Steven Avery

Please. Ehrman makes no pretension whatsoever of being a believer. The only issue would tend to be whether he is away from the agnostic camp somewhat toward the atheist. Agnostic however is a fair appellation. Believer .. no way, based on his own words, as in the recent interviews, or even the NPR one a couple of years back.

Worse, you make the normal error of trying to put aside any truly conservative scholarship,which is often the best and most consequent (example, recent threads on 2 Peter authorship or Paul quoting Luke) with your own blithe a priori rejection.

The irony is that in many cases the scholars reached their position through a careful process that led to their apologetic and conservative viewpoints. You would try to marginalize their analysis solely because their conclusions are radically different than yours, and are very difficult, or impossible, to use for mythicist fodder.

Not because of any inherent weaknesses comppared to those liberal and agnostic scholars you will quote and reference (Crossan, Brown, Ehrman etc).

This attempted false attempt at marginaliztion is a common error on this forum to try to avoid dealing with the most important and fundamental scholarship questions, and it occurs in a variety of discussions, from textual analysis, to historical discussions, to archaeological and much more..

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

I don't disagree with this analysis, really. I was just laying out my own ignorance of Ehrman's actual position.

C;mon, Prax. We both know that serious critical methodology, the same used in every other field of textual analysis, securely demonstrates that Peter never wrote 2 Peter, which is a copy of Jude with some justificatory stuff added. Further, we know that the same kind of critical scholarship says the Pastorals are not Pauline.

Prax, in order to reach the conclusion that Peter wrote 2 Peter you have to give up any pretense of doing scholarship. That simple.

We're where we always are with you. I know you don't like it, but the tragedy of conservative scholarship is that it is methodologically sterile. It has nothing to add to the conversation, except defensiveness. You make me weep, because with your mastery of the text, you could do great work -- if only you would put some effort into mastering critical methodologies that would allow you to make discoveries about the meaning and origin and relationships of the texts. But that target -- meaning and origin and relationships -- is precisely where conservatism makes up its mind long before it ever explores the text. The tragic fact is that you will simply churn out erudite defenses of positions that are not defensible, when you could be turning the world upside down. It's a waste, Prax, of a beautiful mind.

Vorkosigan

hatsoff

You're right. You see, there exists in the world people who will ignore logic, evidence and common sense all to preserve their preconceived notions of religion. It's tough to argue against such irresponsibility, and so the New Testament has maintained its absurd popularity through the ages.

JoeWallack

JW:
I fear you are losing momentum Richbee which is very important when trying to argue that someone Deified the Laws of Gravity. I've studied your Tyre debate with Mr. Till very carefully and that's why I Am asking simple questions one at a time.

I understand why you have been spending a lot of time here lately. Mr. Till used to teach the French that God sacrificed himself to himself, thereby conquering death by Dying and never being seen again which put an end to a Law that was Eternal. I mean, how smart could he possibly be?

That being said, the only Testimony I've heard from any Andrew recently is at the Enron trial. So I'll repeat:

1) Now, where is Andrew's testimony "that Jesus had risen from the dead."?

2) Also, does St. Mark describe Andrew as an Apostle?



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

hallq

Richbee-

I asked you two simple questions - did the women tell anyone about the tomb, and what legal standard says we have to accept the Gospel accounts? You posted some irrelevant statements in response to the first and ignored the second. What's the deal?

hallq

I have a third question, now that I think about it -what would you consider scholarship in support of my view? You reject Brown, will you accept anyone who disagrees with you?

cgordon

First, there's no solid evidence the (capitol C) crucifixion occured or that JC lived.

Second, do the names Oestre or Ishtar and Semiramis mean anything to you?

Research is a Good Thing.

LOL.

cgordon

So what part of:

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming

Do you not believe?

Dargo

The movie Pearl Harbor included real historial figures like FDR, Yamamoto, and Jimmy Doolittle. Does that prove that Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett's characters really existed? It would be quite impossible for a fictional story to include real historical figures and be based in places that actually existed going by your logic. Acts including some historically accurate details proves nothing more than that Luke did his homework. Plenty of fictional authors have done the same thing without divine guidance.

P.S. You need the answer cgordon's post which is just mine. You certainly seem to believe in Biblical inerrancy, and that is the main thing that separates fundies from the less conservative evangelical Christians.

Doug Shaver

There can't be any. If it disagrees with Richbee, it isn't scholarship, it's rubbish.