(September 28, 2015 at 1:47 am)Aractus Wrote:(September 27, 2015 at 11:33 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 1) I have told you repeatedly that I am not a Jesus Mythicist.
2) These are inferences, and I hold them as true only to the degree of confidence I find the inferences warranted.
3) Don't know what I'm talking about? You can go and fuck yourself.
You are not separating what is an inference from what isn't. As Hurtado says there are "matters widely held by scholars" which are based on inferences. The existence of Jesus is not based on inference. It's based on evidence scholars view as strong.
Not sure if that's what scholars in general really say, but I have to agree with Rocket here. You can't reasonably hold to the view that Jesus existed without making some inferences from the text.
I personally hold to the view that Jesus most likely existed because parsimony suggests it. Even Ehrman makes use of inferences in order to hold to such a view. With regards to Paul referring to James as Jesus' brother, Ehrman repeatedly points out that it passes the criterion of dissimilarity. I really doubt Ehrman would reason in the way that Christian apologists themselves would typically reason ("Jesus exists because the Bible says he does").
