Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-01-2011, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

...So even totally fabricated material is used by historians to establish facts about Jesus....

What did you just write?

How can FABRICATED material establish facts about Jesus?

Fabricated material ESTABLISH Fiction or Fabricated "Facts" (LIES).

Steven is simply pointing out what historians do. He's not endorsing it.

Discrepancies only increase our certainty about what happened.

True Historians know that , for example,Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, because one of our sources, John's Gospel, does not mention it.

What more evidence do you need of a baptism happening other than a source not mentioning it?

The author was obviously too embarrassed to mention it,and he could not have been embarrassed by something that had never happened. Therefore, it happened.

Hi Steven,

That's an embarrassingly awesome display of apologetic logic.
I think this should be in a text book somewhere.
Thanks.

Best wishes,

Pete

Roller · 03-01-2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roller

"None of it, because the discrepancies destroy all credibility, according to Bart Ehrman, Scripture scholar, evangelical pastor-turned-agnostic and faculty star who teaches at the University of North Carolina."

Um... I've read practically all of Ehrman's books and I didn't get the impression that "discrepancies destroy all credibility" from him.

The birth stories have lots and lots of discrepancies, yet historians use them to establish a rough birth date for Jesus.

So even totally fabricated material is used by historians to establish facts about Jesus.

So what can Ehrman be complaining about?

Ehrman believes in historical Jesus, no? So apparently all credibility is not destroyed for him. I'm not saying Ehrman is right or wrong on this issue.

Erm... I see now that I said "from him" instead of "for him". Maybe that's where the confusion arises.

Roller · 03-01-2011, 01:52 PM

So... Who won? :Cheeky:

Steven Carr · 03-01-2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Steven,

That's an embarrassingly awesome display of apologetic logic.
I think this should be in a text book somewhere.

I thought it was.

On page 169 of ‘A Marginal Jew’ JP Meier writes about the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist that ‘the event simply never occurs in John’s Gospel’

Meier regards the baptism as historically certain, and gives the silence in John’s Gospel as part of the evidence for this certainty.

It is 'quite plainly' something which happened, as it was an event that 'was finally erased' from John's Gospel.

hjalti · 03-01-2011, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Steven,

That's an embarrassingly awesome display of apologetic logic.
I think this should be in a text book somewhere.

I thought it was.

On page 169 of ‘A Marginal Jew’ JP Meier writes about the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist that ‘the event simply never occurs in John’s Gospel’

Meier regards the baptism as historically certain, and gives the silence in John’s Gospel as part of the evidence for this certainty.

It is 'quite plainly' something which happened, as it was an event that 'was finally erased' from John's Gospel.

I haven't read Meier's work. Does he think that the gospel of John is dependent on any of the synoptic gospels?

andrewcriddle · 03-03-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I haven't read Meier's work. Does he think that the gospel of John is dependent on any of the synoptic gospels?

IMS Meier regards John as independent of the synoptics.

Andrew Criddle

ApostateAbe · 03-11-2011, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roller

So... Who won? :Cheeky:

Ehrman, ain't no question. Evans didn't even get to the topic. The topic was, "Can we trust the Bible on the historical Jesus?" Evans talked as though the topic was all about the textual reliability of the gospels, or how consistent the existing copies are with the originals, without even getting to whether or not the original authors wrote with historical accuracy. Ehrman repeatedly called him on that and kicked his ass on that.

ApostateAbe · 03-11-2011, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Was Ehrman ever a "pastor"?

Yes, he was, though briefly and as like a substitute pastor at a church.

SLD · 03-11-2011, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roller

So... Who won? :Cheeky:

Ehrman, ain't no question. Evans didn't even get to the topic. The topic was, "Can we trust the Bible on the historical Jesus?" Evans talked as though the topic was all about the textual reliability of the gospels, or how consistent the existing copies are with the originals, without even getting to whether or not the original authors wrote with historical accuracy. Ehrman repeatedly called him on that and kicked his ass on that.

Well as an atheist we would all expect your opinion to be such. But the larger question is whether the rest of the audience felt that way. Were any Christians swayed? Were there people who came there as real fence sitters moving one way or the other? I'm more curious to hear how the crowd felt before and after.

Did you actually attend or is your reaction from a videotape?

SLD

ApostateAbe · 03-12-2011, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Ehrman, ain't no question. Evans didn't even get to the topic. The topic was, "Can we trust the Bible on the historical Jesus?" Evans talked as though the topic was all about the textual reliability of the gospels, or how consistent the existing copies are with the originals, without even getting to whether or not the original authors wrote with historical accuracy. Ehrman repeatedly called him on that and kicked his ass on that.

Well as an atheist we would all expect your opinion to be such. But the larger question is whether the rest of the audience felt that way. Were any Christians swayed? Were there people who came there as real fence sitters moving one way or the other? I'm more curious to hear how the crowd felt before and after.

Did you actually attend or is your reaction from a videotape?

SLD

I was there. Even from the standpoint of a Christian, it was clear that Ehrman hit the ball out of the park and Evans struck out. Evans didn't even build much sympathy with the audience. He is a liberal non-Biblicist scholar. In response to Ehrman's clearly-defined significant contradictions, Evans responded that the gospel authors were more like students who take notes and get the general principles right, not necessarily the details. Hell, even if Evans won the debate, that would have been progress. But, he didn't. Not that Ehrman significantly changed minds that night. Almost everyone who attended was an entrenched ideologue. As much as it is possible to open minds and make a difference, Ehrman did a fine job.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2011, 01:52 PM	#13
Roller Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cleveland Posts: 658	So... Who won? :Cheeky:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.