which version of christianity is correct?

[The Grand Nudger]

Even christians recognize that the jesus of historicity is not the jesus of the bible. The faithful christian complaint...and it's a valid complaint, is that historicity attempts to rehabilitate and sanitize the character the stories actually describe.

[Drich]

the dude has nothing to go on. he speaks or gives explanation based on what he identifies as a lack of information. it's all speculation based on speculatory work of others.

This is laughable, considering you base your theistic belief off texts, written decades or more after the alleged events, by anonymous authors, that were not eyewitnesses. Your beliefs don't quite even rise to the level of speculation. Ehrman's research, is based on the same texts as you believe, plus much more.

For people who pretend to demand proof for everything, you seeming overly willing to drop this requirement if and when someone is telling you what you want to hear. Not one of his 'facts' can stand up to any serious academic scrutiny. in fact if you consider the books he dismisses/the gospel and any other writtings on christ the church retains, there is more in the way of written academic proof for christ, than supports his various speculations.

The dude is a snake oil sales man he simply knows how to package bullshit in a way you 'smart people' love to gobble down information.

That is not what is going on here, at all.

I do not demand 'proof' for any claim, just evidence, that provides warrant to support the claim. And there is no amount of textual evidence alone, that is enough (for critical and rational thinking, and correct application of skepticism) to support any supernatural claims. Including: zombies rising from their graves and entering Jerusalem, people living in fish for several days, talking serpents, demons living in pigs, etc, etc,

The fact that you are convinced that texts that have stories about these, are relating true events, doesn't say anything about Ehrman being a snake oil salesman, it speaks to your gullibility. Your standards of evidence is lower for your chosen theology, than it is for other supernatural claims.

The existence of an itinerant, messianic rabbi named Yeshua, existing in 1st century Palestine, is a perfectly acceptable position, and one that Ehrman supports. He agrees with all the scholarship with regards to this position. He is not outside the mainstream scholarship on this at all. It's the supernatural claims where he happens not to be as credulous and gullible as you are.

glob...

proof
/pro͞of/
[/url]Learn to pronounce
[url=https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS743US744&sxsrf=ALeKk00AdZMMJsr6k_DoDz4bpmh5VRlt4w:1583869079330&q=how+to+pronounce+proof&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRozi3w8sc9YSm9SWtOXmPU4OINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLkYglJLcoV4pRi52ItKMrPT7NiUWJKzeNZxCqWkV-uUJKvABTNywfqSFUAywMAitty_FUAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjghuCO1JDoAhWlmuAKHTASC6kQ3eEDMAB6BAgEEAQ]
noun

1. 1.
   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   
   
   Similar:
   evidence
   
   
   verification
   
   
   corroboration
   
   
   authentication
   
   
   asking for proof IS IN FACT ASKING FOR EVIDENCE!!!
   

---

Even christians recognize that the jesus of historicity is not the jesus of the bible.  The faithful christian complaint...and it's a valid complaint, is that historicity attempts to rehabilitate and sanitize the character the stories actually describe.

the only recognition Christians give tot he separation of the historical jesus and the biblical version is the one that modern historians make when they come to terms that Jesus can not be denied, so in turn they make him out to be something else.

Funny to how the tide of secular historians went to no such person, to now admitting they can not deny it but Jesus was not who the bible says.

Ironic those texts they now quote the one's that over turn Jesus personality established by 10,000s biblical manuscripts could not be found justa few short years ago.. but now that they have been found these secular historical writing all now confer that Yes jesus is real, just not how most of you think/the bible says.

In fact a year a two ago did I have to beat old stimbo over the head with secular evidence he pretended for years did not exist?

[tackattack]

at 6:32 there was a weird fade transition from some meandering ramble. probably could be more pointed. I agree with your exegesis, although short on citations and I agree with your general hermeneutics. Seems more like a produced clip than previous ones, minus the meandering topics.

[Jehanne]

Ironic those texts they now quote the one's that over turn Jesus personality established by 10,000s biblical manuscripts could not be found justa few short years ago.. but now that they have been found these secular historical writing all now confer that Yes jesus is real, just not how most of you think/the bible says.

In fact a year a two ago did I have to beat old stimbo over the head with secular evidence he pretended for years did not exist?

Drich,

Here's a list of New Testament manuscripts:

Wikipedia -- List of all registered New Testament papyri

The 10K manuscripts that you cite are, for the most part, written in Latin, and are not of much value in reconstructing the original New Testament, at least as compared to the extant Greek manuscripts.

[Drich]

Ironic those texts they now quote the one's that over turn Jesus personality established by 10,000s biblical manuscripts could not be found justa few short years ago.. but now that they have been found these secular historical writing all now confer that Yes jesus is real, just not how most of you think/the bible says.

In fact a year a two ago did I have to beat old stimbo over the head with secular evidence he pretended for years did not exist?

Drich,

Here's a list of New Testament manuscripts:

Wikipedia -- List of all registered New Testament papyri

The 10K manuscripts that you cite are, for the most part, written in Latin, and are not of much value in reconstructing the original New Testament, at least as compared to the extant Greek manuscripts.

Ah, no... 

Sorry squirt but that is not a comprehensive list. It been a few years since I openly studied this but i do know that the list you gave is of papyri only. meaning it is a list of NT manuscripts written on the cheapest form of ancient 'paper' that was available. these are identified as papyri as they are working copies and not necessarily official standard documents. let say a document written on sheep or goat's skin trumps anything written on papyri. This is one of the reasons degrees were written on sheeps skin for such a long time. papyri scripture would be like on'es personal bible or even a bible in a small church if it were hand written. Granted there are very few that deviate from one another aside from grammatical and spelling choices.

so papyri is just one sub section of manuscripts.

before this older documents are called coptic manuscripts.

then the lessor of the greek are the papyri
then the unicals which again are the parchment of vellam/offical family bible/offical bibles of great churches or regions or even copies stored as a standard from which other copies where made.

next are lexionaries which can be written on anything but are of a later date.

then there are 5 more classes of greek hand written manuscript

then one class of latin

then one class of sycratic text. over all there are 25,000 manuscripts available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_N...anuscripts

so everything you said and assumed is wrong.

I know you people like to pretend I am the dumb one here, but how do you reconcile mistakes like this? How can I be stupid if i am beating you over the head with documented facts?

[Foxaèr]

How can I be stupid if i am beating you over the head with documented facts?

Believers are easily duped, because their threshold for evidence is not very high.

[Drich]

at 6:32 there was a weird fade transition from some meandering ramble. probably could be more pointed. I agree with your exegesis, although short on citations and I agree with your general hermeneutics. Seems more like a produced clip than previous ones, minus the meandering topics.

thanks?

---

How can I be stupid if i am beating you over the head with documented facts?

Believers are easily duped, because their threshold for evidence is not very high.

what do you mean

when i say document facts, i am speaking of the literal documentation of a dozen other classifications of manuscript aside from.. papri.




(me thinks.. we are discussing a subject, way way over your head... maybe shut up and learn something so you don't look as stupid as your peer who just got their ass handed to them)

[Foxaèr]

what do you mean

when i say document facts, i am speaking of the literal documentation of a dozen other classifications of manuscript aside from.. papri.




(me thinks.. we are discussing a subject, way way over your head... maybe shut up and learn something so you don't look as stupid as your peer who just got their ass handed to them)

I mean what I mean. That you are entirely and too easily impressed by anything that correlates with your belief system, despite the absence of actual evidence to verify your claim.

And when you refer to documents, are you referencing mythological stories or objectively verified historical references?

I just bet you couldn't hand my ass to me even if you tried.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, it’s cute (scary) how Drich thinks he wins debates here.

[Simon Moon]

This is laughable, considering you base your theistic belief off texts, written decades or more after the alleged events, by anonymous authors, that were not eyewitnesses. Your beliefs don't quite even rise to the level of speculation. Ehrman's research, is based on the same texts as you believe, plus much more.



That is not what is going on here, at all.

I do not demand 'proof' for any claim, just evidence, that provides warrant to support the claim. And there is no amount of textual evidence alone, that is enough (for critical and rational thinking, and correct application of skepticism) to support any supernatural claims. Including: zombies rising from their graves and entering Jerusalem, people living in fish for several days, talking serpents, demons living in pigs, etc, etc,

The fact that you are convinced that texts that have stories about these, are relating true events, doesn't say anything about Ehrman being a snake oil salesman, it speaks to your gullibility. Your standards of evidence is lower for your chosen theology, than it is for other supernatural claims.

The existence of an itinerant, messianic rabbi named Yeshua, existing in 1st century Palestine, is a perfectly acceptable position, and one that Ehrman supports. He agrees with all the scholarship with regards to this position. He is not outside the mainstream scholarship on this at all. It's the supernatural claims where he happens not to be as credulous and gullible as you are.

glob...

proof
/pro͞of/
[/url]Learn to pronounce
[url=https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS743US744&sxsrf=ALeKk00AdZMMJsr6k_DoDz4bpmh5VRlt4w:1583869079330&q=how+to+pronounce+proof&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRozi3w8sc9YSm9SWtOXmPU4OINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLkYglJLcoV4pRi52ItKMrPT7NiUWJKzeNZxCqWkV-uUJKvABTNywfqSFUAywMAitty_FUAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjghuCO1JDoAhWlmuAKHTASC6kQ3eEDMAB6BAgEEAQ]
noun

1. 1.
   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   
   
   Similar:
   evidence
   
   
   verification
   
   
   corroboration
   
   
   authentication
   
   
   asking for proof IS IN FACT ASKING FOR EVIDENCE!!!
   

---

Sorry Dritch, but when I am having discussions or debates, I avoid colloquial definitions. It helps to avoid equivocation fallacies, as theists are known to use (Kalam cosmological argument; I'm looking at you).

Proof has a very specific definition when discussing philosophy and math.

With regards to epistemology and existential claims, we are not looking for proofs, only good standards of evidence that warrants acceptance for the claim under discussion.

But even if we use your definition of proof (meaning the same as evidence), that doesn't help the point you were attempting to make anyway. The evidence I am looking for, is the evidence that supports all the supernatural claims being made in the Bible.