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

[zooterkin]

As I have been saying for nearly 5 years, my threads are not about me. Forget me, and just talk about the facts I present, or the occasional inference I make. If you don't like what I present or the way I do it then you should stay out of the thread. But I know that probably won't happen with many people.

Mixed messages, anyone?

 

[pakeha]

Ah, DOC.

Non sequitur

Could you tell us in your own words what non sequitur emeans?

...Anyway, Gamaliel couldn't have uttered these words as related in Acts. As pointed out in wiki Recent commentators incline to the view that the author of Acts used Josephus as a source, and misread the Josephan passage. In any event, he got it wrong. ...

Acts?
Wasn't Acts written by sir Ramsey's favourite historian?

Who is everyone, as far as I know only 2 or 3 people in this thread have read at least 30% of the book. ...

... If you don't like what I present or the way I do it then you should stay out of the thread. But I know that probably won't happen with many people. ...

Well, I have to agree with you there, DOC. Your posts have a fascination to them I refuse to analyse.
Still, my pet theory is you're actually the Amazing One after he's listened to this before breakfast.

 

[Agatha]

DOC, Giordano's post was not about you, it was about the nonsense that you post.

I am sorry that you appear unable to tell the difference between a critique of your argument and a critique of you personally, but really, your failure in this regard is not the fault of your opponents. It is up to you to improve the quality of your argument if you want to be persuasive.

As has been said before, the quality of your argument is so poor that you are one of the best advocates for atheism on the JREFF. If you would prefer to be an advocate for your religion, I respectfully suggest that you improve your arguments.

It would also be helpful if you would answer questions put to you, such as the one on the previous page regarding Muslim martyrs. You have stated on many occasions that the willingness of Christian martyrs to die for their faith is "evidence" for the truthfulness of Christianity.

In your opinion, then, is the willingness of the 9/11 hijackers to die for their faith "evidence" of the truthfulness of Islam? It's a simple enough question and there seems to be no good reason for you to continue to avoid it.

Unlike you, I have read Ehrman's book in its entirety. He does not support your belief for the existence of the divine Jesus in the least, and his scholarship in terms of his support for a non-divine Jesus is dreadful; full of fallacies and unsupported leaps of faith. I am left baffled at your touting this book as support for your arguments as it undermines them at every turn.

Doubtless you will take this post as a critique of you personally rather than a critique of your argument. I can only suggest that instead of misunderstanding it, as you did with Giordano's post, you will read it fully and take it in the spirit in which it is meant; as constructive criticism of the quality of your arguments.

Everyone here would rather your arguments were better than they are now, well researched and sourced, and avoiding logical fallacies. Contrary to what you might believe, the better the quality of the opposing argument, the better the debate.

 

[DOC]

...Unlike you, I have read Ehrman's book in its entirety...

Then you should be able to explain why Bart Ehrman stated "Jesus certainly existed" and why he stated there are solid reasons to believe a person named Judas betrayed Jesus. I'm sure some people in here would be interested.

 

[Akhenaten]

Then you should be able to explain why Bart Ehrman stated "Jesus certainly existed" and why he stated there are solid reasons to believe a person named Judas betrayed Jesus. I'm sure some people in here would be interested.

What do you make of this post, DOC?

For the record, Ehrman states categorically in his book:

The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence.

 

[Akhenaten]

Then you should be able to explain why Bart Ehrman stated "Jesus certainly existed" and why he stated there are solid reasons to believe a person named Judas betrayed Jesus. I'm sure some people in here would be interested.

Since you are the one claiming that the book supports his position wouldn't that be your responsibilty?

And speaking of responsibilties, where are your references for the statements that you have attributed above to Ehrman?

 

[Agatha]

Then you should be able to explain why Bart Ehrman stated "Jesus certainly existed" and why he stated there are solid reasons to believe a person named Judas betrayed Jesus.

That was a strange bit to pick out of my post, but never mind. I hope that you read and understood the rest of it.

I am not sure why you want me to summarise Ehrman's arguments for you; you claimed to have read around a third of the book several days ago and I would have thought that you would have had time to read the rest of it by now. It isn't a very long book at 368 pages and it's written in a very accessible (simple) style. After all, you brought Ehrman's book forward as evidence for Jesus, surely you don't need me to explain to you what it says?

 

[h.g.Whiz]

Who is everyone, as far as I know only 2 or 3 people in this thread have read at least 30% of the book.

Have you read the book or just the opinions of some skeptics online (as seems to be the case with most people in here).

What book?

 

[joobz]

As I have been saying for nearly 5 years, my threads are not about me.

This isn't your thread.

Forget me, and just talk about the facts I present, or the occasional inference I make.

start presenting facts, and we can discuss those.

If you don't like what I present or the way I do it then you should stay out of the thread.

People don't like false information and logical fallacies. It is why people argue against you.

So I guess it's now onto the next DOC this, DOC that, post---many times without an example or explanation. Do all these no new information attack posts waste people's time who are serious about learning new information; sure it does, but that's the nature of the net I guess.

Why did you just post this no information post?

 

[joobz]

Then you should be able to explain why Bart Ehrman stated "Jesus certainly existed" and why he stated there are solid reasons to believe a person named Judas betrayed Jesus. I'm sure some people in here would be interested.

I'm interested in hearing why Ehrman stopped believing that Jesus was actually the son of god.

 

[catsmate]

Who is everyone, as far as I know only 2 or 3 people in this thread have read at least 30% of the book.

I have read it, you obviously haven't (and lie about this).

Have you read the book or just the opinions of some skeptics online (as seems to be the case with most people in here).

So?

DOC, your bizarre fixation of using Ehrman as an authority while simultaneously cherry picking his arguments is an interesting case study as to why appeals to authority and cherry picking are logical fallacies.

Well it's exactly what DOC does to Jefferson, Ramsay et al. In fact several of the xian apologsts he repeatedly quotes disagree with aspects of DOCianity.

As I have been saying for nearly 5 years, my threads are not about me.

This simply isn't true. These threads are all about you and your need to pontificate to drown out your internal doubts.

Forget me, and just talk about the facts I present, or the occasional inference I make.

We do, at length. We show you that your arguments are wrong, your "facts" are a mix of lies, distortions, mis-quotes and other nonsense. You refuse to accept this because it doesn't suit your beliefs and your need for them.

If you don't like what I present or the way I do it then you should stay out of the thread. But I know that probably won't happen with many people.

Because many people feel it necessary to expose your lies, distortions, quote mines and similar nonsense.
Perhaps you should learn from this and stop using this nonsense?

Then you should be able to explain why Bart Ehrman stated "Jesus certainly existed" and why he stated there are solid reasons to believe a person named Judas betrayed Jesus. I'm sure some people in here would be interested.

I'd be more impressed if he actually supplied these supposed facts. However I've actually read the book.

 

[Craig B]

... Acts? Wasn't Acts written by sir Ramsey's favourite historian?

Yes. Sir William Ramsay praised as an historian of the highest order a writer who places a person who did things in the year 45 AD before a person who did similar things in 6 AD, and makes yet another person talk about both of them in a speech allegedly delivered in around 30 AD.

ETA: And Gamaliel's speech makes it impossible - absolutely impossible - to reconcile the dates of the Matthean and Lucan nativity tales. Judas rebelled against "the" census. That was in 6 AD. Herod died in 4 BC.

 

[Hokulele]

Then you should be able to explain why Bart Ehrman stated "Jesus certainly existed" and why he stated there are solid reasons to believe a person named Judas betrayed Jesus. I'm sure some people in here would be interested.

It is quite possible you missed this part of Agatha's post (my bolding):

...

Unlike you, I have read Ehrman's book in its entirety. He does not support your belief for the existence of the divine Jesus in the least, and his scholarship in terms of his support for a non-divine Jesus is dreadful; full of fallacies and unsupported leaps of faith. I am left baffled at your touting this book as support for your arguments as it undermines them at every turn.

...

Although, given the sources and "evidence" you have provided thus far, "fallacies and unsupported leaps of faith" would most likely count as "solid reasons" in your mind.

 

[Agatha]

It's not often I swear out loud when reading a book, but when I read Ehrman claim that Jesus must have existed because nobody would make up such a character, and the inclusion in the NT of "difficult sayings" and "uncomplimentary" anecdotes meant it must be true, I really had to use a little bit of unladylike language. How many times have we patiently (and not so patiently) explained that good fiction includes those things?

However, it's important to note that Ehrman's Jesus was an non-divine apocalyptic preacher who was crucified along with others and was not resurrected. Ehrman states that the crucifixion is "multiply attested" but that the resurrection was invented because Jesus' followers didn't want him to be dead, so came up with a story by which he wasn't.

 

[I Ratant]

I'm interested in hearing why Ehrman stopped believing that Jesus was actually the son of god.

.
Might that answer be in ....................the book?....................

 

[ddt]

It's not often I swear out loud when reading a book, but when I read Ehrman claim that Jesus must have existed because nobody would make up such a character, and the inclusion in the NT of "difficult sayings" and "uncomplimentary" anecdotes meant it must be true, I really had to use a little bit of unladylike language. How many times have we patiently (and not so patiently) explained that good fiction includes those things?

So nothing more than the tired criterion of embarrassment - an argument that is solely used in researching Biblical history, and nowhere else?

 

[Giordano]

If you don't like what I present or the way I do it then you should stay out of the thread.

Oddly enough, I usually post more in the threads where I don't like what someone presents or the way they do it. It doesn't seem worth my time to just post that I agree with something already presented. And as pointed out by others, this isn't "your" thread, either (a funny statement after you state that it isn't about you).

But again, my criticisms related only to your posts and to your arguments, not to you. I am happy for you to continue to post here, and I will periodically tune in for my own amusement and atheistic purposes.

 

[I Ratant]

Yes, any thread DOC posts in is recommended for strengthening one's lack of faith in the supernatural, just by reading his posts.
Good job, DOC!

 

[DOC]

What book?

"Did Jesus Exist" by Skeptic Bart Ehrman.

 

[DOC]

I'm interested in hearing why Ehrman stopped believing that Jesus was actually the son of god.

My opinion is that he was not filled with the Holy Spirit. Christ said I will send the Holy Spirit who will teach you all things. Bart Ehrman in my opinion is trying to get all knowledge strictly from his interpretation of what is written in the New Testament. Christ never said I will send a book called the bible which will teach you all things, he said I will send the Holy Spirit who will teach you all things.