As I said on another thread, sorry I've been away for so long. Real life has been demanding of my attention of late.
When Ehrman discusses pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation in the Bible, he references his research into the oldest known copies and scraps of copies that we have. He's presenting research, not just presenting an opinion.
When Ehrman rejects mythicism, such as the HuffPo article you touted, he has little more to offer than ad hominems and other logical fallacies. Anyone can write "herp derp stoooopid mytherzzz."
To use another example, Sir Issac Newton discovered laws of physics and believed in alchemy. We accept the first because there is evidence and repeatable tests that can verify his discoveries. We reject and ignore the second because it's crazy. It's not a contradiction that someone can be respected in one field or for one argument and be ignored in another.
By the way, you know who taught me to be skeptical of the Bible's claims about Jesus and why I came to doubt the story? Bart Ehrman. His own research into the changing nature of scriptures taught me to be skeptical about them. And once you call the scriptural accounts into question, there's nothing left but some-guy-named-Yeshua. Why he can't let go with the other hand I can't say, since I don't know him personally enough to evaluate his motives. I can only tell you I listen to the evidence he brings to the table and ignore his angry bluster against the stooopid mytherz.
It says "Jesus Bar Damneus".
Jesus was a common name.
And that's all we need to hear. Contamination is acknowledged. We have no idea what parts were contaminated or how much. We have no evidence that the passage existed prior to Eseubius' "discovery". There is nothing apologists can offer except "it uses words Josephus would have used". *toss*
(October 22, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Am I right to suppose that you accept Ehrman’s work concerning the transmission of the New Testament but not concerning the historical Jesus? Two can play this game.The reason it doesn't work for you is I'm not the one who has declared Ehrman to be the arbiter of all that is right and true by his very say-so. You are the one who has taken this position, even if doing so tongue-in-cheek, and so have opened yourself up to the charge of cherry picking.
Quote:I am using a very effective debate tactic by referencing a source that is usually rather sympathetic to my opponent’s views and pointing out that even this source strongly disagrees with my opponent’s position in this instance.and the reason it doesn't work for you is I don't believe what Ehrman says simply by his say-so. Arguments carry weight according to the reason and evidence behind it, not by the reputation of the person presenting them.
When Ehrman discusses pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation in the Bible, he references his research into the oldest known copies and scraps of copies that we have. He's presenting research, not just presenting an opinion.
When Ehrman rejects mythicism, such as the HuffPo article you touted, he has little more to offer than ad hominems and other logical fallacies. Anyone can write "herp derp stoooopid mytherzzz."
To use another example, Sir Issac Newton discovered laws of physics and believed in alchemy. We accept the first because there is evidence and repeatable tests that can verify his discoveries. We reject and ignore the second because it's crazy. It's not a contradiction that someone can be respected in one field or for one argument and be ignored in another.
By the way, you know who taught me to be skeptical of the Bible's claims about Jesus and why I came to doubt the story? Bart Ehrman. His own research into the changing nature of scriptures taught me to be skeptical about them. And once you call the scriptural accounts into question, there's nothing left but some-guy-named-Yeshua. Why he can't let go with the other hand I can't say, since I don't know him personally enough to evaluate his motives. I can only tell you I listen to the evidence he brings to the table and ignore his angry bluster against the stooopid mytherz.
Quote:Last time you checked what? Atheist blogs?Christian apologists. Even Lee Strobel acknowledges in "The Case for Christ" that the TF is a highly disputed passage. Other apologists are forced to acknowledge a problem of "interpolations". At this point, the burden of proof is on the one who would argue for "partial authenticity". Once a piece of evidence is acknowledged by both sides to be contaminated, the burden is on the one who would suggest there are parts we can trust.
Quote:We’re not merely talking about the Testimonium Flavianum ; the reference in Book 20 is widely accepted as a valid reference to Jesus. Wikipedia is hardly a Christian-friendly source but even it refutes your claim…I've read the passage itself.
It says "Jesus Bar Damneus".
Jesus was a common name.
Quote:Concerning the Testimonium Flavianum…
(snip)
Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, (snip)
And that's all we need to hear. Contamination is acknowledged. We have no idea what parts were contaminated or how much. We have no evidence that the passage existed prior to Eseubius' "discovery". There is nothing apologists can offer except "it uses words Josephus would have used". *toss*
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
