Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist"

[jpholding]

JP - nice try, but we all know what distinguishes an apologist: the conclusion precedes the argument.

As an apologist against Christian apologists, your conclusion no doubt precedes the argument.

Just keep digging your hole deeper.

As a Biblical apologist, you will defend the historicity of Jesus by all means,

Um, no, you condescending little person....I won't. And as an apologist against Christian apologists, you will defend that premise by all means, as anything else would violate your conclusion, and invalidate the very nature of your industry.

Carrier has no such vested interest, is actually agnostic on Jesus's historicity

Uh yeah. Definitely has no interest in things like being published, making money, having a career, receiving adulation from fellow Skeptics, etc.

I have little doubt you're aware of every bit of that, and are blustering; but then that brings us back to my first statement - is this an intellectual debate, or a snark and back-patting forum?

It is what you make of it, and condescending snottiness like the above earns you what you might expect.

For the second time, you've misrepresented me. I've not stated whether or not I agree with Carrier

I didn't say you did or didn't. I have merely observed your tendentious defenses of his objectivity. Let's avoid the straw men, shall we?

(checks watch) Funny thing, one would think you'd have made an actual argument by now.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Phoenix - back up your statement that Carrier has been discounted in the non-apologist world. That would be odd, as his books have not yet been released. Seems like you've decided the outcome via precognition.

My whole reply to you and that's all you've got? I'm not even talking about the world of apologetics, but the world of scholarship. Ehrman already doesn't think Carrier's Christ-myth idea deserves any credibility. Neither would Crossan, Borg, and numerous others. If you think it's so accurate, then do go to the scholarly world and show the scholarly works endorsing the Christ myth and what interaction they've received in the scholarly community.

[lilpixieofterror]

So maybe I'm new here, but as long as I was the honoree of a friendly pot-shot, I might as well return the favor:

This shold be entertaining.

Have been checking this thread periodically, and have to ask: is this site just a mutual ego-stroking for apologists, a place for all to put their confirmation bias on open display? Snark at the other team, and example after example of {People Who Agree With Us} = Credible, {People Who Disagree With Us} = Dunces?

You obviously haven't been reading very carefully. That's ok though, many people do not. If you check our details of our profiles (I know that takes a lot of work), you'll find we all come from different backgrounds and have different views upon Christianity, the Bible, atheist, etc yet you do not see any of us going at it for disagreeing. Likewise, there has been quite a few pretty smart atheist that have come though this specific area of tWeb and other specific areas that do not get attacked for being atheist. Really, I do have to ask, how much have you read around here?

I expected intellectual apologetics, which I'd enjoy reading even if I disagree.

Perhaps you can show specifically where JPH is wrong at then or is not responding to the arguments and rather coming up with something that isn't truthful all you got?

Re. Richard Carrier: obviously, an apologist by definition already has his or her mind made up as to the correct conclusions, and argues the facts in support thereof, so it's not surprising that such a person is going to find fault with anything Carrier has to offer. Back in the non-apologist world, however, I don't think Carrier will be easily discounted. The Bayesian approach is merely a method of quantifying and weighting his arguments, but the arguments are what they are. Carrier has gone about the issue with great credentials and incomparable rigor; folks are going to have to come up with something a little more convincing than "Carrier is a massive fail, because I say so," or empty parodies and mockeries (e.g. McGrew).

Richard Carrier is on the extreme liberal end of scholarship and he believes things that even few atheist believe (IE few take the Jesus myth seriously and there is a reason that Carrier and other like him do not get any attention in mainstream scholarship. The Jesus myth is a dead theory that needs to find its way into the dust bin of history, it is just a convenient excuse for many theist to just reject the Bible because it is too hard to do more detailed research, so they refuse to throw it out). Have you actually been reading this thread at all or watching the video's? Richard Carrier's biasness and dumb views is the reason that even agnostics like Bart Ehrman are going after him. That should say something about how seriously I or others should take what he has to say.

[Indy]

Well, my opinion of this forum has been sealed by its owner. The irony of a self-identified apologist and intellectual, arguing by simply labeling everyone else an apologist ("I know you are, but what am I!") and falling back on ad hominems... well, color me unimpressed. I wouldn't expect to persuade the masses with the same debate strategy.

Phoenix - For the record, we were talking about the non-apologist, scholarly community from my first statement, so there's nothing to disagree about on that point. Maybe you misread. I have followed the reactions pro and con, I simply choose not to cherry-pick. e.g. We all know Ehrman and Carrier vociferously disagree, I just don't arbitrarily choose Ehrman as the authority. I could just as easily say, "Carrier doesn't think Ehrman's forgone-conclusion idea deserve any credibility, nor do blah, blah, and blah," and you'd surely find it a rather silly statement. We could make a whole list of who does and doesn't find Ehrman or Carrier's conclusions credible, including Ehrman and Carrier themselves, and it would be a lovely exercise in utter futility.

The only other comment I'll make in regards to yours - and in regards to JP - is that you've both assumed via no evidence that I'm a committed mythicist, and an apologist for said position. Incorrect. My position is that both Ehrman on one side, and committed mythicists in the vein of Doherty, etc. are unjustifiable in the certainty of their stances. I'm agnostic on the issue, and to me the percentage of certainty - Carrier's whole schtick - is unimportant. When you fill in imaginary blanks, reading in things that are not stated, you show your biases; if I criticize Ehrman's blog post, then I must be firmly in the Doherty camp. If I say Carrier is formidable and thorough, I must be a Carrier fanatic and apologist. (I give you credit for staying on point, and not going adolescent, like JP did.)

I enjoy a robust, respectful debate, and probably would so with folks such as Cerebrum123; all the same, I thank you and bid you adieu.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, my opinion of this forum has been sealed by its owner. The irony of a self-identified apologist and intellectual, arguing by simply labeling everyone else an apologist ("I know you are, but what am I!") and falling back on ad hominems... well, color me unimpressed. I wouldn't expect to persuade the masses with the same debate strategy.

JPH is not the owner of the forum. If you are that sloppy with your research that you can't even be bothered to check the forum leadership before you say something like this, that tells me all I need to know about how seriously you should be taken.

[jpholding]

Well, my opinion of this forum has been sealed by its owner.

Yup. Like LPOT said. No doubt you do the same careful research when it comes to the Christ myth.

The irony of a self-identified apologist and intellectual, arguing by simply labeling everyone else an apologist ("I know you are, but what am I!") and falling back on ad hominems... well, color me unimpressed.

Too stupid to detect parody -- noted. Even more stupid to be able to recognize fault in own self -- noted.

I wouldn't expect to persuade the masses with the same debate strategy.

But of course a far more sound strategy is to apply prejudicial labels like "apologist" or accusations of bias while not engaging one actual argument.

is that you've both assumed via no evidence that I'm a committed mythicist, and an apologist for said position.

No we haven't. We have only assumed that you are to chicken to engage actual arguments, finding it much easier to simply bawl "bias" or "apologist" or "uncertain baaawwww" than engage the issues.

I enjoy a robust, respectful debate, and probably would so with folks such as Cerebrum123; all the same, I thank you and bid you adieu.

Don't let the door whack you on the butt on the way out.

[Indy]

@JPH - you self-identify as an apologist. Tekton Education and Apologetics. I didn't give you that label, you gave it to yourself. You have got to be kidding.

Also in the "you've got to be kidding" department: the thread owner versus the site owner? Gosh, I can't imagine how someone would mistakenly come to that conclusion when Tekton is prominently linked. While we're in the petty aisle, are their any grammatical errors or typos you'd like to correct? (Such as "biasness?")

What would ever lead a new visitor to conclude this is a mutual ego-stroking, rather than a legitimate theological debate?

Y'all are nice people, I'm sure, so enjoy your site. Poof.

[Rational Gaze]

What would ever lead a new visitor to conclude this is a mutual ego-stroking, rather than a legitimate theological debate?

I don't know. I don't pretend to understand irrational people.

[lilpixieofterror]

@JPH - you self-identify as an apologist. Tekton Education and Apologetics. I didn't give you that label, you gave it to yourself. You have got to be kidding.

Did JPH's words make a loud zoom as they flew over your head? He is talking about you saying, "He's an apologist for Christianity!" as some sort of mocker to ignore the rest of what he has to say. Is careful reading something you didn't learn?

Also in the "you've got to be kidding" department: the thread owner versus the site owner? Gosh, I can't imagine how someone would mistakenly come to that conclusion when Tekton is prominently linked. While we're in the petty aisle, are their any grammatical errors or typos you'd like to correct? (Such as "biasness?")

Did you bother to read the forum rules, the link at the top on this forum where there is a brief description of what this area is, and have you ever visited a forum in your life? Perhaps not, but in short a thread is a conversation, like this one while a forum would apply to the entire web site. Here on tWeb, when somebody starts a thread, the 'thread owner' thing appears in their post bit whenever they make a post on the same thread. Likewise, tektonics.org is known as a 'sister site' which would be roughly a ministry partner site. We give him this forum here for him to post updates of his ministry and to use as his 'real time' talk area. BTW I find it funny that you attack JPH for a grammar error and/or typo while you used aisle when you should have said aside. An aisle would be something like a walkway between desk in a classroom or between shelves while an aside would be more like a BTW or 'all kidding aside'. If you're going to insult somebody for the grammatical usage, it is usually a good idea not to make a grammar mistake yourself.

What would ever lead a new visitor to conclude this is a mutual ego-stroking, rather than a legitimate theological debate?

Because you mostly likely came here to defend your hero and now you want to duck out since your 'arguments' are not as powerful as you first thought they were.

Y'all are nice people, I'm sure, so enjoy your site. Poof.

Well run away instead of facing your errors. Is that how you typically operate?

[Indy]

@Pixie, it's the definition of an apologist. It only reads that way if you've got defensive blinders on. If I described myself as an "atheist apologist," I'm pretty much stating outright that all my arguments are going to fall on the side of God Doesn't Exist. Therefore, it's pretty much a given, as I first stated, that a Christian apologist is going to argue against a mythicist. It's the definition of the trade. That doesn't automatically imply his arguments are weak, unless you make it so.

Now let's go back to my initial statement, without the defensive goggles on: "obviously, an apologist by definition already has his or her mind made up as to the correct conclusions, and argues the facts in support thereof, so it's not surprising that such a person is going to find fault with anything Carrier has to offer. Back in the non-apologist world, however, I don't think Carrier will be easily discounted." Aside from statement #2, which is my opinion alone, what part of that statement is false? It would be unprecedented if an apologist ceded a point that completely invalidates the position he represents.

We all know how forums work, I've hosted plenty of them myself. If you want to talk about ducking arguments, clinging to the idea that I didn't bother to look up the owner (have you noticed "Tektonics" is plastered all over?) as an argument... well, it ranks up right up there with "you made a typo, so obviously you have no clue." I referred back to your invented word to show you how childish it appears, which you ironically just reiterated.

So, you're all saying I should post an argument. I delved into how Carrier has the credentials and discipline to be taken seriously, where others have fallen short. Does anyone have anything to say to that other than, "no he doesn't, so there?" Seems a bit of projection going on here, with the whole "avoiding the argument" thing.

I can objectively praise someone's credentials and rigor without lionizing, as you once again have extrapolated/projected. Does everyone here make a habit of putting words in people's mouths?

If there's a real debate, rather than typical clique-mentality fodder (read the thread), I'll gladly hang around. It's why I asked if this was typical (only one person gave me a real response). Otherwise, there are tons of religion blogs of about the same caliber from which to choose. Nothing personal, just not what I'm into.

[Darth Executor]

@Pixie, it's the definition of an apologist. It only reads that way if you've got defensive blinders on. If I described myself as an "atheist apologist," I'm pretty much stating outright that all my arguments are going to fall on the side of God Doesn't Exist. Therefore, it's pretty much a given, as I first stated, that a Christian apologist is going to argue against a mythicist. It's the definition of the trade. That doesn't automatically imply his arguments are weak, unless you make it so.

Now let's go back to my initial statement, without the defensive goggles on: "obviously, an apologist by definition already has his or her mind made up as to the correct conclusions, and argues the facts in support thereof, so it's not surprising that such a person is going to find fault with anything Carrier has to offer. Back in the non-apologist world, however, I don't think Carrier will be easily discounted." Aside from statement #2, which is my opinion alone, what part of that statement is false? It would be unprecedented if an apologist ceded a point that completely invalidates the position he represents.

Translation: I poison the well then cry like a little girl when people do not treat me with the dignity and reverence I deserve.

[Indy]

And there's more of that clique-mentality in place of rational argument. Still not impressed.

[lilpixieofterror]

@Pixie, it's the definition of an apologist. It only reads that way if you've got defensive blinders on. If I described myself as an "atheist apologist," I'm pretty much stating outright that all my arguments are going to fall on the side of God Doesn't Exist. Therefore, it's pretty much a given, as I first stated, that a Christian apologist is going to argue against a mythicist. It's the definition of the trade. That doesn't automatically imply his arguments are weak, unless you make it so.

Connotation vs denotation, you really might want to read about it. Most people who are adapt at English, understand that distinction. IE imply that JPH is an 'an apologist' as some sort of way to dismiss what he has to say, out of hand. Second, few people, atheist or Christian, takes the 'Jesus was a myth' position seriously. If you don't believe me, here is a pretty good index by James Hannan about the Jesus myth and why so few take it seriously (in case you are wondering, he is a historian, so he does have the degree and training to back his stuff up with).

Now let's go back to my initial statement, without the defensive goggles on: "obviously, an apologist by definition already has his or her mind made up as to the correct conclusions, and argues the facts in support thereof, so it's not surprising that such a person is going to find fault with anything Carrier has to offer. Back in the non-apologist world, however, I don't think Carrier will be easily discounted." Aside from statement #2, which is my opinion alone, what part of that statement is false? It would be unprecedented if an apologist ceded a point that completely invalidates the position he represents.

I'm glad to see that you learned the difference between aside and aisle, very good. Second, why does it matter if JPH is an apologist or not? Why don't you try to refute his argument or is this red herring the only real trick you got because this sword is pretty easily able to cut your argument in two as well cause all I got to say is that you're an apologist for the Jesus myth position and puff, I have just cut your argument down too. Be very careful with those swords, it is very easy to end up cutting your own head off in the process of trying to take down your opponent. Finally Richard Carrier isn't taken seriously outside of his few defenders and skeptic web because the Jesus myth position is a long ago refuted position. Before you go on to attack my link for being 'bias' Robert Van Voost (among the books that is extensively quoted) is not a Christian and neither is Howard Marshall. Likewise, Bart Ehrman isn't a Christian either. That is three people right there that do not have an axe to grind for Christianity that find the Jesus myth position a joke. There's a reason there is so little coverage of it in the scholarly world and why Richard Carrier and his hand full of hold outs have to start their own journals and publish their own books to get their ideas out there. Nobody really takes it seriously.

We all know how forums work, I've hosted plenty of them myself. If you want to talk about ducking arguments, clinging to the idea that I didn't bother to look up the owner (have you noticed "Tektonics" is plastered all over?) as an argument... well, it ranks up right up there with "you made a typo, so obviously you have no clue." I referred back to your typo to show you how childish it appears, which you ironically just reiterated.

Tektonics is ONE forum of many here on tWeb and you could figure that out by browsing the web site before you said something. I know it is hard for you to believe, but it usually does a load of good to actually research and read some stuff before you say something and the fact you claim to know how forums work and have hosted them gives you even less of an excuse since I know that 'thread starter' is something used on several forums around the web (since many of them use vBulletin). I also know the same set up that appears on our screen right below the time is a common set up on other forums too. That leaves you with even less of an excuse to make a basic mistake like that.

BTW I also know that 'biasness' is not a word in the dictionary, but so what? English is an active language that has many words and phrases that are not in the dictionary. This is a forum, not an English class, but at least I know the difference between aisle and aside.

So, you're all saying I should post an argument. I delved into how Carrier has the credentials and discipline to be taken seriously, where others have fallen short. Does anyone have anything to say to that other than, "no he doesn't, so there?" Seems a bit of projection going on here, with the whole "avoiding the argument" thing.

Again, the fact Ehrman is an agnostic and is blasting Carrier should say quite a bit all by itself. I did give you a link though with a summery of the most popular and well known Jesus myth refutation books out there and some of those authors are not even Christians. I also have gone to school too and I even took many of the religion classes in my secular school and guess what, not a single mention of the Jesus myth was found in my text book nor by my teacher and everything kept referring to Jesus as a real person that really existed. Hummm... perhaps it is because the Jesus myth position is a bunch of garbage that is only kept alive on the internet by no-nothings and obviously bias 'scholars' that have an axe to grind against Jesus and Christianity?

I can objectively praise someone's credentials and rigor without lionizing, as you once again have extrapolated/projected. Does everyone here make a habit of putting words in people's mouths?

Richard Carrier obviously didn't pay much attention during his formal training, that much is obvious. Again, Ehrman is an agnostic, not a Christian and he is blasting the Jesus myth along with those that hold to it (IE Richard Carrier). Again, don't you find it funny that nobody outside of Carrier's circle take his words on the Jesus myth seriously? Don't you find it odd that they couldn't get published by real publishers and get their ideas out there otherwise so they had to 'sneak' them under the door with garbage that has been refuted by Christian, atheist, and agnostic alike? Sorry, but Carrier and his like are on the extreme fringe of scholarship, rather you like it or not. He's basically what is to history and theology, what AiG is to science.

If there's a real debate, rather than typical clique-mentality fodder (read the thread), I'll gladly hang around. It's why I asked if this was typical (only one person gave me a real response). Otherwise, there are tons of religion blogs of about the same caliber from which to choose. Nothing personal, just not what I'm into.

Closing your eyes and hoping the responses goes away doesn't make it go away my dear. If you can't even bother to check out the rest of the forum and browse around a bit before you say something, is there a reason to take the rest of what you had to say seriously?

[Rational Gaze]

clique-mentality in place of rational argument.

You would be the expert there.

[lilpixieofterror]

And there's more of that clique-mentality in place of rational argument. Still not impressed.

It is hard to impress a person that closes their eyes and says, "I can't see it!" over and over again when presented with things he can't refute.