(September 19, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is actually a common misconception. An appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is not an appropriate authority on the subject matter, is an outlier, or is unreasonably biased. Ehrman is therefore an appropriate authority to appeal to.
This is correct.
Quote:Except when it comes to the existence of Jesus, then you simply have doubts for no good reason.He specifically said 'unless he finds reasons to doubt it'. Come on man.
Quote:I wonder how he did that when science doesn’t deal with proof.
That evolution happens is known. However, you could do with realizing that the colloquial usage of 'proof' simply means 'greatly evidenced'.
Quote:So you began with the assumption that Jesus was not who he claimed to be. Figured as much.
Why would I (or he, in this case) accept an extraordinary claim on its face? Further, why would you assume that any but an adherent would assume anything else? Do YOU start with the assumption that, say, Zeus does exist first, or not? Or to make it historical, Socrates?
Quote:Little in comparison to what?
This seems irrelevant. How about smaller than the averagw Christian would [likely] claim?
Quote:Why would you expect that? Historians did not expect that. What first century historians are you even referring to?
There tends to be recordings of some sort when something extraordinary supposedly happened. However, I don't know whether or not the local culture was necessarily of the sort that they'd record a lot of things in writing.
Quote:
In order to discredit Tacitus you’d have to prove there were other supposed Messiah’s sentenced to death by Pontius Pilot whose followers were known as Christians and who were blamed for the fire in Rome by Nero. Tacitus’ mention of Jesus is exactly what I would expect from a Roman historian.
We know of at least a dozen or so "Messiahs" before, during and after Jesus' supposed lifetime, and there were almost certainly more. Whether or not they were put to death by Pikate I myself don't know, but I don't think it can be claimed that you know that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by Pilate (and the Gospels' portrayal of him is historically inaccurate).
Quote:
And they have.
Not always. Especially if they themselves were Christians when they became scholars/historians of it. That's not to say that they're untrustworthy per se, but more that humans are easily affected by confirmation bias, especially when the belief is a deeply held one.
Quote:Why? Do you reject what Roman historians say about ancient Rome? More special pleading.
His point was obviously that ancient Rome is practically silent on Jesus.
