(May 26, 2016 at 6:35 pm)dom.donald Wrote:[/quote](May 26, 2016 at 1:04 pm)Godschild Wrote: Oh yes I understood it alright, it was a bunch of what ifs and maybes and that sort of nonsense. Min I study to find out if my stances are the correct ones, sometimes I find I was wrong and others are confirmed by my studies. You are the one who lives by his biases as a lifestyle, so take the log from your eye bfore you accuse me of having a speck in mine.
GC
You may have understood it, but refused to 'believe' it, because you already know without question that the Bible is the Truth. You're then in a position of having to weigh up the validity of Ehrman's conclusions, versus your own pre-determined conclusions. One set of conclusions has been derived from an objective, dispassionate analysis of the data sources from a historicity point of view. Yours (I am surmising) are a result of religious dogma. Surely you can see that the likelihood of confirmation bias in this scenario is pretty damn high. Problem is, if you're in a larger group of people who are all deluded, you're not likely to find out any time soon.
You must not read very well, do you not realize that I said Ehrman uses what ifs and if that's and maybe this or that so much he shows he just guessing at best.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.