aa5874

Your claim about Galatians 1.19 is illogical and wholly absurd. Galatians has NOT even been dated by Paleography or any scienticfic means to any time Before c 70 CE so your PRESUMPTIONS are worthless.

You BELIEVE Galatians in the Bible is historically accurate WITHOUT corroboration. Your Belief is hopeless and unreasonable.

How in the world can the very passage under scrutiny, the very passage that is being questioned for its historical accuracy be the same passage that corroborates itself???

Why do you put forward such absurd notion???

You MUST find a CREDIBLE source to corroborate Galatians 1.19.

There is NONE--zero.

The very Apologetic sources STATE that James the Apostles was NOT the human brother of the Jesus Christ.

Apologetic sources have claimed the mother and father of James the Apostle was NOT the mother and father of the Lord Jesus.

Quite remarkably, Apologetic sources have CONFIRMED Paul is a LIAR and the statements in the Pauline letter should NOT be trusted.

See "De Viris Illustribus" and the Fragments of Papias--the mother of James was the supposed sister of the mother of Jesus and the Lord Jesus was FATHERED by the Holy Ghost.

The Pauline writer is a LIAR.

The very Pauline writer claimed Jesus was God's Own Son--See Galatians 2.20, 4.4, 4.6, Romans 1.1, 1.9, 5.10, 8.3, 1 Cor 1.9 and 2 Cor.1.19.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT even human as stated in Galatians 1.1 and 1.10-12.

The Pauline writings are NOT historically and chronologically credible and cannot be trusted and even worse and absurd to do so without a shred of corroboration.

Steven Carr

SO Bart was simply wrong to say that the manuscripts do not exist to provide 'some assurance' that we know what the texts originally said.

EHRMAN
We simply create a little fiction in our minds that we are reading the actual words of Mark, or Paul, or 1 Peter, and get on with the business of interpretation.

CARR
Oh I forgot.

Ehrman says such things when he is debating people like Wallace.

And when he is using the NT against mythicists, the text suddenly becomes known 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Ehrman simply argues both sides.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no contradiction between saying we don't have original manuscripts and saying it's not rational to assume that any given portion of the text is an interpolation without a reason.

Steven Carr

It is Bart who says the manuscripts do not exist to provide 'some assurance' that we known the original text.

Can you give me 'some assurance' that we know the original text?

Because Bart can not.

At least , he can't when he is debating Daniel Wallace.

Remove the Wallace from the room, and suddenly Bart is able to tell us what the texts originally say 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Solo

Dear greymouse: you need to understand the rules of the NT exegesis game. Even the most unlikely impersonations of Paul will be defended as "scripture" unless there is a physical variant of the passage which attests to the fraud.

The church landed on a set of doctrines to go by in the fourth century, but it looks like the principal texts were fixed to conform to the core patterns of the emerging Catholic faith during the second century, after which they were guarded against gross manipulations. Older non-conforming texts would be destroyed to enforce the canonical versions. Therefore the chance of finding the original Pauline corpus, before the interpolations to make the epistles conform to the base theological parameters of the proto-orthodox faith is very, very small.

Ehrman is being disingenuous arguing in DJE that the historical study of the New Testament should not be governed by special rules. In fact, his book is an unintended parody of pleading special considerations. For example he chastises Doherty, for dismissing 1 Thess 2:14-16 as an interpolation saying: "Here we find again, textual studies driven by convenience: if a passage contradicts your views, simply claim it wasn't written by the author." Not only is this a cheap shot, since evidently Doherty was not the first one who thought Paul was being impersonated, but Ehrman pretends not to know the real exegetical issues around these verses. Paul never speaks ill of Jews as people, he never inculpates Jews for killing "Lord Jesus" (he says the 'archontes' would have never killed the Lord of glory if they had wisdom - such as he has). Ehrman never pauses to reflect that Paul, as the Saul of Acts which he considers historical, was one of the Jews who who himself was driving brothers out (Acts 8:1). So obviously not only this passage does not fit what Paul taught, but it clashes head on with another historical verity in another sacred script.

Earlier in the book, Ehrman admits that a number of scholars doubt this passage is from the hand of Paul, citing the "wrath of God" (in 16) as pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, i.e. after Paul's death. He himself does not doubt doubt any of the verse because, you guessed it - there is no "hard evidence" that Paul did not write it.

Best,
Jiri

Diogenes the Cynic

This is not the same thing as saying all of the extant text should therefore be presumed to be forged.

aa5874

You are PERFECTLY correct. Bart Ehrman's Debate with Daniel Wallace has reduced Ehrman's assurance to RUBBLE.

I cannot accept Ehrman as a serious historian. He may be speaking in double tongues and with many sides of the mouth.

Please, Hear Ehrman DESTROY his own "historical sources" for Did Jesus Exist??

See http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2...d-reliability/

Iskander

Why is inconvenient for mythers?

Diogenes the Cynic

Because they provide prima facie primary witness that Jesus had a brother.

Iskander

Yes, but the evidence of having a brother goes against the cult of the Virgin Mother of God, which is of enormous importance in the Roman Church.

The Virgin is a big, big, really big thing for Catholics and also in the Eastern Orthodox Church,