Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[DeistPaladin]

Fake life has missed you.

Why thank you.

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

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.

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

This is also incorrect, when dealing in matters of this nature it is completely valid to appeal to appropriate authorities on the matter.

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

Ehrman is such an authority;

On the Bible, yes. On history, peripherally.

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.

the onus is now on the skeptic to demonstrate why the scholarly consensus is in fact in error.

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

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one who is making a claim. Even experts need to defend their conclusions based on their research and the evidence they can bring to the table. The whole world could declare something to be true and the burden of proof would still *not* be on the skeptic.

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.

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.

A. There is no such evidence.
B. Why should I care if some-guy-named-Yeshua existed. 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

This is no different than discounting Newton’s scientific work because he also wrote about alchemy.

Wrong again.

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.

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.

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.

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

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"?

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

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.

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?

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?

What parts are true? How can you prove that?

Well then, since alchemy is false I guess you now also reject Newtonian physics?

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

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

The same Bart Ehrman who thinks people like you are nuts?

You and Ehrman live in the same dream world. It doesn't matter what he believes. It only matters what he can prove.
-Paraphrased from a great line from A Few Good Men.

Fast forward in this video to 4:50

Is Lee Strobel a historian?

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

That's how it's done.

According to whom?

This is how the burden of proof works.

"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*

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.

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

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

What's their proof?

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.

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.

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.”

Wrong again.

You need to take a logic class.

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

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.

To use similar logic:
"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.

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

Clear?

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).

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?

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.

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. And the flow works much better when the paragraph is removed. We know this paragraph was tampered with. Therefore, the one arguing for partial authenticity assumes the burden of proof.

According to whom?

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

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.