Bart Ehrman Has A New Book Coming Out

[Minimalist]

As far as recall Even your boy Ehrman doesn't claim that there were more than one Paul.

From the comments in the original article.

Bart Ehrman says the book of Acts purports to tell historical facts, but presents made up stories instead. He gives many examples of the differences between the letters of Paul and the book of Acts.

So now we can add Bart Ehrman to the list of things that you don't know shit from shinola about.

[Godscreated]

It will piss off the fundie shitwits for sure.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/why-the-...-not-true/

For over a century biblical scholars have been obsessed with this question. Widely challenged today is the age-old view that the Gospels are accurate reports written by disciples of Jesus (Matthew and John) or companions of the apostles (Mark, the secretary for Peter; Luke, the traveling companion of Paul). For one thing: whatever else one might say about the Gospels, they were written by unusually well-educated authors from outside of Palestine who composed their works in relatively high-level Greek. Jesus’ own followers were illiterate Aramaic-speaking peasants from rural Galilee.

It's like the rest full of non facts and speculation. I've already seen the Christian response to this book and it was torn apart with little effort using Ehrman's own logic, if one can call it that. And no I'm not going to give you what I have read it satisfied me and that is all that really matters.

GC

[Minimalist]

But it takes so little to satisfy an idiot like you, G-C.  All someone has to do is say "there...there... it's okay.  Jesus still loves you" and you cum in your pants and fall on your knees.

You're such an infant, G-C.  But I agree with you.  Stick with your fucking bible and leave the heavy thinking to those who can handle it.

[Huggy Bear]

Would you read it if I did...or would you run crying back to your fucking bible as usual?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?i...0674033818


Careful....it has a lot of big words in it that may be beyond your limited intellectual capacity.

Says the guy who struggles with the meaning of 'exactly'...

---

You guys never seem to realize that creationism/evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist....

And you don't understand that it is not supposed to!

I never said it was....

Atheists are the ones that always seem to act like it's creation vs evolution.....

read the op.

That's exactly what you said, asshole.


"Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist...."    That's what YOU wrote.

Seriously?

need me to spell it out for you?

I said creationism/evolution weren't mutually exclusive, meaning both can exist.... are you with me so far?

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain where life came from, but creationism posits that there is a creator.

Therefore life being placed here by a creator can evolve.... Meaning one can believe in creation AND evolution at the same time.

Got it?

speaking of logical fallacies it's interesting is that you took my quote that "evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist...." and interpreted it to mean "evolution is supposed to explain how life began"....

I was simply stating what evolution doesn't explain, not what it does.....

now run along.

---

*emphasis mine*

So don't lecture me on the complexity of words, when apparently in your world "Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist" is EXACTLY the same as "Evolution is supposed to explain how life came to exist.

The limited spread of literacy in the classical world had diverse effects. It gave some stimulus to critical thought and assisted the accumulation of knowledge, and the minority that did learn to read and write was to some extent able to assert itself politically. The written word was also an instrument of power, and its use was indispensable for the construction and maintenance of empires. Most intriguing is the role of writing in the new religious culture of the late Roman Empire, in which it was more and more revered but less and less practiced.

Harris explores these and related themes in this highly original work of social and cultural history. Ancient Literacy is important reading for anyone interested in the classical world, the problem of literacy, or the history of the written word.

Remember when I said your sources tend to be dubious?

let me remind you of your statement.

Which of the 4 "Paul's" was the highly educated one?

And "jewish boys" were no more educated than males of any other peasant society of the age.  95% of them never learned to read/write at all.  Sorry to burst your little fucking holy bubble.





(Actually I'm not.)

I fail to see where your source addresses ancient Jewish society.

As far as recall Even your boy Ehrman doesn't claim that there were more than one Paul.

From the comments in the original article.

Bart Ehrman says the book of Acts purports to tell historical facts, but presents made up stories instead. He gives many examples of the differences between the letters of Paul and the book of Acts.

So now we can add Bart Ehrman to the list of things that you don't know shit from shinola about.

Paul didn't write the book of Acts, not to mention he refers to Paul in singular form. Again, I fail to see how the above equates to there being 4 different Pauls.

[Minimalist]

You need to learn the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, hugster.  Until then, you remain exactly an asshole.

[Minimalist]

Paul didn't write the book of Acts, not to mention he refers to Paul in singular form. Again, I fail to see how the above equates to there being 4 different Pauls.

You would....because Tabor's original premise is obviously way too deep for you.

[Huggy Bear]

You need to learn the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, hugster.  Until then, you remain exactly an asshole.

Paul didn't write the book of Acts, not to mention he refers to Paul in singular form. Again, I fail to see how the above equates to there being 4 different Pauls.

You would....because Tabor's original premise is obviously way too deep for you.

What part of "even your boy Ehrman doesn't claim that there were more than one Paul" don't you understand? I clearly mentioned that EHRMAN doesn't claim that there were more than one Paul, yet you bring up Tabor?

This makes sense how?

[The Atheist]

Would you read it if I did...or would you run crying back to your fucking bible as usual?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?i...0674033818


Careful....it has a lot of big words in it that may be beyond your limited intellectual capacity.

You seem angry.

[Minimalist]

Nah.....just sick of these stupid assholes trotting out their asinine beliefs as if they mean anything at all.

The world is full of morons and Huggy wants to be their king.

[Clueless Morgan]

Didn't he already write this book?

Meh.

I have a few of Ehrman's books and they do start to sound the same after a while.

Would you read it if I did...or would you run crying back to your fucking bible as usual?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?i...0674033818


Careful....it has a lot of big words in it that may be beyond your limited intellectual capacity.

You seem angry.

It seems you haven't been introduced to Min yet: