- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy impression of Bart Erhman is he's not stupid when he realizes that he can cash in on a sensational idea for a book.
ha! brilliant!
Yet also will not be totally utilized by every crackpot New Atheist thinking that he must be throwing in his lot completely with Atheism's latest antics.
But for him to realize - like - " Hey, I could make a fortune writing a book called Misquoting Jesus right now" I can see that.
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonshipWhat a thoroughly peculiar, vicarious take on the 'appeal to authority' this is.
So it seems that it is Prof. Bart Erhman you are wishing I would educate. Well, I respect Bart Erhman's skill in history and NT textural criticism. And I would not presume to debate him. But there are people who can stand up to Bart Erhman.
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonshipYou've slipped in an ad hominem here that isn't as suave and as incognito as you might think it is.
My impression of Bart Erhman is he's not stupid when he realizes that he can cash in on a sensational idea for a book.
Yet also will not be totally utilized by every crackpot New Atheist thinking that he must be throwing in his lot completely with Atheism's latest antics.
But for him to realize - like - " Hey, I could make a fortune writing a book called Misquoting Jesus right now" I can see that.
Originally posted by sonshipEarlier you said: Actually, Erhman is not the darling Jesus myther that some people think he is. As he has said that people denying that Jesus ever lived are really just making fools of themselves.
My impression of Bart Erhman is he's not stupid when he realizes that he can cash in on a sensational idea for a book. [...] But for him to realize - like - " Hey, I could make a fortune writing a book called Misquoting Jesus right now" I can see that.
Perhaps, by your own reasoning, Bart Erhman said that 'people denying that Jesus ever lived are really just making fools of themselves' because he was "not stupid" and he realized he "could make a fortune writing a book" that said that, alongside the things you said you "respect" him for in terms of his "skill in history and NT textural criticism".
20 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonshipAnd who is it you claim is demanding that the Bible specify the colour, weight and age of the donkey, who raised the donkey and where it was kept all the time or how much the donkey that gave birth to it cost?
[The Bible] says Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. Should we demand that we know WHO raised the donkey, where was the donkey kept all the time, how much the mother of the donkey cost, the color, weight, age, of the donkey, etc, etc, etc.?
The economical nature of the Gospel of Luke does not call for [b]Luke thirty to fifty times more bulk discus ...[text shortened]... gh. And I will spend some more time on this issue (or non-issue) as the case may turn out to be.[/b]
You said you would not presume to debate Bart Erhman and that there are, instead, other people who can 'stand up' to him. Presumably these other people have more than an reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy (like the one above about the donkey) to offer? Or was the colour-of-the-donkey etc. thing an example of why you would not presume to debate him?
20 Apr 17
Originally posted by FMFIs "cop-out deflections" your own idea or are you borrowing it from some writer you admire?
Are cop-out deflections like "dubious rocking chair speculations" and "whack-a-mole" and the "Moby Dick" thing your own ideas or are you borrowing them from some writer you admire?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
20 Apr 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFair enough sir. Am surprised though that it would take 'an unruly mob of pitch fork waving villagers' just to get you to say you believe the bible is divinely inspired.
I am not afraid as you have erroneously assumed. I will chose my own battles if you do not mind and I will not be coerced and cajoled by an unruly mob of pitch fork waving villagers on the basis of some trumped up charges of fear. I am a chess player sir, objectivity is my business and I know NO FEAR!
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
Originally posted by sonshipAm glad you are looking to spend more time on this issue. Perhaps you have realised it is not such a minor issue after all?
So it seems that it is Prof. Bart Erhman you are wishing I would educate.
Well, I respect Bart Erhman's skill in history and NT textural criticism. And I would not presume to debate him. But there are people who can stand up to Bart Erhman.
Actually, Erhman is not the darling Jesus myther that some people think he is. As he has said that people denying ...[text shortened]... gh. And I will spend some more time on this issue (or non-issue) as the case may turn out to be.
But please, don't get distracted by the donkey. Instead, try to look objectively as to 'why' it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem, and understand how this impacts on all other biblical prophecies, in regards to their credibility.
That's the down side of the entire bible being divinely inspired. There's no scope or resilience to even a minor infallibility or fabrication.
20 Apr 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIt is well known I believe in the inspiration of scripture. that I chose to disengage in this particular issue at this moment in time is my choice and should be respected, not subjected to blathery horse feathers,
Fair enough sir. Am surprised though that it would take 'an unruly mob of pitch fork waving villagers' just to get you to say you believe the bible is divinely inspired.