Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[DeistPaladin]

Josephus TF is a forgery....

Ehrman accepts both references by Josephus as valid; so fail.

Would I be right in speculating that you shift from "if Erhman says otherwise, you're wrong" to "Ah what does Ehrman know?" once the topic changes from The Historical Jesus ™ to Ehrmans research on how the Gospels were altered over time, how pseudo-epigraphy was a serious problem for early scriptures and how many Christianities there were until Nicaea?

Again, this is not accepted by historians. You’ll believe anything won’t you?

Actually, last I checked, historians and even theologians were deeply divided over the TF and there is plenty of room in scholarship for those who believe it to be a complete forgery. Most scholars see the document as at least being contaminated by interpolations.

*More later, gotta get back to work*

[Statler Waldorf]

Would I be right in speculating that you shift from "if Erhman says otherwise, you're wrong" to "Ah what does Ehrman know?" once the topic changes from The Historical Jesus ™ to Ehrmans research on how the Gospels were altered over time, how pseudo-epigraphy was a serious problem for early scriptures and how many Christianities there were until Nicaea?

Am I right to suppose that you accept Ehrman’s work concerning the transmission of the New Testament but not concerning the historical Jesus? Two can play this game. I am using a very effective debate tactic by referencing a source that is usually rather sympathetic to my opponent’s views and pointing out that even this source strongly disagrees with my opponent’s position in this instance. You on the other hand have yet to provide even a single historian who agrees with your viewpoint, let alone one that is usually sympathetic to my views; you’re not fairing too well.

Actually, last I checked, historians and even theologians were deeply divided over the TF and there is plenty of room in scholarship for those who believe it to be a complete forgery.

Last time you checked what? Atheist blogs?

We’re not merely talking about the Testimonium Flavianum ; the reference in Book 20 is widely accepted as a valid reference to Jesus. Wikipedia is hardly a Christian-friendly source but even it refutes your claim…

“Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James",[133] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity”- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Concerning the Testimonium Flavianum…

“The Testimonium Flavianum (meaning the testimony of Flavius [Josephus]) is the name given to the passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.[138][139] Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in the passage to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.[124][139] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[127][139][140][141][142] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[143] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[142]”

So this notion that many scholars and theologians believe the Testimonium Flavianum is a “complete forgery” is totally incorrect.

Ehrman on the Josephus references…

“He [Josephus] mentions Jesus in two passages in the the Book the Antiquities, one of these passages is called the Testimonium Flavianum, the testimony of Flavius Josephus- in which he devotes about a paragraph to Jesus. In which he says some interesting things about Jesus. [quotes the passage] This passage has long been cited by Christians as evidence that Jesus must have existed because the 1st Century Jewish historian who is the best historian we have from the period actually talks about him. Historians have discussed this passage endlessly because of its significance. One thing that seems relatively certain to just about everyone is that there is no way that Josephus- the Jewish historian- actually thought Jesus was the Messiah who got raised from the dead. We actually have an autobiography of Josephus and he never became a Christian- so these Christian comments are widely thought to be an interpolation…what is thought is that the Christian who copied this passage wamped it up a bit by adding a few lines to make it clear that he is talking about Jesus the Messiah who got raised from the dead- so historians who have treated this passage have treated it gingerly. The consensus view by historians is that this passage was originally written by Josephus but a few bits were thrown in by this Christian scribe. The mythicists want to argue that the whole thing is in fact interpolation. Of course historians have looked at that possibility and considered it. What is usually thought is if you take out these Christian parts- a few words here and there- the rest of it reads very much like Josephus- it sounds like something Josephus would have said, the style is like Josephus and so this is probably something Josephus actually said. The mythicists want to say, “No it was all completely inserted to Josephus.” My view is that if Christians wanted to insert a passage about Jesus into Josephus it would be much longer and much more flowery than this passage. They would really wamp it up- devote an entire chapter to Jesus [laughs]. But that is not what you get. The other thing is you get another reference to Jesus in Book 20 of the Antiquities that mentions James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Messiah. So this is just a completely off the cuff reference to Jesus that presupposes the audience knows who he’s talking about- so again it is not the way the Christian scribes typically insert their beliefs into a passage.”- Unbelievable Radio Show 05/2013


You obviously only reject Josephus as a reference because you do not want to accept the reality of Jesus as a historical figure.

[Minimalist]

Ehrman accepts both references by Josephus as valid; so fail.

Oh, poor Waldork....reality is about to shit on his lunch again.


First, asshole. Ehrman does not accept the TF as Eusebius wrote it in all its technicolor glory. No, he "accepts" (so he says) the watered down version of it which jesus-freak scholars have cobbled together after realizing that Eusebius' version was such an obvious fraud that no one in their right mind....which lets you out....could buy it.

There is only one significant problem with the variant of TF which Ehrman asserts.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

What exists is what Eusebius wrote.

And here it will not be inappropriate for me to make use of the evidence of the Hebrew Josephus 76 as |143 well, who in the eighteenth chapter of The Archaeology of the Jews, in his record of the times of Pilate, mentions our Saviour in these words:

"And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a man. For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race. This was Christus; and when Pilate © condemned him to the Cross on the information of our rulers, his first followers did not cease to revere him. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold this, and very many other things about him. And from that time to this the tribe of the Christians has not failed."

Oh, but wait a moment..... you see, Eusebius also wrote this version!

7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words: And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.

8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.

The first quotation, from the Demonstratio Evangelica most probably pre-dates the Ecclesiastica Historia by at least 10 years and probably closer to 15. That probably explains the differences between the two as Eusebius had forgotten exactly what he had forged by that time. But, WTF. By then he had the ear of Constantine and anyone who gave him any shit about it would have found himself dead, in fine xtian fashion!

Anyway, this is what exists. The watered-down TF was concocted by ignorant protestant fuckwits for the same reason that Eusebius forged the original. It was embarrassing to have nothing in the historical record about their fucking godboy. What is particularly galling about Ehrman is that, as D-P schooled you on above, he is a man who has written extensively about forgery in xtian holy horseshit but when it suits his purpose he is quite content to overlook it and pretend that the watered-down TF exists when he knows it does not. Ehrman damages his credibility by doing so. You have no credibility so you have nothing to lose....and you never will.

As has been pointed out numerous times, Origen...a predecessor of Eusebius' at Caesarea wrote 75 years earlier and addressed the very book in question (Bk XVII of Antiquities of the Jews) and came away saying:

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ

Origen Contra Celsus I. 47

Origen lacking the TF is forced to assert that Jerusalem was destroyed because the Jews killed James the Just....which Josephus never says so had Eusebius' forgery existed at the time it would have been of great use to Origen in the argument he was trying to make. As it stands, Celsus comes out on top here. Xtians get very quiet when Origen is trotted out. Xtians should STFU more often. It would help them not make assholes of themselves.

[Statler Waldorf]

First, asshole. Ehrman does not accept the TF as Eusebius wrote it in all its technicolor glory. No, he "accepts" (so he says) the watered down version of it which jesus-freak scholars have cobbled together after realizing that Eusebius' version was such an obvious fraud that no one in their right mind....which lets you out....could buy it.

1. I never said Ehrman accepted the entire TF, I said he views it as a valid reference to Jesus (as he does the reference in Book 20), which he does.
2. Ehrman does not believe Eusebius had anything to do with the interpolations found in the TF.
3. Learn what you’re talking about.

There is only one significant problem with the variant of TF which Ehrman asserts.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

This is an absurd standard that no historian accepts; we do not have the original writings of Julius Caesar, Tacitus, or Suetonius either.

What exists is what Eusebius wrote.

How do you know Eusebius wrote it?

The first quotation, from the Demonstratio Evangelica most probably pre-dates the Ecclesiastica Historia by at least 10 years and probably closer to 15. That probably explains the differences between the two as Eusebius had forgotten exactly what he had forged by that time. But, WTF. By then he had the ear of Constantine and anyone who gave him any shit about it would have found himself dead, in fine xtian fashion!

The only problem is that nobody (besides mythicists who will believe anything they read online) believes any of this conspiracy nonsense is true. They believe pieces of the TF are interpolations but the passage was an original reference to the historical Jesus by Josephus.

Anyway, this is what exists. The watered-down TF was concocted by ignorant protestant fuckwits for the same reason that Eusebius forged the original. It was embarrassing to have nothing in the historical record about their fucking godboy. What is particularly galling about Ehrman is that, as D-P schooled you on above, he is a man who has written extensively about forgery in xtian holy horseshit but when it suits his purpose he is quite content to overlook it and pretend that the watered-down TF exists when he knows it does not. Ehrman damages his credibility by doing so. You have no credibility so you have nothing to lose....and you never will.

*Yawns* You just destroyed your entire argument by pointing out that someone like Erhman-a self-proclaimed agnostic who has no self-interest in the validity of the TF- views it as a valid reference to Jesus. Here we have a scholar who alleges that portions of the New Testament are forged and yet is not willing to argue that the entire TF is a forgery, that tells us just how ridiculous your viewpoint is. Go join the Holocaust deniers- nobody takes you and your ilk seriously.

As has been pointed out numerous times, Origen...a predecessor of Eusebius' at Caesarea wrote 75 years earlier and addressed the very book in question (Bk XVII of Antiquities of the Jews) and came away saying:

Suggesting this somehow proves that the TF was not in Josephus’ writings at the time of Origen is a fallacious argument from silence. You can base your arguments on irrationality all you want, but I’ll stick to rationality myself. It’s rather amusing that you choose to fight your battle solely concerning the TF when Josephus also mentions Jesus in Book 20. Either way, even if the TF were a complete forgery (which historians do not believe it was) we still have a 1st Century Jewish historian mentioning Jesus; I hear the death knell ringing. Jesus existed, the Holocaust happened, and yes we walked on the Moon- I am sorry.

[DeistPaladin]

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

Am I right to suppose that you accept Ehrman’s work concerning the transmission of the New Testament but not concerning the historical Jesus? Two can play this game.

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.

I am using a very effective debate tactic by referencing a source that is usually rather sympathetic to my opponent’s views and pointing out that even this source strongly disagrees with my opponent’s position in this instance.

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.

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.

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."

To use another example, Sir Issac 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.

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.

Last time you checked what? Atheist blogs?

Christian apologists. Even Lee Strobel acknowledges in "The Case for Christ" that the TF is a highly disputed passage. Other apologists are forced to acknowledge a problem of "interpolations". At this point, the burden of proof is on the one who would argue for "partial authenticity". Once a piece of evidence is acknowledged by both sides to be contaminated, the burden is on the one who would suggest there are parts we can trust.

We’re not merely talking about the Testimonium Flavianum ; the reference in Book 20 is widely accepted as a valid reference to Jesus. Wikipedia is hardly a Christian-friendly source but even it refutes your claim…

I've read the passage itself.

It says "Jesus Bar Damneus".

Jesus was a common name.

Concerning the Testimonium Flavianum…
(snip)
Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, (snip)

And that's all we need to hear. Contamination is acknowledged. We have no idea what parts were contaminated or how much. We have no evidence that the passage existed prior to Eseubius' "discovery". There is nothing apologists can offer except "it uses words Josephus would have used". *toss*

[DeistPaladin]

There is only one significant problem with the variant of TF which Ehrman asserts.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

This is an absurd standard that no historian accepts; we do not have the original writings of Julius Caesar, Tacitus, or Suetonius either.

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. This does not meet the burden of proof.

[Minimalist]

Suggesting this somehow proves that the TF was not in Josephus’ writings at the time of Origen is a fallacious argument from silence.

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.

---

You've missed Min's point.

He misses everyone's points. It is one of the big problems with him being a fucking idiot.

[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.

[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.

[T.J.]

I'd say Mary got the shitty end of the deal.