Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Redbeard The Pink]

Are you saying there's no evidence to show how Paul died?

You read what I wrote and understood what I actually meant...well damn...

[Drich]

Knows more about Biblical scholarship than Ehrman? Wow, what an amazing Christian you are, Drich!

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.

If you want to point out a true loss,
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]

Knows more about Biblical scholarship than Ehrman? Wow, what an amazing Christian you are, Drich!

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.

lol, Drich is in big denial. All the evidence points to the Book of Acts being written at least somewhere near the end of the first century, and experts themselves make it clear to us how this is so.

Drich on the other hand doesn't provide any evidence that it was written around the date proposed by him but just dismisses what the experts say by arguing that expertise means jack shit if it goes against his beliefs.

Again, this is a monkey see monkey do appeal to authority and an appeal to stone. (Google them if you don't know what they mean, don't just try and talk past these to logical fallacies I have identified in rocket/monkey doo(you) arguement.)

Use something your "expert" has said to refute my objection. Because clearly my time line objection can be the first. He must have encountered these objections when he first posited his conjecture/origins of acts.

Otherwise know you are conceding the arguement via logical fallacy as rocket man has poised himself to do.

[GrandizerII]

Knows more about Biblical scholarship than Ehrman? Wow, what an amazing Christian you are, Drich!

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.

If you want to point out a true loss,
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.

[GrandizerII]

lol, Drich is in big denial. All the evidence points to the Book of Acts being written at least somewhere near the end of the first century, and experts themselves make it clear to us how this is so.

Drich on the other hand doesn't provide any evidence that it was written around the date proposed by him but just dismisses what the experts say by arguing that expertise means jack shit if it goes against his beliefs.

Again, this is a monkey see monkey do appeal to authority and an appeal to stone. (Google them if you don't know what they mean, don't just try and talk past these to logical fallacies I have identified in rocket/monkey doo(you) arguement.)

Use something your "expert" has said to refute my objection. Because clearly my time line objection can be the first. He must have encountered these objections when he first posited his conjecture/origins of acts.

Otherwise know you are conceding the arguement via logical fallacy as rocket man has poised himself to do.

I am honest enough to accept that experts in a certain field know more about that field than I do. You are not because you let your bias get the better of you. That's the difference.

[Drich]

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged a sinner?

Drich, what do you think Paul lied about?

Paul like the rest of us lied about a great number of things, but the most relevant would be the lie that would underscore his works and deeds while working for the Sanhedrin in the "name of God and his righteousness" the fact of the matter was he was not working for God and His righteousness Paul was working to build a name for himself and for a position in the temple.

[Drich]

Again, this is a monkey see monkey do appeal to authority and an appeal to stone. (Google them if you don't know what they mean, don't just try and talk past these to logical fallacies I have identified in rocket/monkey doo(you) arguement.)

Use something your "expert" has said to refute my objection. Because clearly my time line objection can be the first. He must have encountered these objections when he first posited his conjecture/origins of acts.

Otherwise know you are conceding the arguement via logical fallacy as rocket man has poised himself to do.

I am honest enough to accept that experts in a certain field know more about that field than I do. You are not because you let your bias get the better of you. That's the difference.

via Imgflip Meme Maker

What kind of 'expert' can not be questioned? This is the point I am making, and you are missing. You do not have to be an expert to ask a question or point to a hole in a line of reasoning a so called expert makes.

Otherwise If you can not question an expert's testimony then that is an appeal to authority. Which is one of the logical fallacy I told you to look up and not talk past. I could use these fallacies, and beat you and your line of reasoning stupid with them, if I were wanting to.

you are leaving yourself open accusations of failed reasoning in hopes that you can put me on my heels with your charge "that I'm no expert the way your expert is an expert's expert, in his field of expertise. Fail #2.

I have asked both you and rocket (team rocket if you will) to use your expert's works to answer the time line and observation I have made that refutes the claim he made to a late authorship of luke and acts. Team rocket has so far failed to do so. All I've got so far is just mmore mmeouth, about how I'm not an expert in the way your expert is an expert.

Isn't it time to grow up and act rational? Let's say you quote an expert. I question the findings your go to guy talks about, your job, is not to say "nut-uh, my guys is right and you are a do doo head because you don't agree."

If you quote an "expert" be ready to defend his statement with more of his works you dunce! That is why smart people quote Real Experts! Because they say a lot about a given topic and it is easy to find thier research and support needed to validate any of the claim they make!!! So do your Job and use this guys work to validate the claim he makes, against my questions/observations and time line! Or admit you failed/can only default to logical fallacy when questioned, or admit your "expert" was poorly chosen and he has nothing more on the subject. Or just be quiet and let the adults talk. Or at the very least stop pretending that just because you label someone an 'expert' it means what ever they say is the final word on any subject. What kind of broken mind can't question the word of an 'expert'? WTF are they teaching in our "higher learning" institutions if this is the case?

[Edwardo Piet]

"Faith" in expertise is surely better than faith in nonexistent ogre shit?

(Yeah I felt like a change from bullshit and horseshit, and I took inspiration from the Halloween RPG I've been playing lately).

[Silver]

Is there really an expert who can prove definitively that religious writings have any basis in truth rather than the imaginative concepts that faith would have one ignore?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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.

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

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

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. 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.

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.