Vorkosigan

January 19, 2012, Bart Ehrman vs. Craig Evans debate question: "Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the Historical Jesus?"

Acadia University:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oh1S...eature=related

Cege

Summary but not actual transcript of the debate:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2...f-the-gospels/

aa5874

It is most remarkably that Ehrman stated that there is a quest for the Historical Jesus because the Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE.

HJers don't really have any credible evidence or credible sources of antiquity for their Jesus so they might as well stop arguing.

The claim that Jesus lived in Nazareth is NOT credible or reliable.

The claim that Jesus was baptized by John is NOT credible or reliable.

The claim that Jesus was crucified under Pilate is NOT credible or reliable.

The claim that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher is NOT credible or reliable.

It is time for HJers to just give up and throw their hands in the air since there is NO known credible and reliable source for an HJ of Nazareth that was supposedly baptised by John and crucified under Pilate.

Only the Gospels and Acts in the Canon mention a character called Jesus of Nazareth and he was either a Phantom, that was Fathered by a Ghost, or God the Creator.

Based on Ehrman, I can ONLY accept that the Gospels are Myth Fables, like the Myths of the Greeks and Romans, until credible and reliable sources are found.

So far NONE has been found that mentioned a character called Jesus that was an Obscure preacher of Nazareth who was baptized by John and was MURDERED as a Human Sacrifice for the Jews and all mankind..

Toto

Craig Evan's opening statement:

Lots of smart university professors think the gospels are good historical sources. Not all are even Christians! Are they wasting their time?

The gospels have verisimilitude! Unlike those gnostic noncanonical gospels!

Archaeologists use the gospels!! Unlike gThomas! Here's a book on Archaeology and Jesus - some of the contributors are Jewish. They don't use those gnostic texts.

But what about discrepancies? They go back to Jesus himself. He didn't teach by rote, his disciples were expected to adapt the teaching to the situation. We know this because those were the standards of pedagogy at the time.

The Bible has to be read as a product of its time, in which case it makes perfect sense, unlike those awful fundamentalists and naive Biblicists who are too rigid, and who become easy prey for skeptics.

Toto

This is from a different debate in 2010 on the Reliability of the Gospels.

Toto

Ehrman's opening statement: starts with football jokes. The question is whether what the Bible says happened, actually happened.

Some people read the Bible using the ouija board method - open the Bible at random, stick your finger in it, and take that as an answer. Some read it vertically - start at the beginning. But you have to read it horizontally, in which case you have to notice the discrepancies.

He goes on and on with particular discrepancies.

ApostateAbe

The number of times Bart Ehrman and Craig Evans have debated each other makes me think they are business partners in marketing their own books.

sotto voce

'if the Bible is inaccurate in some minor details, then it’s all unreliable'

How to shoot oneself in the foot?

Toto

You are quoting an admittedly snarky, biased account of a different debate.

Ehrman makes the point that the Bible is inconsistent in both major and minor details, therefore it is not inerrant and cannot be used as a source for history without some major analysis.

sotto voce

But there is self-contradiction in the comment, whether or not it is representative.

What is a major detail? How is it distinguished from a minor detail?

But who uses it for historical purposes? It's not so far from saying that a recipe book that mistakenly reports the history of, say, tarte tatin should not be used to make this dish. As it happens, the NT has been used by historians as a valid source, and has been shown to be correct even when for years it appeared to be incorrect.

Ehrman makes the claim that the Bible is not inerrant. That is not the same as proving it. What he has noted is nothing new, afaik. These supposed conflicts were noted and chewed over (with no ill effect on belief) long before there was an internet, but the current broadband-enabled generation seems to think it discovered them.