In my discussions with Jason he's argued that early Christians were men of high moral standards, and thus we can trust them with regards to certain claims (such as Irenaeus claims about the authorship of the gospels) though not other claims for some reason (such as that Jesus lived to his 50's or Papias claim that Judas head swelled to the width of a wagon trail).
I'm wont to intercede in your dispute with Jason. Jason can, and has successfully defended himself in the past. I'd add that the words of P.H. Mell to Reneau apply equally as well to you and your fellow skeptics. I'd take them to heart if I were you. So, I'll get the ball rolling as it were, here, and let Jason chime in when he has time. I have family in town I've not seen in ten years and a class, ironically, in Nicene Era church history to teach Thursday, so I really do have better things to do with my time this week.
Of course, these are not claims by Jason are not made in isolation. More importantly, Ergun Caner is a living person. Eusebius is dead. You need a historical reason to declare Eusebius "dishonest." All you have is the evidence of history and the analysis of generations of historians. We have our personal eyewitness experience of this saga. What's more, some of us know these parties personally and have been privy to some of what has transpired.
I've already dealt with, for example, Iraneus claim about the age of Jesus, and you simply discard it. Iranaeus said what he said against the backdrop of refuting Gnostics with a doctrine of the atonement we know as the recapitulation theory. What you see, therefore, there is a reflection of that. It is an error attributed to a particular interpretation of a text in John's Gospel and is a product of his overall atonement theory. We can also trace his motive for saying it.
You, by contrast, make broad claims about Eusebius' history based on prejudicial, acontextual quotes, translated by one particular (hostile) person. No, Mr. Curry, these are not remotely the same.
I understand that LU is either the largest evangelical university or maybe the largest Southern Baptist University. I also understand that Jason was raised E-Free, so I assume he generally accepts E-Free theology. I'm not aware of any substantial difference in theology between E-Free and Southern Baptist. If that's true that would mean that the main representatives of Jason's denomination in education are wholly dishonest men. That's my conclusion as I've followed the arguments between the Caner's and White/Ascol. If these men can be dishonest, all the while extolling virtuous concepts, then extolling virtuous concepts does not show you to be honest. Hence we should not assume that the early Christians had high moral standards. And I think it's pretty obvious that they weren't, with rampant forging of documents, rampant modification of copies of canonical texts for theological motives, and later improvements on the gospel story from Mark to Matthew, Luke, and John. You shouldn't assume on the basis of the fact that a person is a Christian that you are dealing with someone more likely to have high moral standards. I don't see it.
Wow, there's just so much here that's wrong.
LU is not a "Southern Baptist University," and its size means nothing. If you can't get this correct, then what trust should we have in anything else you write.? LU began as an independent university, sponsored by TRBC. It is not supported by Cooperative Program dollars. You will not find an allotment for it in the SBC budget. You may find an allotment for it in the odd local church budget of churches in certain states, notably Virginia. You may find a budget item for it in one of the 2 state conventions in VA. That would, at best, make it a VA Baptist university, but not for the whole state. That's a far, far cry from "the largest SBC university" or even "an SBC university." What's more, there are a great many state Baptist colleges and universities. They range along a continuum in size and what they teach.
EFree theology and SBC theology...Well, SBC theology is all over the map. I assume you think EFree is all over the map as well. That is, again, a pretty fundamental distinction you apparently are too lazy to study for yourself.
If that's true that would mean that the main representatives of Jason's denomination in education are wholly dishonest men.
If these men can be dishonest, all the while extolling virtuous concepts, then extolling virtuous concepts does not show you to be honest.Hence we should not assume that the early Christians had high moral standards...This, of course, undermines any appeal you make for yourself and your own honesty in the past, now, or in the future. That, in turn undercuts your own reliability. Hence, we not should assume that you have high moral standards based on, well, anything you say. In fact, we should, if we follow your own reasoning, believe you are dishonest. If your character undermines the alleged facts and evidence you present, then might I again thank you for supplying us a reason for dismissing what you say. This isn't my yardstick; it's your own.
And I think it's pretty obvious that they weren't, with rampant forging of documents, rampant modification of copies of canonical texts for theological motives, and later improvements on the gospel story from Mark to Matthew, Luke, and John.
Oh, goody, Jon Curry wants to make some claims about textual manipulation. Well, let's see them. To know this, you have to have a proper idea of the autographa in order to show deviation. It wouldn't be enough to trace backwards, you'd have to know what the autograph itself looked like. You need to know who changed the text and how it was changed and exactly why it was changed. So, let's see you justify this sweeping claim.