(November 1, 2015 at 2:03 pm)Irrational Wrote:(November 1, 2015 at 1:10 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Knows more about Biblical scholarship than Ehrman? Wow, what an amazing Christian you are, Drich!
When you have to refer to an agenda to defend against criticism, you've lost. Especially if the only people you don't think have an agenda are the ones who agree with you.
lol, Drich is in big denial. All the evidence points to the Book of Acts being written at least somewhere near the end of the first century, and experts themselves make it clear to us how this is so.
Drich on the other hand doesn't provide any evidence that it was written around the date proposed by him but just dismisses what the experts say by arguing that expertise means jack shit if it goes against his beliefs.
Again, this is a monkey see monkey do appeal to authority and an appeal to stone. (Google them if you don't know what they mean, don't just try and talk past these to logical fallacies I have identified in rocket/monkey doo(you) arguement.)
Use something your "expert" has said to refute my objection. Because clearly my time line objection can be the first. He must have encountered these objections when he first posited his conjecture/origins of acts.
Otherwise know you are conceding the arguement via logical fallacy as rocket man has poised himself to do.
