Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Oh for heaven's sake!

James, get a grip!
Ehrman’s book is incredibly rich in detail. It reflects his typical fairness, insight, and clarity. I know that many mythicists have already begun panning the book, even before reading it in at least some cases. There have been and will continue to be attempts at misrepresentation and distraction from the force of Ehrman’s points. My plea to those who hang out in circles in which mythicism is popular, and who have never investigated the issue but who might be inclined to join in that dismissal, reflects the fact that I was once a young-earth creationist. You are (as I was, back then) hearing one side of the story, one that does not represent what experts in the history of this period and the origins of this religious movement have to say. You may have been told that there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the truth – just as young-earth creationist are told about evolution. Please, I ask you, listen to what Ehrman, a renowned expert with relevant credentials and experience who is an agnostic with atheist leanings, has to say on this topic.
 There is just soooo much wrong with this.


  1. Saturated with Appeal to Authority to which is coupled false analogy that juxtaposes opponents with Young Earth cosmologists. It's the Historicists who are more like Young Earthers as they claim to extract scientific data from Holy Book narrative.

  2. Wow, where do I start? "hearing one side of the story"? WHATTT?? Yes, there are multitudes of people in this day and age who have only heard one side of the store, but it's the PRO-CHRIST side. Who in the world in this day and age could have possibly not heard the pro-Christ side, and ONLY heard the anti-Christ side? These must be people who have never watched TV and have no access to the internet. Are they Mongolian nomads perhaps?

    And yes there's also the issue of all those who "have never investigated the issue"? Well, this is a turnaround. I suppose there may be some in the mythicist camp who have never investigated the issue, but the number of pro-Christ believers who have never investigated the issue must be in the hundreds of millions.

    Methinks it is the writer who has the blinders on and can only see one side of the issue.

  3. There is so much wrong with mythicism, and I don't see why I am to be faulted for trying desperately to not leave them to wallow in their pseudoskeptical misunderstandings of what historians conclude and why.

  4. What makes Jesus different from the other god-man myths existing at that time was that Jesus didn't start out as a god-man.

    Jesus certainly ended up the same as a mythical god-man; virgin birth, ascension to heaven etc. However, this was a necessary because an ordinary man cannot save even himself, much less his followers - no matter how righteous he might have been.

    Jesus would have been under the same condemnation/curse as Adam, being the son of Adam. IOW, as a man, he would have needed a savior himself, just like everyone else in the world.

    To overcome this, he would have to be special - "the Son of God" no less. IOW, a god-man - a myth.

    Was there a real man behind the myth? That's the question. There is no solid evidence for that. One could even say there is no evidence at all for a historical Jesus.

    I think there is evidence but none that could not have been the result of forgery and/or hearsay.