Bart Ehrman pwns IG

Just Arrived Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 6

Great podcast on 12/5/07. I love it when people assume that the study of history produces facts. IG got a science lesson and a history lesson.

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:18 pm

Can you provide a link?

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:29 pm

Strange person this chap is. I truly have no idea what he's talking about. I don't remember saying, "A study of History produces facts."

Just Arrived Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 6

infidelguy wrote:

I don't remember saying, "A study of History produces facts."

You also didn't say, "hey, i just got pwned".

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:41 am

Can someone please provide a link to this podcast? I can't find any Bob Ehrman discussions that occurred on the fifth of December

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:58 am

It's right at the top of the IG main page: "Who changed the New Testament and Why?"

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:55 pm

harpoon wrote:

infidelguy wrote:

I don't remember saying, "A study of History produces facts."

You also didn't say, "hey, i just got pwned".

Oh I see.. a troll.. nevermind.

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:40 pm

Philosophos wrote:

It's right at the top of the IG main page: "Who changed the New Testament and Why?"

Thanks heheh Embarassed

Newbie First Class Joined: Feb 02, 2008 Posts: 44

harpoon wrote:

Great podcast on 12/5/07. I love it when people assume that the study of history produces facts. IG got a science lesson and a history lesson.

I havn't listened to the show but thought they were basicaly on the same page

Just Arrived Joined: May 26, 2007 Posts: 3

I found that one pretty frustrating to listen to. It became an argument about the historicity of Jesus, and how Bart is so sure that Jesus was a historical figure (although of course not divine or any of that other nonsense). They spent a good 25 minutes back and forth about whether or not it was tenable to think Jesus was historical, and kept talking about the historicity of Paul of all things. While I agree with Reggie, that Bart needs to take a step back and look at the evidence and not just brush it aside as kooky, I wish Reggie hadn't harped on it so much and would have kept talking about Bart's book and the stuff they agreed on.

I was little taken aback when Bart Ehrman brushed aside Bob Price as a fringe contender on the matter (or implied as much). Oh well, sometimes discussions have a life of their own!

Just Arrived Joined: Oct 30, 2005 Posts: 7

Any chance we can get Bart and Doc on the same show to debate?

Yes, Bart did sound a little uppity. Being so sure of anything before 1400 AD is a big mistake.

Newbie Joined: Sep 20, 2003 Posts: 19

Quote:

Yes, Bart did sound a little uppity. Being so sure of anything before 1400 AD is a big mistake.

Bart seemed clearly upset that Jesus as a historical figure was being questioned.

What bugs me about this argument is I always hear the same thing. The idea that Jusus was not historical then an apologist claiming that there is more historical evidence for Jusus that any ather figure in history. Then they go on to talk about there being over 5000 greek manuscripts for the NT and so on...

I'd like to hear a more complete explanation for how historians determine the historicity of anything. Maybe a comparison of evidence for historicity for both Jesus and Julius Caesar?

Newbie Joined: Jan 30, 2008 Posts: 11

I hate to say it, but denial of a historical Jesus is a fringe position.

Newbie Joined: Sep 20, 2003 Posts: 19

Quote:

I hate to say it, but denial of a historical Jesus is a fringe position.

OK, but why?

Is it because most scholars are believers or is it because there is good evidence for jesus being historical?

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:38 am

SocraticCoaster wrote:

I hate to say it, but denial of a historical Jesus is a fringe position.

It depends on what you mean by historical. Could there be a person the biblical legend was loosely based upon, sure. Is there any evidence beyond the bible that this person existed; nothing substantial (even though it's very popular to fake it). No archeological, coinage, or substantial extra-biblical textual evidence exists. We know nothing about this individual beyond the frankly mythological/legendary constructs of the bible, and that isn't history it's a story. So basically we have no real history for this person, even if he existed. All we have is a religious legend. To say what is portrayed in the bible is history (especially the Jesus story), is laughable until it can be confirmed with other evidence. It's no different then considering the Adam and Eve story or the Noah's flood story as historical.

It was once a fringe position to say the earth was a sphere and not the center of the universe. One should also note it was the same religion that opposed that fringe position. Evolution was once a fringe position, now it's religious creationism that opposes it on the fringe, even if they're still mostly in the majority.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore