Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2010, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If you saw Ehrman trash the idea that the gospels contain history, you may like to read a few of Ehrman's books, or you can listen to Ehrman with a little more care and critical thinking, because you may be selectively listening to Ehrman's lecture, and the books may clarify the issues in greater detail. I can guarantee you that Ehrman would not trash the gospels as history the same way you would. "No history here, into the fiction sections of the libraries it goes."

I did see Ehrman trash the idea that the Gospels contain history, and showed you the video where he did it.

I also pointed out that Ehrman, at the start of the video, told you how real historians did real history, and none of his criteria were how Biblical historians did Biblical history.

Very well, you have clearly stated your opinion. The video clip is part of a debate with an apologist. If you would like to see the full debate, here is part 1, with links in the sidebar for parts 2, 3 and 4, each 33 minutes long. I am not on the same page as Ehrman on everything--I have a different definition of "miracle" than Ehrman, and I can imagine circumstances where miracles can be justly determined as probable explanations--but he still kicks ass.

Steven Carr · 06-27-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Very well, you have clearly stated your opinion.

No, Ehrman clearly stated his opinion.

And the same logic that he used to show that the Gospels do not support the supernatural also mean that the Gospels do not support the natural.

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2010, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Very well, you have clearly stated your opinion.

No, Ehrman clearly stated his opinion.

And the same logic that he used to show that the Gospels do not support the supernatural also mean that the Gospels do not support the natural.

Cool. I still think that you are misinterpreting Ehrman, but I don't think there is anything I can do to change your mind, and it isn't an important topic anyway. It is not so important to me how you interpret Ehrman, as long as you don't take your interpretation of his speech in the debate as primary evidence of what Ehrman actually believes, in conflict with so many things that Ehrman has written, though you may claim that Ehrman contradicts himself, and that is fine with me. I have been listening to the debate for the last hour, and there is a bunch of interesting material in it.

Steven Carr · 06-27-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Cool. I still think that you are misinterpreting Ehrman, but I don't think there is anything I can do to change your mind, and it isn't an important topic anyway.

You could try quoting what Ehrman says in the video about how real historians do real history.

That might work!

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Cool. I still think that you are misinterpreting Ehrman, but I don't think there is anything I can do to change your mind, and it isn't an important topic anyway.

You could try quoting what Ehrman says in the video about how real historians do real history.

That might work!

Well, if you already know what Ehrman said, then I don't really see the point. Like I said, it is not so important to me how you interpret Ehrman in his segment of the debate.

Steven Carr · 06-27-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

You could try quoting what Ehrman says in the video about how real historians do real history.

That might work!

Well, if you already know what Ehrman said, then I don't really see the point. Like I said, it is not so important to me how you interpret Ehrman in his segment of the debate.

I know what Ehrman said, and his description of how real historians do real history is nothing like how Biblical historians do Biblical history.

Biblical historians read anonymous, unprovenanced works and conclude that Judas, Joseph of Arimathea, Thomas,Mary Magdalene , Lazarus, Joanna, Salome etc etc existed, ignoring Bart's wise words in the opening of the debate.

Biblical historians don't need evidence to do Biblical history. They just need to open the New Testament and read.

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Well, if you already know what Ehrman said, then I don't really see the point. Like I said, it is not so important to me how you interpret Ehrman in his segment of the debate.

I know what Ehrman said, and his description of how real historians do real history is nothing like how Biblical historians do Biblical history.

Biblical historians read anonymous, unprovenanced works and conclude that Judas, Joseph of Arimathea, Thomas,Mary Magdalene , Lazarus, Joanna, Salome etc etc existed, ignoring Bart's wise words in the opening of the debate.

Biblical historians don't need evidence to do Biblical history. They just need to open the New Testament and read.

OK, great. I encourage you to look further into the work, lectures and debates of Ehrman for other reasonable ideas.

Steven Carr · 06-27-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I know what Ehrman said, and his description of how real historians do real history is nothing like how Biblical historians do Biblical history.

OK, great. I encourage you to look further into the work, lectures and debates of Ehrman for other reasonable ideas.

Why?

Does he not do history according to the methodology he gives in that video?

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2010, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, great. I encourage you to look further into the work, lectures and debates of Ehrman for other reasonable ideas.

Why?

Does he not do history according to the methodology he gives in that video?

He does, yes. If you investigate the scholarship of Ehrman, then you can get a comfortable understanding of the way that I think, and he seems somewhat representative of secular scholarship generally.

Clivedurdle · 06-27-2010, 01:34 PM

Wrong King - I meant Charles.

Quote:

Perhaps the last relic of such superstitions which lingered about our English kings was the notion that they could heal scrofula by their touch. The disease was accordingly known as the King’s Evil.

Queen Elizabeth often exercised this miraculous gift of healing. On Midsummer Day 1633, Charles the First cured a hundred patients at one swoop in the chapel royal at Holyrood. But it was under his son Charles the Second that the practice seems to have attained its highest vogue. It is said that in the course of his reign Charles the Second touched near a hundred thousand persons for scrofula.

The press to get near him was sometimes terrific. On one occasion six or seven of those who came to be healed were trampled to death. The cool-headed William the Third contemptuously refused to lend himself to the hocuspocus; and when his palace was besieged by the usual unsavoury crowd, he ordered them to be turned away with a dole.

On the only occasion when he was importuned into laying his hand on a patient, he said to him, “God give you better health and more sense.”

However, the practice was continued, as might have been expected, by the dull bigot James the Second and his dull daughter Queen Anne.

http://www.bartleby.com/196/14.html

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.