(June 20, 2014 at 9:01 am)ThePinsir Wrote: Because Jesus speaks to their hearts, silly! :p

But why Jesus silly ???.

(July 5, 2014 at 10:26 pm)Irrational Wrote: My view is all knowledge of the authors had faded away with time, and no one preserved this knowledge (as far as I know).

An English committee formatted the current stories using bits and pieces from earlier manuscripts.

This is worse than Where's Wally!

(July 6, 2014 at 1:57 am)Jenny A Wrote: The reason I posted the video for you is because it explains why it is that we are really really sure that the authors attributed to the gospels are not the authors.

As to whether these things matter? They matter to me when someone tells me the Bible is divinely inspired and proves god. They also matter when trying to see how Christianity evolved.

Whether it matters to you and why depends on how much and in what way your faith depends upon the Bible. Miss-transcription of the Bible or even proof that is a miss-transcribed second -hand account certainly doesn't prove there was no Jesus. But it may alter your view of him or how much you think you know about him.

Okay. That makes sense.

(July 6, 2014 at 1:35 am)ignoramus Wrote: Does it really make that much more sense coming from a pro like him than one of us saying the bible smells of bullshit?

No, not really, it's the work that he's done that can be shown - that grants him any measure of authority on the matter. It's not some personally vested quality. Anybody can call bullshit on just about anything, the part that matters is the "and this is why".

One of the more amusing things about Ehrman, and another user danced around the periphery of it, is that "respected scholars" generally agree with Ehrmans research - they just don't agree with his conclusions. "Respected scholars" being, in this case, fairly loaded with jesus freaks. It's difficult to outright deny his evidence (because there is so little - and he uses the same stuff that everyone else does) while arguing some other point about christ or the authorship and history of the gospels. While no one -has- to spend thirty years to figure out whether or not there's a fairy at the bottom of the garden, isn't it nice to know that someone did it anyway? - And that it didn't have to be you.

(July 5, 2014 at 11:23 am)Jenny A Wrote: Getting back to the original point of this thread. . . .?

Which is: why choose one God over another?

(July 5, 2014 at 11:23 am)Jenny A Wrote: The question I have to ask is would you ever turn yourself in such mental knots to defend the truth of any other book?

Yes. I believe logic to be reliable despite the numerous 'alleged contradictions' logicians and philosophers have amoungst themselves.

(July 5, 2014 at 1:32 pm)Irrational Wrote: Having been a former apologist myself, it is useless trying to convince a convicted apologist that there are contradictions in the Bible as they always figure out how to explain away the discrepancies.

I used to rely on the "explanation" that Luke's genealogy of Jesus is Mary's as well in order to explain away the difference in names between the two genealogies listed in the NT.

An absurd and unwarranted explanation, but yeah.

I'm not 'explaining away the difference' in names between the two geneaologies, I admit there is a difference in names. I'm merely pointing out that one list of names is Jesus' ancestors on His father's side, and one list of names is His ancestors on His mother's side. Do you deny the accuracy of the lists?

The existence of a difference does not necessitate an irreconcilable contradiction.

(July 5, 2014 at 1:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -as a former apologist, care to put that idea to the test? I have a discrepency in mind. The discrepency between what we might call our observational experience of reality and what we might call a religious experience of reality. If you can explain why our experiences and observations cannot be trusted, with regards to religion - whilst our experience of religion -can- be trusted...simultaneously.........without invoking solipsim (thereby creating more questions while answering none) - then I'll concede.

Could you clarify what you mean in saying that our 'experiences and observations cannot be trusted, with regards to religion - whilst our experience of religion -can- be trusted?'

Please define what you mean by solipsim.