(December 3, 2018 at 1:26 pm)Cherub786 Wrote:(December 3, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The existence of an agenda on the part of the Mythicists, even if true, doesn't eliminate the problem of having an agenda among the historical Jesus scholars. This is nothing more than a tu quoque argument, which I'm sure you know is a fallacy.
Hey you're the one who brought up the agenda accusation not me. The fallacy is yours and yours alone
Bart Ehrman is a self described agnostic leaning toward atheism. What agenda could he possibly have?
Let me add that Robert Price is really the best guy to present the mythicist point of view. Don't think just because he was trashed in the debate there is someone else out there who can present a stronger argument. He's the best your side has to offer.
The last person who accused me of committing a fallacy ate dirt. Let's hope that you have better success. What fallacy are you accusing me of committing?
As to Ehrman's motives, they are plentiful. Ehrman sells books. Opposing Christianity on the historical question can hurt sales. It can also further erode his reputation among the religious, which, too, would ultimately impact sales. And I have no doubt that Ehrman has many friends and collleagues in the professional, academic, and general social world who would take a rather dim view of him embracing Mythicism. And then there's the fact that even among many who are not religiously invested, Mythicism is considered a fringe movement of ill repute. Embracing that movements conclusions would have a dampening effect even among his secular audience. And there is the simple motive of being an author. The audience for books about the historical Jesus are far larger than that for Mythicism. Additionally, Ehrman may simply believe in a historical Jesus as a consequence of his background. That background itself suggests that Ehrman is unlikely to be impartial. So, Ehrman 's situation is rife with potential conflicts of interest. But beyond that it must be remembered that Ehrman is one scholar, and an unusual one among the historical Jesus crowd, so even if your comment had any merit, it wouldn't absolve the rest of such scholars from such issues. And finally it must be noted that Ehrman is not a historian, and so he is operating outside his bailliwick, undermining his use as an authority.