Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist"

[Cerebrum123]

@Cerebrum -

You know how you run into atheists all the time citing verses from the Bible and saying, "see the Bible condones slavery," and what not; and then Christians come back and say, "you're not a Christian, and you shouldn't really be interpreting scripture you don't understand in context?"

Well, Christians do that with the Qur'an, too. It's not understood as a license to lie.

Actually, since the Quran doesn't have much in the way of context(other than knowing a little about ancient cultures) there isn't really a way to read it in context without a "tafsir"(or commentary), and this means that Imam's can often take what they don't like and spin it in any way they want(the Quran's wording is very ambiguous, and very convoluted). The Quran has no chronological order, and is arranged by chapter length(this makes figuring out the doctrine of abrogation a real nightmare, but luckily we do have some of the early commentaries that tell us a little about the chronology of events) Now, I have been looking at many of the Islamic sources (even a little of the early "tafsir"). Now if you want me to provide evidence of some of the people who have made a tafsir, and have had this exact interpretation, then I will get examples for you. Sadly with many Muslims (I have encountered both Muslims and ex-Muslims online) they do consider many verses in the Quran to be a license to lie in certain circumstances. These circumstances are as follows (Shia and Sunni slightly differ on this list) 1 To save one's own life, or the lives of a loved one(possibly even a friend)2 To make peace or have reconciliation. 3 To persuade a woman, and 4 While on a journey or expedition.(I have references and will use them if you want, but it will take up a lot of space and time, and this isn't the place for a discussion on Islam). Mohammed also himself permitted lying when he wanted someone to be assassinated. Also the ahadith, are independent sayings of Mohammed, or his early followers, and don't have very much context in and of themselves, and you must check them against the Quran. Also one of Allah's special names translates to "The Greatest of Deceivers".
If you would like to go into this further, then I suggest you make a thread in the section devoted to Islam.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

@Phoenix -



The problem is, we don't have any evidence along the lines of a college diploma. If we did, it would be settled. The corroborating bits of information are scant, and out of those, the best ones we do have are somewhat ambiguous and possibly corrupted; tangential mentions, the authenticity and historical significance of which are questioned even by respected Christian scholars. If the church hadn't made a habit of altering documents, and creating forgeries, there wouldn't be this degree of suspicion about anything they had their hands in.

Actually, the church routinely condemned forgery and when forgers were found in their midst, they were dealt with. What you would need to establish is that Paul didn't know what he was talking about when he spoke of Christ, and it could also help to show that the gospels are forged and not by eyewitnesses. Just asserting it will not cut it.

I don't deny that a truly fervent anti-Christian would stop at no level of proof; i.e. even if you had a Roman document that recorded the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth for the crime of sedition, that person would still find a way to dispute it, in the fashion of "birthers" or Holocaust-deniers. Nor do I dispute that a lot of the amateur "scholarship" has been terrible, making anyone who enters the fray look like a loon by association.

Case in point, Carrier whose ego knows no bounds so much so that even John Loftus is saying "Back off." Carrier is the guy who said in debate with Mike Licona that if God wanted to get the message out, why didn't he tell me?

Hmmm. I wonder why Carrier didn't do the Bayes Theorem thing he'd been planning to do in that debate. Something stopped him....

But is it undeniable (to anyone reasonably sane and educated)? I personally wouldn't feel confident in saying so.

Well we can't judge that by a hypothetical. We have to see the actual evidence.

By truly fringe anti-Semites, not by people with PhD's in Ancient History or New Testament Theology from respected institutions of learning. I think we need to resist the tendency to lump anyone we disagree with into the same bin.

Why would a NT scholar or a scholar on ancient history be an authority on the Holocaust? If you want to play this card, then I'd just say the existence of Jesus is only denied by people who are staunchly opposed to Christianity. Bias is a pain again.

Given the "rationalist" nature of most of their catalog, it's not surprising you'd hold that opinion. I say, let everyone have their outlets, and let the war of ideas commence, the more the merrier.

No. It's not for rationalist. There are better publishers to publish atheistic books. Prometheus has gone with X-rated material before. They'll publish anything if it's opposed to theism.

People of nearly every religion have suffered persecution, from shunning and ridicule to torture and death, for the "truth" of their beliefs. Yet, they obviously can't all be true. Would you ever argue that Mohammed must really be final prophet, because the first Muslims were willing to suffer persecution, torture, and death for their convictions, and they wouldn't do that for a liar? I doubt you would, but it's the same argument.

Cerebrum is right about this. Within Muhammad's lifetime, being a Muslim was the way to wealth, war honor, and women. There were more perks as well as the fact that it was spreading by the sword. Christianity did not spread by the sword, was consistently persecuted, and yet somehow came to dominate the Roman Empire.

[Cerebrum123]

Indy, before you play the "out of context" card, you need to know a bit more about the context yourself. I may not have had a "formal education" (nothing past High School level work), but I have been studying Islam and it's teachings for years now, and from some of the original Islamic sources. Nick here is right, there were a huge amount of earthly gains for the early Muslims, and what they didn't get in this lifetime(mostly alcohol), they were promised in the next, especially if they died while fighting for Allah. Even for Mohammed it eventually became all about spreading Islam by the sword.

[Indy]

@Phoenix -

Actually, the church routinely condemned forgery and when forgers were found in their midst, they were dealt with. What you would need to establish is that Paul didn't know what he was talking about when he spoke of Christ, and it could also help to show that the gospels are forged and not by eyewitnesses. Just asserting it will not cut it.

Then it's awfully odd that even Christian scholars often talk about "Christian interpolations." Selective history?

As for Paul, he was a convert, not a first-hand witness, so I don't see the relevance. I wouldn't dispute that he believed every word of what he was writing. All that shows that he came to believe what the earliest Christians already believed, for whatever reasons they believed it.

Case in point, Carrier whose ego knows no bounds so much so that even John Loftus is saying "Back off." Carrier is the guy who said in debate with Mike Licona that if God wanted to get the message out, why didn't he tell me? Hmmm. I wonder why Carrier didn't do the Bayes Theorem thing he'd been planning to do in that debate. Something stopped him....

There's no way someone could discuss Bayesian Inference in the confines of a debate format, let's be serious. You seem very interested in ad hominem as legitimate argument.

Why would a NT scholar or a scholar on ancient history be an authority on the Holocaust? If you want to play this card, then I'd just say the existence of Jesus is only denied by people who are staunchly opposed to Christianity. Bias is a pain again.

Point is, you're deliberately evading the arguments of qualified people by mischaracterizing them as flat-Earthers, Holocaust-deniers. It's not only intellectually lazy, it's genuinely offensive.

"Anyone who questions Evolution is just a flat-Earther, don't pay any attention to them." See how that works? I now get a free pass to ignore any arguments against Evolution, even by properly educated and qualified people.

They'll publish anything if it's opposed to theism.

And yet you support self-publishing of Christian apologetics. Your position seems inconsistent, to say the least. Do you somehow find the publishing of works opposed to theism threatening? Are atheists and theists not entitled to judge for themselves what's worthy of publication?

Cerebrum is right about this. Within Muhammad's lifetime, being a Muslim was the way to wealth, war honor, and women. There were more perks as well as the fact that it was spreading by the sword. Christianity did not spread by the sword, was consistently persecuted, and yet somehow came to dominate the Roman Empire.

Within Mohammed's lifetime? Well, yes, by the time Islam was established and "spread by the sword", then there absolutely were perks to being a Muslim. Eventually, there were also lots of perks to being a Christian. We're talking about the first Christians and the first Muslims, here. At least a couple were tortured and killed. I'll cede that Mohammed had a very connected family, which helped matters. The slaves, however, didn't have it quite so well off. Apparently their masters would put big ol' rocks on their chests and force them to recant.

Atheists have been tortured and killed for their beliefs. This must mean atheism is true. Correct?

It's a silly argument; if someone is willing to risk imprisonment, torture or death for their beliefs, all that demonstrates is that they really, really think that they're right. It tells you nothing about the objective truth of what they believe.

-----------------------------------

@Cerebrum, I thought you wanted to be done, and I agree we shouldn't dwell, but I still respectfully dispute your understanding. I have no vested interest in Islam or in Christianity, obviously. But I do know that, just like with Christianity, studying Islam from an "outside" point of view is simply not the same. It's like saying you or I would read the Bible the same way.

Have you seen Inglourious Basterds? The part where Shosanna, a Jew, poses as a German propaganda fimmaker so she can lure Hitler and his henchmen into a theater and kill them? That's Taqiyya, and anyone who saw the movie cheered for her. Every culture on Earth accepts that there are some noble purposes for deceit. That doesn't mean we can lie at the drop of a hat.

That's the danger in reading a text without immersion. I can read the OT and conclude God condones genocide, and we can read the Qur'an and conclude Mohammed condones deceit. Yet, that doesn't really tell the whole story in either case.

If you have studied Islam at length, I'm sure you're aware that the "Great Deciever" translation is the most unflattering one (other options might be "plotter" or "schemer"), and that the real meaning is more along the lines of "don't try to outwit God, he will outwit you."

There's a danger in analyzing one's own beliefs in the most flattering light, and other people's in the most unflattering. My last comment on Islam as I agree it's off-topic.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

@Phoenix -



Then it's awfully odd that even Christian scholars often talk about "Christian interpolations." Selective history?

This assumes the church as a whole was doing something intentionally. Of course some Christians did this. WHy else did I say the church punished them when they caught them? Consistently however, the church deplored forgery and when forming the canon was more likely to opt for exclusion than inclusion.

As for Paul, he was a convert, not a first-hand witness, so I don't see the relevance. I wouldn't dispute that he believed every word of what he was writing. All that shows that he came to believe what the earliest Christians already believed, for whatever reasons they believed it.

No. Paul claims in his universally accepted to be authentic epistles that he himself was an eyewitness as the risen Christ appeared to him as well. How do you account for it?

There's no way someone could discuss Bayesian Inference in the confines of a debate format, let's be serious. You seem very interested in ad hominem as legitimate argument.

Then you're uninformed. Carrier had informed Licona that he was going to use Bayes Theorem. Why did he suddenly change?

Point is, you're deliberately evading the arguments of qualified people by mischaracterizing them as flat-Earthers, Holocaust-deniers. It's not only intellectually lazy, it's genuinely offensive.

No. It's entirely accurate. Historians do not take such an argument seriously. If you disagree, go find the historians who do, and I mean historians trained in the relevant time period.

"Anyone who questions Evolution is just a flat-Earther, don't pay any attention to them." See how that works? I now get a free pass to ignore any arguments against Evolution, even by properly educated and qualified people.

P.Z. and Dawkins have already done that. The difference is that there are more qualified people in the relevant fields who disagree with evolution than there are people in the relevant fields who disagree on the historicity of Jesus. There are still questions for evolution to answer. For the case of Jesus, we already have all the relevant data we need.

And yet you support self-publishing of Christian apologetics. Your position seems inconsistent, to say the least. Do you somehow find the publishing of works opposed to theism threatening? Are atheists and theists not entitled to judge for themselves what's worthy of publication?

No. In fact, I have written on DW that we should thank God for the new atheists. I just say the material is just anything will go. With self-publishing, someone does take on all the responsibility. This is meanwhile a publishing house that claims to be reputable that seems to let anything fly.

In fact, I wish atheists would write more books. I hope Ehrman comes out with a slew of them attacking the Bible.

Within Mohammed's lifetime? Well, yes, by the time Islam was established and "spread by the sword", then there absolutely were perks to being a Muslim. Eventually, there were also lots of perks to being a Christian. We're talking about the first Christians and the first Muslims, here. At least a couple were tortured and killed. I'll cede that Mohammed had a very connected family, which helped matters. The slaves, however, didn't have it quite so well off. Apparently their masters would put big ol' rocks on their chests and force them to recant.

Christianity had to endure 300 years of persecution before something like that happened and yet in the midst of all that persecution, it was rising. What was the great perk then in being a Christian?

Atheists have been tortured and killed for their beliefs. This must mean atheism is true. Correct?

The argument is not that because X was persecuted, belief X is true. The argument is that Christianity was a position that would only give you persecution then. It was a shameful one to society and put you at odds with everyone, and yet it came to be the dominant view.

It's a silly argument; if someone is willing to risk imprisonment, torture or death for their beliefs, all that demonstrates is that they really, really think that they're right. It tells you nothing about the objective truth of what they believe.

Yep. Let me know when I make that argument. Alright? I haven't yet.

[Cerebrum123]

@Cerebrum, I thought you wanted to be done, and I agree we shouldn't dwell, but I still respectfully dispute your understanding. I have no vested interest in Islam or in Christianity, obviously. But I do know that, just like with Christianity, studying Islam from an "outside" point of view is simply not the same. It's like saying you or I would read the Bible the same way.

Have you seen Inglourious Basterds? The part where Shosanna, a Jew, poses as a German propaganda fimmaker so she can lure Hitler and his henchmen into a theater and kill them? That's Taqiyya, and anyone who saw the movie cheered for her. Every culture on Earth accepts that there are some noble purposes for deceit. That doesn't mean we can lie at the drop of a hat.

That's the danger in reading a text without immersion. I can read the OT and conclude God condones genocide, and we can read the Qur'an and conclude Mohammed condones deceit. Yet, that doesn't really tell the whole story in either case.

If you have studied Islam at length, I'm sure you're aware that the "Great Deciever" translation is the most unflattering one (other options might be "plotter" or "schemer"), and that the real meaning is more along the lines of "don't try to outwit God, he will outwit you."

There's a danger in analyzing one's own beliefs in the most flattering light, and other people's in the most unflattering. My last comment on Islam as I agree it's off-topic.

I would have wanted this to end more quickly, but you keep making such monumental errors that I simply feel compelled to point them out.
1, Yes, it was during Mohammed's own lifetime that it became so advantageous to be a Muslim, not his early career in Mecca, but once he moved to Medina, he became a pirate, who led something similar to a Mafia style cult.
2, I have been studying Islam, and it's own historical records, and interpretations of the text for sometime, and I have found that I was completely naive when I started doing the research. If I had not studied Islam, I might see them as you seem to now.
3, I haven't seen that movie yet, but I thought it looked interesting. Taqqiya involves far more concepts than the situation in said movie, it involves deceit in nearly every category of life(lying to help settle a dispute between two lovers being an example).
4, Yes, "Greatest Deceiver" is the most unflattering, but it is still the most correct translation. The word translated as "deceive" is makr, and is translated in this way by Muslim scholars.

Muslim expositor named ar-Razi who wrote that,

"scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166; italic emphasis ours)

When saying that it is a "multivalent" word, they are saying that it means something different then when applied to Allah. Considering that Allah even deceived his own followers to get them to do what he wanted, the word deceive is the best fit.

Since it is your last comment on Islam, it will be your last one with such errors concerning it, and I won't feel the need to respond. (I'm not trying to be hard on you, but I once thought that Islamic teachings were rather similar to most of the other major world religions out there. It wasn't until I started researching it that I started finding so much dirt that had been swept under the rug.)

[Indy]

@Phoenix -

Paul claims in his universally accepted to be authentic epistles that he himself was an eyewitness as the risen Christ appeared to him as well. How do you account for it?

He had a vision of Jesus. In the context of this topic, what does that prove? If I have a vision of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is he now real? I don't follow you.

Carrier had informed Licona that he was going to use Bayes Theorem. Why did he suddenly change?

I have no knowledge of the incident in question, but is it somehow unusual for someone to change their mind about their approach to a debate? Bayes would take hours, and would bore an audience to tears; I'd venture your latching onto an offhand comment and trying to wave it around as an example of hypocrisy or inadequacy. He certainly hasn't backed off the Bayesian approach, so it's a pretty shallow allegation.

Historians do not take such an argument seriously. If you disagree, go find the historians who do, and I mean historians trained in the relevant time period.

And yet, we were just discussing one who does. You're being selective. "No scientist takes arguments against Evolution seriously..." works like magic. Except it doesn't.

The difference is that there are more qualified people in the relevant fields who disagree with evolution...

It's a much broader field, obviously. What about the percentages? And it's still an Argument From Popularity. If it doesn't work for Evolution, it doesn't work for Historicity.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

@Phoenix -



He had a vision of Jesus. In the context of this topic, what does that prove? If I have a vision of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is he now real? I don't follow you.

And this vision also left him blind. How often does that happen? Furthermore, why would he have a vision of Jesus? He was not in a psychological state to have such an experience and it certainly would not normally lead him to think Jesus was risen unless he thought this was more than just a vision.

Referring to the FSM leads to sign that I'm dealing with a fundy.

I have no knowledge of the incident in question, but is it somehow unusual for someone to change their mind about their approach to a debate? Bayes would take hours, and would bore an audience to tears; I'd venture your latching onto an offhand comment and trying to wave it around as an example of hypocrisy or inadequacy. He certainly hasn't backed off the Bayes approach, so it's a pretty shallow allegation.

Sorry, but I know about this incident. Why did he do it? Simple. Tim McGrew started training Mike on the issues and McGrew is one of the world's leading scholars on Bayes Theorem. Carrier didn't want to get shown up again.

And yet, we were just discussing one who does. You're being selective. "No scientist takes arguments against Evolution seriously..." works like magic. Except it doesn't.

I notice Carrier is alone in his field so what else do I see? I see him having his icon of cult status on the internet and not wanting that to be shaken as well as his inability to have his Christ-myth material peer-reviewed. If he's so sure it's right, why doesn't he do that?

It's a much broader field, obviously. What about the percentages?

It'd be good to find some. Also noteworthy is the more you move away from America, the more it becomes allowable to question Darwin.

[Indy]

@Phoenix - all in good spirit, still:

And this vision also left him blind. How often does that happen? Furthermore, why would he have a vision of Jesus? He was not in a psychological state to have such an experience and it certainly would not normally lead him to think Jesus was risen unless he thought this was more than just a vision... Referring to the FSM leads to sign that I'm dealing with a fundy.

It seems we're getting into a theological debate here rather than a historical one, so I won't go too far with it. I don't find this argument compelling. People become convinced of all sorts of things, including having been probed by aliens. If we had evidence that Paul had never heard of Christianity in his whole life, yet had a vision of Jesus, I'd be more interested. We know that's not the case.

Referring to me as a "fundy" would be a sign I'm dealing with someone who really likes ad hominem over argument. :) How about we maintain the respectful exchange we've been having? I obviously needed a mutually acknowledged fictional entity to make my point. Every time I hear "fundy" on this thread, I hear a squawking parrot. You can do better than that, and I do mean that as a compliment.

Tim McGrew started training Mike on the issues and McGrew is one of the world's leading scholars on Bayes Theorem. Carrier didn't want to get shown up again.

Funny how you're arriving at this conclusion without Carrier's input on the matter.

I notice Carrier is alone in his field so what else do I see?... Christ-myth material peer-reviewed. If he's so sure it's right, why doesn't he do that?

Actually, if you've read him, he considers it important, and has admitted in the past his work has not been subjected to proper review as of yet. He has also criticized other mythicists for not following proper review procedure. As to the status of his new book, I don't have it yet, and can't confirm it, but I believe he has promised it will be properly reviewed before publication. You may not like him, but he does actually care about legitimacy.

Why did you leave out Robert Price? I find it odd that even Professor Ehrman considers them responsible scholars - he finds their views "fringe", but not their methods - yet you feel confident in throwing them in the same heap as "Acharya S." and the like.

Also noteworthy is the more you move away from America, the more it becomes allowable to question Darwin.

Well now we're getting political, but since when is anyone not allowed to question Darwin? You're aware several changes to the Darwinian model have been accepted into the TOE, correct?

Funny, it seems to me that right here in America, Darwin is challenged on a daily basis, where in, say, Europe, there's not this constant agenda. So I guess it's a matter of viewpoint. No further comment as it's political and off-topic.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

@Phoenix - all in good spirit, still:




It seems we're getting into a theological debate here rather than a historical one, so I won't go too far with it. I don't find this argument compelling. People become convinced of all sorts of things, including having been probed by aliens. If we had evidence that Paul had never heard of Christianity in his whole life, yet had a vision of Jesus, I'd be more interested. We know that's not the case.

So then what convinced him? What was it? If you can explain what happened, then feel free to do so.

Referring to me as a "fundy" would be a sign I'm dealing with someone who really likes ad hominem over argument. :) How about we maintain the respectful exchange we've been having? I obviously needed a mutually acknowledged fictional entity to make my point. Every time I hear "fundy" on this thread, I hear a squawking parrot. You can do better than that, and I do mean that as a compliment.

Zeus would work. I give people what they give me. Avoid those terms and you'll do much better. To your credit, I have also told JPH about your apology to him. We respect that.

Funny how you're arriving at this conclusion without Carrier's input on the matter.

Nah. Mike read about it on Carrier's blog. Carrier was talking about how he was going to use it.

Actually, if you've read him, he considers it important, and has admitted in the past his work has not been subjected to proper review as of yet. He has also criticized other mythicists for not following proper review procedure. As to the status of his new book, I don't have it yet, and can't confirm it, but I believe he has promised it will be properly reviewed before publication. You may not like him, but he does actually care about legitimacy.

Then get his Christ-myth stuff subject to peer-review. In fact, do you know any Christ-myth work that has been subjected to that?

Why did you leave out Robert Price? I find it odd that even Professor Ehrman considers them responsible scholars - he finds their views "fringe", but not their methods - yet you feel confident in throwing them in the same heap as "Acharya S." and the like.

I consider Price just as much of a joke. Let him subject his Christ-myth material to peer review as well.

Well now we're getting political, but since when is anyone not allowed to question Darwin? You're aware several changes to the Darwinian model have been accepted into the TOE, correct?

How many professors have lost jobs for mentioning the dread words of "Intelligent Design?" I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's a suicide action to mention it on campus.

Funny, it seems to me that right here in America, Darwin is challenged on a daily basis, where in, say, Europe, there's not this constant agenda. So I guess it's a matter of viewpoint. No further comment as it's political and off-topic.

Not in academia. The juggernaut can come out then.

[Indy]

@Phoenix -

So then what convinced him? What was it? If you can explain what happened, then feel free to do so.

Again, we're getting into personal beliefs that I don't want to insult, so understand I'm being academic. Hallucination. People have them. People become convinced they've been abducted by aliens. People become convinced they are God. No further comment as this is a matter of personal beliefs and not related to historical analysis.

Zeus would work. I give people what they give me. Avoid those terms and you'll do much better.

Advice taken - understand that atheists often see things in an purely academic way, so I would have seen no difference between Zeus and FSM to begin with; but I hadn't considered you'd think I was mocking by invoking a parody religion.

How many professors have lost jobs for mentioning the dread words of "Intelligent Design?" I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's a suicide action to mention it on campus.

Some (not me) have made the same argument about academic bias toward mythicism. (Not my argument, but food for thought:) Mythicism isn't accepted because it's not "mainstream," yet, at the same time, any proponent of it is committing "career suicide", so the mythicist position is thus guaranteed to remain "fringe", subject to second-rate publishers, and all the reasons you cite for not giving it "serious consideration." It's circular, and antithetical to academic freedom.


It seems like we're coming to something close to a logical close to our chat, which I thank you for. Would you care to have the last word? Again, regarding Deeper Waters, I'd feel more comfortable if you were to invite me to a specific, relevant discussion of interest.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

@Phoenix -



Again, we're getting into personal beliefs that I don't want to insult, so understand I'm being academic.

I've had my personal beliefs insulted several times. It doesn't really faze me. I want the challenge to them.

Hallucination. People have them.

Paul as far as we know was not in the state of mind to have hallucinations nor would they leave him blind. Furthemore, Paul was a first-rate scholar. You don't think he would have done any fact-checking? Note also he was persecuting the Jesus movement. How did it arise so quickly if there was no evidence of his existence? Surely someone would have said "No crucifixion took place!"

People become convinced they've been abducted by aliens. People become convinced they are God. No further comment as this is a matter of personal beliefs and not related to historical analysis.

Actually, it is historical analysis. Your response is to say Paul was crazy. Having a hallucination is one thing but to not even check to see if that hallucination was true? Also, why would Paul hallucinate Jesus?

Advice taken - understand that atheists often see things in an purely academic way, so I would have seen no difference between Zeus and FSM to begin with; but I hadn't considered you'd think I was mocking by invoking a parody religion.

Fair enough, but I disagree that atheists often see things in a purely academic way. My experience has shown me that atheists are very emotional thinkers.

Some (not me) have made the same argument about academic bias toward mythicism. (Not my argument, but food for thought:) Mythicism isn't accepted because it's not "mainstream," yet, at the same time, any proponent of it is committing "career suicide", so the mythicist position is thus guaranteed to remain "fringe", subject to second-rate publishers, and all the reasons you cite for not giving it "serious consideration." It's circular, and antithetical to academic freedom.

Question to ponder. Why is it that if the myth position has so much for it it can't stand up under peer-review by scholars?

It seems like we're coming to something close to a logical close to our chat, which I thank you for. Would you care to have the last word? Again, regarding Deeper Waters, I'd feel more comfortable if you were to invite me to a specific, relevant discussion of interest.

How about I start one for you?

[Indy]

@Phoenix - sure, anything you think would be a positive dialogue between yourself and (I like to think) a fairly well-spoken atheist of no special stature. Given a choice, a new topic would be nice, since we've rather exhausted this one. Or at least drill down into one more digestible subset. Cheers and a handshake.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...17#post3404517

[Raphael]

Ben Witherington has started a short series of QnA posts with Erhman on Did Jesus Exist

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/biblean...xist-part-one/