(November 2, 2015 at 12:09 am)Drich 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!If you want to point out a true loss,
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.
Then it should be very easy for someone as smart as you, to point out the critical errors in my reasoning/points by using your expert's anti doctrine.
Otherwise know that your general (non specific) attempt at a dismissal, and appeal to your expert's "expert-ie-ness" is not only an "appeal to stone" it is also a "fallacy of false authority" as you are attempting to use your guys "expert-ie-ness" to sell a position that has been legitimately challenged by me, with facts that has yet to be refuted by anything this guy has written.
Did you see what I did there? That's a proper dismissal of an objection, because it directly addressed the elements you specifically brought up. outlined how your objections were not valid. Then provided you with an opportunity to validate your original objection by using something in your expert's body of work to address my original points that initially invalidated his hypothesis.
That's how this all works rocket, otherwise you default to the logical fallacies I pointed out and that is truly an automatic fail/loss on your part, despite anything your expert or I have between us.
Drich, it's not one expert only. You have never dedicated your life to studying the historical reliability of the books of the Bible. What you have thus far dedicated your life to is assuming the Bible is void of contradictions and historically reliable 100%. That's what you're an expert at.
