Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

Drich - Now is not the time to start pretending you give a shit about logical fallacies and intellectual integrity!

Does it make you feel powerful to talk like that to people? It just strikes me as sad.

Then maybe you should clean up your own condsending rants when you think it is your turn to take a victory lap.

As others have explained to you, already, Ehrman is far, far from the only top-level expert who agrees with that position;

And As I Said To Others: Post their work and lets judge what they have to say based not on what you think of them as a person/expert but on content. Otherwise this is an appeal to authority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

honestly rocket, what do you do with all the logical fallacies I am point out in your reasoning here? You guys are so hypocritical, in that you want to hold God and His followers to the 'rules of logic and reasoning,' but when it suits you you leave logic and reasoning behind, and when you are called on it you scream foul!

outside of fundamentalist circles (where they start out with the prejudiced notion that they cannot accept any conclusion that goes against their particular ideas about the literal meaning of the Biblical texts, as presented, and will always try to take the earliest possible date for books), the overwhelming scholarly consensus is in accord with what Ehrman teaches. If you think the reason I appeal to him is only because he is an expert, then you have never read another post of mine outside of your own threads.

Again Your expert cites Acts 17:28-30 as 'proof' that the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans Because in Acts 17:27-30 Paul gives a 'pass' to the pagans by saying:"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked" He is framing this to mean 'these times' meaning NT. which is in constrast to the Responsiablity and call to repentance of everyone in 'these times' Paul makes in Romans. well, again if one reads Acts 17: 28-31 "these times clearly are framed to mean OT times "but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained." which again is inline with what is taught through out the book of Romans.

If the passage he used to frame his arguement that Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans has been used outside of it's original context then one can only conclude your 'expert' is wrong because he is ignorant of what he speaks or is intentionally dishonest with his subject matter. eitherway his testimony on the matter can be logically dismissed. Regaurdless of how precious he is to you.

To continue to value his word after his works have been discredited because they donot properly frame or reflect the context of the biblical passages he is supposedly quoting from, is a logical fallacy/arguement from authority. Because yoou are placing one's authority as an 'expert' over content.

You have made a poor case, and sneering at the top experts while you present your poor case doesn't help.

Then again someone as smart as you can easily take your expert's work and show me where I am wrong and would not have to just try a general dismissal based on an ad hom attack.

If I thought that you'd be honest about any discussion that would ensue between us over the subject, I'd be glad to go into it with you... but I have already seen how much you just enjoy slinging accusations at us while dodging the same hard questions, yourself, because you don't believe anything we say, or believe in our good intentions, either.

What hard questions? I have answer EVERY SINGLE QUESTION Asked of me in this thread!
You are Speaking to generalities that do not even apply to this coonversation.

Simply put, I do not think you have the character or integrity to waste my time doing more than laughing at you, or pointing out your most egregious errors (particularly, as tends to be my habit, when you make false claims about atheism or science, because while I don't give a crap about what you think of the answers, I don't want your self-important drivel to damage the minds of passers by), so this is all you get, pal.

You mean this is all you can give? Because up to this point your greatest critique was to disagree with me when you did not perceive Rome as a threat to Paul or Christianity, but since have gone silent on the matter.

The fact that you think the people with the agenda must include Christian scholars as well as men like Dr. Ehrman, and that you can only make the claims you make by saying that everyone outside your own incestuous thought-circles in the world of fundamentalist "scholarship" is part of that agenda, is the simplest and most concise way I could have pointed out that you are full of crap--no in-depth reporting necessary to spot that one!--and is just plain sad.

The fact that you think what you wrote presents some sort of original challenge or novel argument, or in any other way constituted a valid position or objection, is so sad it just depresses me for you.

Don't be a fool, all men do what they do because of a greater agenda. Even if the agenda is to not have an agenda and to just complete random acts of kindness, that 'plan' is by definition their agenda. Maybe you should verify the definition of a word before you go off reservation with it.