The Big Debate -- Price versus Ehrman

[Edwardo Piet]

I can't work out what the debate is even about!

[Jehanne]

I can't work out what the debate is even about!

Price is a mysticist -- believes that the historical Jesus is legendary; Richard Carrier also holds to this POV.  Ehrman was, basically, representing the consensus of modern, secular scholarship.

[vorlon13]

The problem there is that there is no evidence that jesus ever did or said anything.  No matter how many times Ehrman raves that "there must have been" he is wrong.  Jesus is no more necessary to xtianity than Quetzalcoatl was to the Aztecs.

Agreed they have nothing to prove Jebus in the first place

-however-

the document trail they (any and all the christers ever) do have conclusively proves everything following putative Jesus adds up to a religion that is NOT what their godboy had in mind.

From the start, they've all apostatized, and LOL, taking a page from the Mormon handbook (well actually, vice versa), they documented their perfidy and treachery sufficiently to conclusively disprove all Christian schisms.

Jesus fucking Christ!  What were they thinking ???


The "One True Faith" ain't even in the Christian part of the pie chart !!!   Man, ALL the Christians are BONED !!!

[Edwardo Piet]

I can't work out what the debate is even about!

Price is a mysticist -- believes that the historical Jesus is legendary; Richard Carrier also holds to this POV.  Ehrman was, basically, representing the consensus of modern, secular scholarship.

Ah.

Oh I tend to enjoy debates more if it's some idiot I dislike, like William Lane Craig, getting destroyed... like he got destroyed in this debate:


William Lane Craig always does a ton of fallacies but he often creates too much of a mess for his opponent to clear up even when his opponent is 100% right and he's 100% wrong... so he's a powerful opponent in a debate because he creates so much of a mess and his opponent is always one step behind in clearing it all up.

Not so in this debate. Regardless of who is right or wrong this is the only time I've ever seen William Lane Craig reduced to confusion and bumbling because Shelly Kagan runs complete circles around him. I've never seen anyone debate as well as Shelly Kagan did in this debate.

Here's a clip:





Here's the full debate:

Shelly calls him "Bill Creg" more than once

[Mystical]

Anyone here care to share academic links this fine family day? I've got family members who actually think that Matthew Mark Luke and John were the actual authors of the gospels LOL

[Jehanne]

Craig has gotten his ass whomped in a number of debates, especially, those which have no mention on his website, such as his debate with Peter Millican:





Note that Craig denies the number zero at the 1:18:59 mark.

[Jehanne]

Anyone here care to share academic links this fine family day? I've got family members who actually think that Matthew Mark Luke and John were the actual authors of the gospels LOL

Show your family this:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

[Jehanne]

The problem there is that there is no evidence that jesus ever did or said anything.  No matter how many times Ehrman raves that "there must have been" he is wrong.  Jesus is no more necessary to xtianity than Quetzalcoatl was to the Aztecs.

Agreed they have nothing to prove Jebus in the first place

-however-

the document trail they (any and all the christers ever) do have conclusively proves everything following putative Jesus adds up to a religion that is NOT what their godboy had in mind.

From the start, they've all apostatized, and LOL, taking a page from the Mormon handbook (well actually, vice versa), they documented their perfidy and treachery sufficiently to conclusively disprove all Christian schisms.

Jesus fucking Christ!  What were they thinking ???


The "One True Faith" ain't even in the Christian part of the pie chart !!!   Man, ALL the Christians are BONED !!!

If you read Ehrman more, he makes the point very well that there was not one early Christianity, but multiple Christian beliefs that were fundamentally contrary to each other.

[vorlon13]

Here's the best summation:

Christianity is a religion about Jesus.

It is supposed to be the religion of Jesus.

[abaris]

The problem there is that there is no evidence that jesus ever did or said anything.  No matter how many times Ehrman raves that "there must have been" he is wrong.  Jesus is no more necessary to xtianity than Quetzalcoatl was to the Aztecs.

I don't agree with his work, since he's dead wrong on his methodology as far as critical reception of his sources are concerned. He doesn't seem to know the first thing what the definition of history was back then as compared to our contemporary term. But I agree on one thing. There probably were tales making the rounds at the campfires of the trading routes. But we all know how such tales grow into something entirely different when told by a sufficient number of people. That's how myths always were created. Since there are no original sources in Roman records, it's impossible to know if the man actually existed, if they boiled several preachers into one mythological character or if none of them ever walked the earth. That there are absolutely no Roman records speaks for itself. A man challenging the jewish (appointed by the Romans) authority and thereby challenging Roman order in an entire province should have left at least some footprints in history. Apart from the whole narrative of the trial not adding up as compared to Roman law and Roman trial procedures. For starters, a rebel against Rome would have faced a very swift death without the Barnabas option.