Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[DOC]

DOC, why are you telling us about this book (which has relatively poor reviews in terms of its scholarship on Amazon.co.uk)?

I for one am not particularly impressed by what Bart Ehrman has to say on the historicity of Jesus given the quality of his arguments in this book. Given that he is definite in stating that Jesus the Christ did not exist...

But he believes the person known as Jesus of Nazareth (aka Jesus Christ) certainly existed. He might not believe he is divine but he certainly believes he existed in the flesh and blood. He even stated there are solid reasons to believe this historical person was betrayed by Judas. He says that on page 328.

 

[Akhenaten]

But he believes the person known as Jesus of Nazareth (aka Jesus Christ) certainly existed.

So does Geisler.

So does Turek.

So does Benny the Rat.

So did Sir Ramsay.

So did Mohammed.

So what?

He might not believe he is divine but he certainly believes he existed in the flesh and blood.

Even if he's right, and that's something you haven't even begun to demonstrate yet, can't you see that it's a complete contradiction of all your claims about Magical Zombie Jesus?

He even stated there are solid reasons to believe this historical person was betrayed by Judas. He says that on page 328.

Solid reasons that only take up one page? This'll be good.

What are these 'solid reasons', DOC?

 

[DOC]

So does {Norman} Geisler.

So does {Frank} Turek.

So does Benny the Rat.

So did Sir {William M.}Ramsay.

So did Mohammed.

So what?

It would seem more skeptics would believe Bart Ehrman than those people you mentioned.

 

[Akhenaten]

It would seem more skeptics would believe Bart Ehrman than those people you mentioned.

Only to you, DOC. Argumentum ad verecundiam is your shtick, not ours.

Skeptics, by definition, believe what the evidence tells them.

When will you be presenting some?


ETA: Why did you alter some of the names in the post of mine that you quoted?

Answer carefully, because I consider unannotated editing of my posts to be quite egregious and seldom fail to report it.

 

[DOC]

Excuse me, I said earlier Ehrman's book was about 37.00, actually in the US it is $26.99.

 

[ddt]

The inside book Jacket says in big bold oversized print:

YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Let's give that some context. The flap text reads:

[...] and Ehrman has decided it's time to put the issue to rest.

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST

Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Ehrman methodically demolishes [...]

So it's actually not Ehrman himself who writes this, but the editor(s) of the book. And you're a lousy copier.

Here is what Ehrman says on pages 173 - 174 of his new book "Did Jesus Exist".

"Jesus certainly existed. My goal in this book, however is not simply to show the evidence for Jesus's existence that has proved compelling to almost every scholar who has ever thought about it, but also to show why those few authors who have thought otherwise are therefore wrong. To do that I need to move beyond the evidence of the historical Jesus to the claim made about his existence by various mythicists. I will not try to refute every single point made by every single author who has taken that stand. That would require an enormous book...
Instead I will consider the most important {mythicist} issues... In the chapter that follows I will then consider several of the best-known mythicist proposals for how Jesus came to be created and argue that they too are thoroughly inadequate to establish the mythicist view."

So you consulted the TOC and decided to lift the conclusion of chapter 5?

He does talk about the there was no Nazareth mythicist view but I haven't read that yet. That mythicist view doesn't appear to affect his belief that the historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed.

What in Wotan's name does that mean. And science - including history - does not work by belief a.k.a. blind faith but by strength of arguments.

 

[Fitter]

The inside book Jacket says in big bold oversized print:
<snip>

Well why didn't you say that earlier? Bold AND oversized!! That makes me a believer. I'll have to admit the loaves and fishes thing seemed like bovine excrement until you pointed out the bolding and the oversizing.

 

[ddt]

Excuse me, I said earlier Ehrman's book was about 37.00 actually in the US it is $26.99.

Amazon USA tells me it's $ 14.50. Maybe you should actually buy books once in a while.

 

[Akhenaten]

You seem to have missed a bit of my previous post, DOC. I'll type a bit louder for you.

He might not believe he is divine but he certainly believes he existed in the flesh and blood.

Even if he's right, and that's something you haven't even begun to demonstrate yet, can't you see that it's a complete contradiction of all your claims about Magical Zombie Jesus?

He even stated there are solid reasons to believe this historical person was betrayed by Judas. He says that on page 328.

Solid reasons that only take up one page? This'll be good.

What are these 'solid reasons', DOC?

Better?

 

[Akhenaten]

Excuse me, I said earlier Ehrman's book was about 37.00 actually in the US it is $26.99.

When will you be buying a copy?

 

[ddt]

But he believes the person known as Jesus of Nazareth (aka Jesus Christ) certainly existed. He might not believe he is divine but he certainly believes he existed in the flesh and blood. He even stated there are solid reasons to believe this historical person was betrayed by Judas. He says that on page 328.

The part I highlighted is your error, which has been pointed out to you numerous times. Ehrman may think Jesus existed, but certainly not that he was the Christ.

ETA: why don't you write out those arguments about Judas on page 328?

 

[DOC]

Why did you alter some of the names in the post of mine that you quoted?

Answer carefully, because I consider unannotated editing of my posts to be quite egregious and seldom fail to report it.

Some people might wonder who you were talking about so I put their full names in Brackets to be more accurate.

You don't want people to know their full names for some reason?

 

[ddt]

ETA: Why did you alter some of the names in the post of mine that you quoted?

Funny thing, he didn't alter "Benny the Rat". Apparently, DOC is OK with smearing his CO.

 

[joobz]

He might not believe he is divine but he certainly believes he existed in the flesh and blood.

This statement is so bizarre.
I am sure Ehrman would say the same thing about Kim Jong IL, Ceasar, David Koresh, Your mom...


Does that some how help support that your mom is god?

 

[ddt]

So does {Norman} Geisler.

So does {Frank} Turek.

So does Benny the Rat.

So did Sir {William M.}Ramsay.

So did Mohammed.

So what?

It would seem more skeptics would believe Bart Ehrman than those people you mentioned.

Saved for posterity.

 

[pakeha]

Gosh, DOC has reached the inside flap of the dust cover of a book.
Well done, DOC.
We look forward to seeing your future progress with the book!

 

[Akhenaten]

Some people might wonder who you were talking about so I put their full names in Brackets to be more accurate.

Do not edit my posts without indicating that you have done so.

Apart from anything else, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that you could improve the accuracy of my posts.

You don't want people to know their full names for some reason?

I want you to answer the serious questions that you've been asked and stop stuffing around with irrelevant crap like the names of your favourite apologists.

Names which, I might add, I have been far more successful at putting before the readership of this Forum than you could ever hope to be.

 

[Akhenaten]

Funny thing, he didn't alter "Benny the Rat". Apparently, DOC is OK with smearing his CO.

Yeah, I couldn't help but notice that. I wonder if he even knows who I'm talking about.

 

[Akhenaten]

He might not believe he is divine but he certainly believes he existed in the flesh and blood.

This statement is so bizarre.
I am sure Ehrman would say the same thing about Kim Jong IL, Ceasar, David Koresh, Your mom...


Does that some how help support that your mom is god?

I wonder if Sir Bart believes in Alexander the Great, whom some believe to have conquered most of the known world (including the non-existant city of Tyre) despite his grave never having been found.

Or in Julius Cæsar, of whom we don't even have a signature, owing to there being no paper in those days.

 

[Akhenaten]

The inside book Jacket says in big bold oversized print:

YES, JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Let's give that some context. The flap text reads:

[...] and Ehrman has decided it's time to put the issue to rest.

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST

Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Ehrman methodically demolishes [...]

So it's actually not Ehrman himself who writes this, but the editor(s) of the book. And you're a lousy copier.

I think you're being far too charitable in putting it down to bad copying, since in Post #1193 DOC managed to quote the flap text without any trouble.

viz.

Here is a quote from the inside jacket of the book.

<snip>

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

I wonder what his explanation for this anomoly will be. It certainly doesn't appear to be for the sake of being more accurate as was the case in his amendment of my list of apologists.

DOC?