Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Statler Waldorf]

As I said on another thread, sorry I've been away for so long. Real life has been demanding of my attention of late.

Fake life has missed you.

The reason it doesn't work for you is I'm not the one who has declared Ehrman to be the arbiter of all that is right and true by his very say-so. You are the one who has taken this position, even if doing so tongue-in-cheek, and so have opened yourself up to the charge of cherry picking.

Nonsense, it’s called appealing to a hostile witness. It’s one of the most effective debating tactics, you should try it sometime.

and the reason it doesn't work for you is I don't believe what Ehrman says simply by his say-so. Arguments carry weight according to the reason and evidence behind it, not by the reputation of the person presenting them.

This is also incorrect, when dealing in matters of this nature it is completely valid to appeal to appropriate authorities on the matter. Ehrman is such an authority; the onus is now on the skeptic to demonstrate why the scholarly consensus is in fact in error. You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done to date is arbitrarily reject the historical sources for Jesus’ existence upon unreasonable and self-serving grounds. That dog won’t hunt.

When Ehrman discusses pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation in the Bible, he references his research into the oldest known copies and scraps of copies that we have. He's presenting research, not just presenting an opinion.

It is not merely Ehrman’s opinion that Jesus existed; he references all of the sources we have discussed to date and explains why it is irrational for skeptics to reject the use of such sources- thus demonstrating that the existence of Jesus is a historical certainty.

When Ehrman rejects mythicism, such as the HuffPo article you touted, he has little more to offer than ad hominems and other logical fallacies. Anyone can write "herp derp stoooopid mytherzzz."

Pointing out the self-serving, logically inconsistent, and downright fraudulent nature of the mythicists’ position is not an ad hominem argument.

To use another example, Sir Issac [sic] Newton discovered laws of physics and believed in alchemy. We accept the first because there is evidence and repeatable tests that can verify his discoveries. We reject and ignore the second because it's crazy. It's not a contradiction that someone can be respected in one field or for one argument and be ignored in another.

You just demonstrated the logical inconsistency of your position; so much so that I was even going to use this very example earlier. You arbitrarily discount the use of gospel writers, Jude, and Paul as sources for Jesus because the gospels contain supernatural accounts even though they also contain a rich and amazingly accurate account of 1st Century history. This is no different than discounting Newton’s scientific work because he also wrote about alchemy. This is precisely why Ehrman has no issues with using Paul as a source for the existence of Jesus; he realizes that a person does not have to accept the supernatural aspects of the New Testament if they accept its general historicity.

To quote you, “If the story is bullshit, there's nothing left.” So if one part of the gospels is false then everything in the gospels is false? Well then, since alchemy is false I guess you now also reject Newtonian physics?

By the way, you know who taught me to be skeptical of the Bible's claims about Jesus and why I came to doubt the story? Bart Ehrman. His own research into the changing nature of scriptures taught me to be skeptical about them. And once you call the scriptural accounts into question, there's nothing left but some-guy-named-Yeshua. Why he can't let go with the other hand I can't say, since I don't know him personally enough to evaluate his motives. I can only tell you I listen to the evidence he brings to the table and ignore his angry bluster against the stooopid mytherz.

The same Bart Ehrman who thinks people like you are nuts? That’s funny.

Christian apologists. Even Lee Strobel acknowledges in "The Case for Christ" that the TF is a highly disputed passage.

Is Lee Strobel a historian? Now I can pull a play from your playbook and begin whining about how you do not accept the rest of Strobel’s arguments even though you accept his position on this particular matter? You really are inconsistent.

At this point, the burden of proof is on the one who would argue for "partial authenticity".

According to whom?

I've read the passage itself.

It says "Jesus Bar Damneus".

Jesus was a common name.

That’s not a valid objection. Titus was a common name as well but when historical sources tie it to the title Caesar we know who they are referring to. Likewise when historical sources tie the name Jesus to the title Christ and mention is martyred brother James we know it is Jesus of Nazareth they are referring to.

We have no idea what parts were contaminated or how much.

This is false. There are portions of the passage that nearly all scholars agree are genuine [Feldman's statistics].

We have no evidence that the passage existed prior to Eseubius' [sic] "discovery".

We have no evidence that a lot of what Josephus wrote existed prior to Eusebius so that is also an unreasonable standard and proves nothing concerning the authenticity of the passage itself.

There is nothing apologists

Bart Ehrman is a Christian apologist now? I am sure that is news to him.

…can offer except "it uses words Josephus would have used". *toss*

This is fallacious. The only evidence you have that interpolation took place is, “Well that is not something Josephus would have said.” So if that is valid, then it is also valid to argue for authenticity based upon, “Yes, this is consistent with what else Josephus says.” The Jesus Myth crowd is forced to play the game by two different sets of rules like this because their position is so logically indefensible.

You've missed Min's point. The "partially authentic" TF, the part that "Josephus likely would have written", is all hypothetical, purely borne in the imaginations of those who argue for limited contamination. It's every bit as hypothetical as the "Q" document. We have no earlier copy. We have no earlier quotation of said earlier copy. We just have the bare assertions about an imagined document.

The original writings of Suetonius, Julius Caesar, and Tacitus exist only in the imaginations of scholars today as well, so your point is irrelevant. In fact, we have much earlier attestation for the writings of Josephus than we do for any of the above figures; yet I do not see you questioning what Suetonius really wrote, or what Tacitus really wrote [except conveniently when Tacitus mentions Jesus and only when Tacitus mentions Jesus). Again, the Jesus Myth crowd must play the game by two sets of rules because their position is so embarrassingly weak.

This does not meet the burden of proof.

According to whom?

Fuck off you moron. Origen, although he did a shitty job "refuting" Celsus is still far above you on the totem pole. If you had read this stuff you could understand it...maybe. But given your propensity for parroting silly bible horseshit I doubt it.

Personally attack me all you want, it does not change the fact that you’re utterly irrational and have been taken to the woodshed by yours truly time and time again in this thread. I am beginning to think that you actually enjoy taking the beating. I’ll happily oblige anytime you want.