Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ratel · 08-28-2012, 06:45 AM

I don't think I'm going to be able to have a very productive discussion with you on this issue, AA, perhaps I'm more comfortable with uncertainty than you will allow. Good luck with your research. :wave:

Ratel · 08-28-2012, 08:25 AM

Robert M. Price's Bible Geek podcast of August 27 2012 (which can be downloaded at Itunes) contains an in-depth refutation of Ehrman's claims on the Unbelievable program.

Price points out that Bart's statements on that podcast prove that he lied when he said that he had read Price's books. Can Ehrman be subject to any sort of censure for this misrepresentation?

aa5874 · 08-28-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratel

I don't think I'm going to be able to have a very productive discussion with you on this issue, AA, perhaps I'm more comfortable with uncertainty than you will allow. Good luck with your research. :wave:

My argument that Jesus of the NT had NO real existence has been THOROUGHLY researched. Apologetic sources in and out the Bible claimed for Hundreds of years that Jesus was NOT human either by his actions or his birth.

Mark 6:48 KJV

Quote:

And he saw them toiling in rowing ; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

Matthew 1:18 KJV

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Galatians 1:1 KJV

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

"First Apology" XXI by Justin

Quote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

On the Flesh of Christ by Tertullian

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God...

Against Celsus 32 by Origen

Quote:

... let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost...

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-28-2012, 09:07 AM

Censure from whom?

To be clear, I think Price is right on the points at issue here, but Ehrman did not defame him or anything.

Ehrman's argument (and I'm not taking it myself, just stating what it is) is that Price did not list any examples of crucified heroes that can be dated to before the Christian era. Price does not dispute this because the texts are hard to date, but says they are at least close enough to the Gospels (granted, Price dates the Gospels to the 2nd Century) to show crucified heroes, heroes escaping from the cross, empty tombs and even having heroes seem to be dead or crucified, then turning out to be alive were all stock plot devices in novels of the period. Ehrman, I don't think, categorically denies these literary devices existed ever, he just says they post-date Christian origins.

I think that's a specious argument, so does Price, but it's not defamatory or libelous.

It's not fair for Unbelievable to have allowed Ehrman to comment on clips of Price while denying Price an opportunity to respond, but there's nothing actionable about Ehrman giving his opinion, oe even having lied about having read a book.

Steven Carr · 08-28-2012, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not fair for Unbelievable to have allowed Ehrman to comment on clips of Price while denying Price an opportunity to respond, but there's nothing actionable about Ehrman giving his opinion, oe even having lied about having read a book.

Those comments seem very reasonable to me.

Unbelievable has had Price on its programme before.

outhouse · 08-28-2012, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

this is where you fail toto

you are claiming bias, where there is none.

No, I am referring to the well established fact that historical Jesus studies have invented their own "criteria" for deriving history from the theological writings of the New Testament, and that these criteria are not used in any other area of history. Christian apologists like to pretend that neutral historical methods can establish the historicity of Jesus, but this is not the case. Christian apologists like to claim that the methods of mythcists could be used to prove that no historical persons existed, but this is clearly false.

and christian scholars do not represent the credible or valid scholars.

thus your showing your bias claiming they even have a stake in te game

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-28-2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not fair for Unbelievable to have allowed Ehrman to comment on clips of Price while denying Price an opportunity to respond, but there's nothing actionable about Ehrman giving his opinion, oe even having lied about having read a book.

Those comments seem very reasonable to me.

Unbelievable has had Price on its programme before.

Yes, but he said on his podcast yesterday he had asked to be able to come on the show specifically to respond to Ehrman, and they told him all they would do was read an email response.

Toto · 08-28-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, I am referring to the well established fact that historical Jesus studies have invented their own "criteria" for deriving history from the theological writings of the New Testament, and that these criteria are not used in any other area of history. Christian apologists like to pretend that neutral historical methods can establish the historicity of Jesus, but this is not the case. Christian apologists like to claim that the methods of mythcists could be used to prove that no historical persons existed, but this is clearly false.

and christian scholars do not represent the credible or valid scholars.

thus your showing your bias claiming they even have a stake in te game

If this were coherent, I might respond. You don't think that Christians have a potential bias as to the historicity of Jesus?

Steven Carr · 08-28-2012, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratel

Robert M. Price's Bible Geek podcast of August 27 2012 (which can be downloaded at Itunes) contains an in-depth refutation of Ehrman's claims on the Unbelievable program.

Price points out that Bart's statements on that podcast prove that he lied when he said that he had read Price's books. Can Ehrman be subject to any sort of censure for this misrepresentation?

Was Robert Price attempting an English accent? It lacked a certain something - namely any resemblance to any accent heard in England.

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-28-2012, 11:19 AM

All his accents are pretty terrible, but I find them useful for distinguishing between when his own words and the words of those he is quoting.

08-28-2012, 08:25 AM	#62
Ratel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: SD, USA Posts: 268	Bible Geek destroys Ehrman Robert M. Price's Bible Geek podcast of August 27 2012 (which can be downloaded at Itunes) contains an in-depth refutation of Ehrman's claims on the Unbelievable program. Price points out that Bart's statements on that podcast prove that he lied when he said that he had read Price's books. Can Ehrman be subject to any sort of censure for this misrepresentation?

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

08-28-2012, 06:45 AM	#61
Ratel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: SD, USA Posts: 268	I don't think I'm going to be able to have a very productive discussion with you on this issue, AA, perhaps I'm more comfortable with uncertainty than you will allow. Good luck with your research. :wave:

08-28-2012, 09:07 AM	#64
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Censure from whom? To be clear, I think Price is right on the points at issue here, but Ehrman did not defame him or anything. Ehrman's argument (and I'm not taking it myself, just stating what it is) is that Price did not list any examples of crucified heroes that can be dated to before the Christian era. Price does not dispute this because the texts are hard to date, but says they are at least close enough to the Gospels (granted, Price dates the Gospels to the 2nd Century) to show crucified heroes, heroes escaping from the cross, empty tombs and even having heroes seem to be dead or crucified, then turning out to be alive were all stock plot devices in novels of the period. Ehrman, I don't think, categorically denies these literary devices existed ever, he just says they post-date Christian origins. I think that's a specious argument, so does Price, but it's not defamatory or libelous. It's not fair for Unbelievable to have allowed Ehrman to comment on clips of Price while denying Price an opportunity to respond, but there's nothing actionable about Ehrman giving his opinion, oe even having lied about having read a book.

08-28-2012, 11:19 AM	#70
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	All his accents are pretty terrible, but I find them useful for distinguishing between when his own words and the words of those he is quoting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.