Ok. You took the time to give an honest answer so I'll tone it down.
Here's the problem. You are speculating. We both know what the book says. It is right there for everyone to read if they so desire. Just like the absurd census of Augustus serving as the need for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem it is a literary construct to get Paul to go to Damascus where he has his "flash" in the road. But there is no source that says other than that Paul was going to Damascus to drag recalcitrant jews back to jerusalem to be punished by the Sanheddrin. Remember, this is the same bunch of schmucks who just a few years earlier couldn't even punish a blasphemer without Pilate's permission....or so the story goes. You need to face the fact that anything other than what is on the page is something which you just invented. We can call it the Gospel of Danny, for short. Who knows? In 2,000 years they may make you a saint.
I have the same problem with Josephus. In 250 AD we have Origen quoting from Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews and he does not know shit about the Testimonium Flavianum. Never mentions it in spite of the fact that it would have nailed the point he was trying to make. C. 325 we have the TF in Eusebius in all its glory. In fact, not one to waste a good thing Eusebius used the TF in two other works of his. Understandable, Handel was especially known for taking a rollicking good tune from one opera/oratorio and inserting in to another. But. Between Origen's conspicuous silence and Eusebius' over-the-top bullshit we have a vast chasm and this is not lost even on modern apologists who can't pretend that Eusebius' oeuvre could have been written by a first century jewish aristocrat. So they try to scale it down so that it does not look like such an obvious forgery but the basic problem remains. We do not have it - or a reference to it - from any xtian or pagan writer prior to Eusebius. And, as noted, when it appears it is with trumpets blasting in all its 4th century xtian panoply of all things jesus.
This is a fairly good lecture by Ehrman. It is an hour and 20 minutes long but that includes about a half hour of questions at the end. It's not a bad hour but do note that at the 9:00 minute mark he tries a lawyer trick by slipping in facts that are not in evidence. Were I opposing counsel I would object on those grounds and expect to be sustained. Also at the 56 minute mark he deals with the fact that historians do not consider the gospels to be "disinterested descriptions of what jesus said or did." He then goes on trash Habermas and his miracle claims but that's more for that nut, Randy, than you.
Here's the problem. You are speculating. We both know what the book says. It is right there for everyone to read if they so desire. Just like the absurd census of Augustus serving as the need for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem it is a literary construct to get Paul to go to Damascus where he has his "flash" in the road. But there is no source that says other than that Paul was going to Damascus to drag recalcitrant jews back to jerusalem to be punished by the Sanheddrin. Remember, this is the same bunch of schmucks who just a few years earlier couldn't even punish a blasphemer without Pilate's permission....or so the story goes. You need to face the fact that anything other than what is on the page is something which you just invented. We can call it the Gospel of Danny, for short. Who knows? In 2,000 years they may make you a saint.
I have the same problem with Josephus. In 250 AD we have Origen quoting from Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews and he does not know shit about the Testimonium Flavianum. Never mentions it in spite of the fact that it would have nailed the point he was trying to make. C. 325 we have the TF in Eusebius in all its glory. In fact, not one to waste a good thing Eusebius used the TF in two other works of his. Understandable, Handel was especially known for taking a rollicking good tune from one opera/oratorio and inserting in to another. But. Between Origen's conspicuous silence and Eusebius' over-the-top bullshit we have a vast chasm and this is not lost even on modern apologists who can't pretend that Eusebius' oeuvre could have been written by a first century jewish aristocrat. So they try to scale it down so that it does not look like such an obvious forgery but the basic problem remains. We do not have it - or a reference to it - from any xtian or pagan writer prior to Eusebius. And, as noted, when it appears it is with trumpets blasting in all its 4th century xtian panoply of all things jesus.
This is a fairly good lecture by Ehrman. It is an hour and 20 minutes long but that includes about a half hour of questions at the end. It's not a bad hour but do note that at the 9:00 minute mark he tries a lawyer trick by slipping in facts that are not in evidence. Were I opposing counsel I would object on those grounds and expect to be sustained. Also at the 56 minute mark he deals with the fact that historians do not consider the gospels to be "disinterested descriptions of what jesus said or did." He then goes on trash Habermas and his miracle claims but that's more for that nut, Randy, than you.
