RE: Why Bart Ehrman Pisses Me Off..... sometimes
February 2, 2018 at 5:20 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2018 at 5:27 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(February 2, 2018 at 5:15 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(February 2, 2018 at 5:10 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Straw man about the math.What larger position? My position is simple. Theres nothing in the story, and no valid means of implication..that would establish that any part of it were true..not the miracles, not the relatively mundane shit. Nada. There s..however, a massive and compelling set of arguments and evidence to the contrary.
Why would you stake your larger position on asserting something to have not happened that is plausible, and who actual occurrence can not be verified one way or another because evidence that can conceivably gathered would be inconclusive one way or another?
"Inconclusive" is just where people retreat to. I;m not having any trouble at all reaching a conclusion.
The very salient attribute of mundane is acceptance of their plausibility do not demand special evidence, unlike extraordinary occurances whose very plausibility demand extraordinary evidence, isn’t it? Not having special evidence does not lend weight to a particular instance of the mundane either having occurred or not, doesn’t it?
The larger position is there was no god or any jesus specially related to some god, and no salvation to be gained though jesus, and no wisdom that really originated with jesus, and nothing extraordinarily respectable in the greater context of history in any plausible jesus.
Whether a real man bearing some of the more mundane attributes ascribed to jesus actually lived and was somehow related to the origin of the jesus cult is immaterial, and staking out a position one way is as baseless as another, and either position is totally inconsequential to the larger position stated above.
