Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[DOC]

"From bringing Erhman's arguments" and, indeed, they have been brought up. But Erhman is not really presenting arguments as presenting the current academic consensi consensus.

And what is your source for this.

 

[DOC]

No. I don't believe in slavery.

I didn't ask you about slavery, I asked you if you believe in Jefferson's opinion of the Jewish faith and morals?

 

[joobz]

You claimed (Without presenting any of the arguments)

He presents logical arguments in presenting his case.

I went to the source and summarized my following observation:

[identified 4 logical fallacies and one false claim in just the first argument made]

To which you say: (rather illogically)*

Nobody is stopping anyone from bring Erhman's aguments in here and some of them probably have been brought in here. Why don't you list a few a let's take a look at them.

Well DOC, Why not play fair?
I state that Ehrman presents logical arguments in presenting his case. Please go to his book and show me where I am wrong. I showed you that courtesy. Will you return the favor?




*For those playing the home game, What logical fallacy(ies) is DOC committing in his response?

 

[paximperium]

I didn't ask you about slavery, I asked you if you believe in Jefferson's opinion of the Jewish faith and morals?

I asked first.
Do YOU believe that TJ believed that the story of Jesus ended with his death?
Do YOU believe that your interpretation of the death of Jesus is more accurate than written by Mark?

@Joobz: The same logical fallacy he is attempting here.

 

[Simon39759]

And what is your source for this.

Hum... That's the subject of the books?

What modern Biblical scholarship tells us about the formation of the Biblical myths and how they relate to the common stories?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Being a theist has nothing to do with it if you are presenting logical arguments. I've read some of

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" (Paperback) by Timothy Paul Jones (Author)

He presents logical arguments in presenting his case. Read the book and then show me something he says that doesn't make sense.

But it doesn't sound as if you've read Misquoting Jesus. Again you attempt to post arguments without referring to primary sources.

SInce long pig and short pig have similar diets probably not. Although long pork doesn't have a trotter, split or otherwise, so I don't know.

But long pork doesn't chew a cud either, so where are you?

All I was trying to do was post this:

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/LongPig.jpg[/qimg]​

Is that an American long pork or a British long pork?

It's a pork stretch limousine!

 

[tsig]

More attack the messenger -- actually I have access to a copy of the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson not only took the time to cut out over 880 verses of the NT, but took the time to place the Greek, Latin, and French, translations of those verses next to the English translations. So each page of the 82 page book had an average of 11 verses and each page also had 4 different languages on it.

No.

 

[Akhenaten]

So then you must agree with Jefferson's opinion on the Jewish Faith and Morals?

I asked first.
Do YOU believe that TJ believed that the story of Jesus ended with his death?
Do YOU believe that your interpretation of the death of Jesus is more accurate than written by Mark?

@Joobz: The same logical fallacy he is attempting here.

I didn't ask you about slavery, I asked you if you believe in Jefferson's opinion of the Jewish faith and morals?

I always notice how DOC's attack the messenger mode heats up whenever we bring in important information.

 

[Akhenaten]

"From bringing Erhman's arguments" and, indeed, they have been brought up. But Erhman is not really presenting arguments as presenting the current academic consensi consensus.

And what is your source for this.

Well duh

 

[Hokulele]

I didn't ask you about slavery, I asked you if you believe in Jefferson's opinion of the Jewish faith and morals?

If by this you mean I believe the Jewish morals were an OK start, but have been superseded by a more enlightened view of human rights, then yes, I agree with Jefferson.

However, I feel the same way regarding Christian morals, so it doesn't really gain you anything as far as Internet Debate Bonus Points go.

 

[Akhenaten]

You claimed (Without presenting any of the arguments)

He presents logical arguments in presenting his case.

I went to the source and summarized my following observation:

[identified 4 logical fallacies and one false claim in just the first argument made]

To which you say: (rather illogically)*

Nobody is stopping anyone from bring Erhman's aguments in here and some of them probably have been brought in here. Why don't you list a few a let's take a look at them.

Well DOC, Why not play fair?
I state that Ehrman presents logical arguments in presenting his case. Please go to his book and show me where I am wrong. I showed you that courtesy. Will you return the favor?




*For those playing the home game, What logical fallacy(ies) is DOC committing in his response?

I'm at home!

In sooth, I'm as much of a learner as anyone though.

Is it onus probandi (attempting to shift the burden of proof)?

 

[Akhenaten]

Is that an American long pork or a British long pork?

If I hadn't broken the thread trying to insert a speech bubble, it was going to be Jewish long pork.

Having had time to reflect on this while Darat was repairing the thread, I believe it may have been divine intervention (thanks to thee, oh Aten!) intended to prevent me from offending our Jewish readers, so all's well that ends well.

l'chaim.

 

[joobz]

I'm at home!

In sooth, I'm as much of a learner as anyone though.

Is it onus probandi (attempting to shift the burden of proof)?

That's definitely part of it.
The major one I see if your favorite fish.

 

[Akhenaten]

That's definitely part of it.
The major one I see if your favorite fish.

Dang! I've been reading DOC's drivel for so long that I don't even notice his non sequiturs any more.

Nimrod pointed it out for me.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hey, I just realised. It's Good Friday.

Better have a reading . . .


Matthew 27

Jebuz gets pwned by Big Catz before Pilate

¹¹ An Jebus stood in front of governor, what is like owner that has the thing for opening catfud tins, and governer said "Is you der big boss cat of der Jews?" And Jebus say "Dat wot u say" *shrug*

¹² An when teh big top cat priestz and old doods did say, like, that he pinched the fish, he look all innocent and smooth his whiskers and say nuffin.

¹³ Den Pilate sayed to hims "Yu not heer wut dey saying aboot yu?"

¹⁴ But stil Jebus not say nuffin and amaezd teh govurnor. Srsly.

¹⁵ And the govurnor had teh custom of releesing prizunor teh crowd wantid.

¹⁶ There wuz teh evul guy naemd Barabbas,

¹⁷ And den wen teh crowd wuz gatherd Pilate were asked dem "Yu can haz Barabbas or Jebus."

¹⁸ But he knowz it wuz cuz dey wur jelus of teh Jebus dat dey gaev Jebus to hims. Srsly.

¹⁹ An when Pilate was sitting in teh uber-litter box of teh juj, his wiefs, liek, sended he dis mesij. An she sez liek "Yu no can haz aneeting too does wif dat cat whu iz free of teh kittunz, srsly, cuz liek i can haz bad nightkitties bout himz, An yah. Srsly."

²⁰ But teh big top cat priestz and ol doodz gived teh crowdz lots of catnips so dey wud asks for teh Barabbas and to hav Jebus exicutid. Srsly.

²¹ So den teh govurnor askd teh crowd "Wich wun duz yuz want?" Dey sed "Barabbas!"

²² "Wut I do wif Jebus den?" Pilate askd. Den all teh crowd sed "Krucify himz!!", srsly

²³ "wai? wut invizibul err0r he do?" Pilate askd, But teh krowd get loudr and keep saying "Krucify himz!!"

²⁴ Pilate getz teh frustraet and teh krowd waz maek uproarz, so he washiz hiz handz and sez, "Do not want, I innusint uf himz blud, yuk."

²⁵ Teh krowd sez, "hims blud!! do want!! Feed to our kittehs. Srsly."

²⁶ Him releesd Barabbas to angry krowdz, but took awai Jebus'z powerups's, giv himz floggingz and giv himz to krowd. Srsly.​

Well, it was either that or 'Welease Wodger'

 

[Akhenaten]

Then again, there's no reason not to be a bit ecumenical about things.

​

 

[Akhenaten]

While I was researching today's sermon I came across this. Sometimes not understanding a language can actually add something to an experience . . .

​

 

[amb]

Nobody is stopping anyone from bringing Erhman's augments in here and some of them probably have been brought in here. Why don't you list a few a let's take a look at them

Scholars have made significant progress in understanding the bible over the past 2 hundred years and the results of their study are regularly and routinely taught, both to graduate students in universities and to prospective pastors attending seminaries in preparation for the ministry. Yet such views of the bible are virtually unknown among the population at large. As a result, not only are most Americans ignorant of the contents of the bible, but they are also almost completely in the dark about what what scholars have been saying about the bible for the past two centuries.
From the inside jacket of Bart Ehrman's book --Jesus, Interrupted

 

[zooterkin]

Not really because the gospel account ended with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Or if your a skeptic and want to believe it ended with the death of Jesus. The deaths of the apostles came after the time period he was writing about. If I wrote a book about the life of Harry Truman in 1980. It would not be strange not to mention the death of John Kennedy.

That's interesting; so you no longer believe that the fact that the destruction of the Temple is not mentioned helps to date when the gospels were written?

 

[Waterman]

No, it as Mark says it ended with the death of Jesus...and Thomas Jefferson agrees as well.

Are you smarter than Mark or Thomas Jefferson?

So then you must agree with Jefferson's opinion on the Jewish Faith and Morals?

Just wow, is it your position that if we accept one item form a source as valid we have to accept it all. It doesn't matter if they are smarter than you or not.

However by the reasoning that you have presented above.

If I accept Jefferson’s account in his amended bible as accurate (I don't, I view it as a collection of favorite quotes), that I must also accept his opinion on other matters.

If you accept that Jefferson Bible supports the idea of the truth of the resurrection story in the new testament then you must also accept that the resurrection never happened...

Ow... I think I sprained something.