sphere, and we walked on the Moon; come join us.

No, he's an apologist. My point was to use a hostile witness and say "even he admits..."

He’s actually an attorney. According to you, you must now accept everything that Lee Strobel believes; hypocrite.

That's how it's done.

Nope, my hostile witness was an appropriate authority on the subject matter, yours was not (a lawyer). Again, you just cannot win.

"Your honor, we admit the evidence has been contaminated."
"Very well, we're throwing it out."
"One moment your honor, the evidence is only partially contaminated."
"Oh, I see. Do you know which parts are reliable and which are not?"
"Uh..."
"And what do you base your assertion of partial authenticity on?"
"Well, uh, you can't prove it's not."
*Toss*

This is not a courtroom, so that is a fallacious analogy. Not only this, but I did not ask how the burden of proof works, I asked how you know it has not been met.

The...
passage...
specifically...
says...
Jesus...
Bar...
Damneus.

No, it does not. You are quoting the wrong part of the passage. The reference specifically says “…the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”. Josephus does not use the name Jesus Bar Damneus until later in the passage as a means of distinguishing between the two men. I hope you were not being intentionally dishonest by asserting that he did.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees,[23] who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.[24] Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.- Book 20, Chapter 9:1

[Bold added by SW]

What's their proof?

Still not using the word correctly I see. They know they are authentic because they do not match the portions that are obvious interpolations. It is the exact same reasoning you are using to argue for interpolation. Fair is fair.

We're not debating whether Josephus' work existed prior to Eusebius (though it was quoted by others prior to Eusebius). We're debating the TF passage, in which contamination is admitted even by apologists like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell.

No, I was refuting your argument that the entire TF passage is an interpolation because it does not appear prior to Eusebius. That is not a valid argument because much of what Josephus writes first appears in the writings of Eusebius.

You need to take a logic class.

Taken them, taught them. You would not pass mine.

Showing that a passage X is consistent with something that Y might have written does not prove that Y wrote the passage.

According to whom? You?

However, showing that passage X is completely inconsistent with anything that Y would have ever written does offer evidence against the possibility that Y wrote the passage.

According to whom? You?

You seem to think that “because I say so” is a logical argument.

"My pet is an animal" does not prove that it is a dog. It could be, since all dogs are animals but there are other possibilities.

How on Earth is this analogous to “this piece of writing appears in Josephus’ writings, it is consistent with his other writings stylistically and does not conflict with any of Josephus’ beliefs therefore it was written by Josephus.” Historians agree with me, not you.

"My pet is a cat" does rule out that it is a dog.

Clear?

Yes, it is clear that you do not know how to argue by analogy.

Is there any reasons to think the original writings of Suetonius, Julius Caesar or Tacitus have been contaminated by religious zealots trying to fabricate evidence for their savior?

Religious motives are not the only motives driving one to alter something.

You see, this is where credibility comes into play. If I discover you lied to me, it makes me question other things you have asked me to believe. That doesn't prove you ever lied to me more than once but when a lie is detected, a thousand are suspected.

So the Christian interpolators were sloppy enough to enter in obvious forgeries into Josephus but then were also sophisticated enough to forge his writing style and verbiage in other parts of the very same passage? Riiiiggghhhttt.

You’re like those people who try to claim Bush was an idiot but also masterminded the greatest conspiracy of all time in the 9/11 attacks. You need to get on the same page with yourself.

There are lies written into the TF. Christians did "interpolate" a paragraph which contains, in rapid fire succession, all of the bullet points of Christian theology squeezed into one paragraph.

This is also false; we do not know whether this was an intentional attempt at deceit or merely a secondary scribe adding another scribe’s notes into Josephus’ writings on accident. There was really no motive for Christians to purposely add this to Josephus for theological reasons.

And the flow works much better when the paragraph is removed.

This is also false; Josephus’ stylistically was not very organized so to appeal to the “flow” of the text his silly because his writing never flows very well. This portion of Josephus’ writings (18:35-18:89) deals often with the events that involved Pilate playing a role, so it makes perfect sense for Josephus to mention Jesus being put to death by Pilate here.

We know this paragraph was tampered with. Therefore, the one arguing for partial authenticity assumes the burden of proof.

According to whom? You?

According to the rules on the burden of proof. The one making an assertion is the one who gets it.

Well then prove your assertion that the entire TF is a forgery. Prove your assertion that Jesus is a myth….I’ll wait patiently for you to do so.

When evidence is contaminated, it is thrown out unless you can show the limits of the contamination or why you think the contamination was limited.

This is not a rule of logic; you love to dress your personal opinion up as logical rules don’t you?

You never answered my question, do you or do you not believe that Hannibal traversed the Alps in 218 B.C.?

---

DP and I hanging out....

*High Five*

"Still hate you"

"Still hate you"