Ah, but there's no need. They can have that much, but they can also have all the actual criticisms as well including the fact that the ONLY time in history that it appears the OT could have been written is from around the 6th-7th centuries BC, starting with the Pentateuch, and that almost nothing in the Pentateuch is historically based whatsoever. It's not until we get to much later kings that there is any historical validity to the OT.
The NT is much more historically valid (particularly the book of Acts and Paul's undisputed epistles), however the synoptic gospels all represent a regression of proto-Mark, and while they do have some events that can be said to at least have some historical validity, much of them don't - such as the nativity in Matthew and Luke.
The one thing I will agree with Ehrman on is that following the crucifixion that some of the disciples came to visit the tomb and found it empty, encountered each other, and got confused and had some kind of shared hallucination where they believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. What however had probably happened is that the man who owned the tomb (said to be Joseph of Arimathea) had already removed the body and had it buried in the ground. He may have been known to some of "the 12" but not to all of "the 12", and this could have resulted in most of the original disciples who knew Jesus to be aware of his mortality, but for the relatively few who didn't to become convinced that he had risen. At some point they passed on this story and others believed them. Paul knew some of these disciples and the family of Jesus, and Luke the author of Luke-Acts. Luke likewise knew those same disciples, and Paul, and may have known the family of Jesus.
The fact remains, and this fact is difficult to explain, that if both Luke and Paul knew the family of Jesus why did they believe Jesus had risen? Well the obvious answer is that perhaps neither believed that a bodily resurrection had taken place. Paul's writings make sense if he was not aware of the theory of an actual bodily resurrection. On the other hand, Luke may not have included the parts about Jesus rising from the dead originally and it could have been added shortly after his gospel was written. That explanation however has no evidence, and scholars do believe we have Luke-Acts in their original form as written by the single author. So it could be that Luke got it wrong, that by 61-62 AD or whenever Luke-Acts was written he had come to believe this bodily resurrection story, probably because he'd seen it already written down in proto-mark, and so he had written it down as well.
The NT is much more historically valid (particularly the book of Acts and Paul's undisputed epistles), however the synoptic gospels all represent a regression of proto-Mark, and while they do have some events that can be said to at least have some historical validity, much of them don't - such as the nativity in Matthew and Luke.
The one thing I will agree with Ehrman on is that following the crucifixion that some of the disciples came to visit the tomb and found it empty, encountered each other, and got confused and had some kind of shared hallucination where they believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. What however had probably happened is that the man who owned the tomb (said to be Joseph of Arimathea) had already removed the body and had it buried in the ground. He may have been known to some of "the 12" but not to all of "the 12", and this could have resulted in most of the original disciples who knew Jesus to be aware of his mortality, but for the relatively few who didn't to become convinced that he had risen. At some point they passed on this story and others believed them. Paul knew some of these disciples and the family of Jesus, and Luke the author of Luke-Acts. Luke likewise knew those same disciples, and Paul, and may have known the family of Jesus.
The fact remains, and this fact is difficult to explain, that if both Luke and Paul knew the family of Jesus why did they believe Jesus had risen? Well the obvious answer is that perhaps neither believed that a bodily resurrection had taken place. Paul's writings make sense if he was not aware of the theory of an actual bodily resurrection. On the other hand, Luke may not have included the parts about Jesus rising from the dead originally and it could have been added shortly after his gospel was written. That explanation however has no evidence, and scholars do believe we have Luke-Acts in their original form as written by the single author. So it could be that Luke got it wrong, that by 61-62 AD or whenever Luke-Acts was written he had come to believe this bodily resurrection story, probably because he'd seen it already written down in proto-mark, and so he had written it down as well.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
