tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2721344185083996419..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Ehrman CorruptedRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43853340086258509862009-03-14T20:06:00.000-04:002009-03-14T20:06:00.000-04:00This argument does have to be dealt with on some l...This argument does have to be dealt with on some level. There are plenty of credulous individuals today who believe that Benny Hinn really heals people by yelling "fire on you." How do we know that the early Christians and those who wrote the Bible (and preserved it) weren't merely this sort of people? We kind of do know that those who preserved it were this sort of people, since the Catholics have always believed in miracle proliferation, hairs from saints beards healing people, eucharistic miracles of the bread turning into flesh moreso than normal Catholic doctrine because it looks like flesh and bleeds, constant apparitions of Mary, bleeding or crying statues, saints having their heads chopped off and picking them up and walking away. What makes us think the first century Christians were any less cooky than the Catholics of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries and beyond? After all, Paul supposedly healed people by touching handkerchiefs and then distributing them to the people (its in Acts), so why shouldn't we believe that the pope's blessing or Peter Popoff's miracle spring water can really heal? Its just as believable, and the people that buy Popoff's miracle spring water are the same sort of people that believed contemporary tales of Paul's miracles. Somehow, however, we think ancient miracles are worth less scrutiny than current ones and that somehow because ancient people wrote them down they have more credibility than what Peter Popoff writes on his website or what the tesimonials of his followers say on his late night informercials.PaulSceptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14904172612565533112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53504091008659593402009-03-14T17:53:00.000-04:002009-03-14T17:53:00.000-04:00Please continue reviewing Steve. Much assurance to...Please continue reviewing Steve. Much assurance to be gained by reviewing the content of this scholar's skepticism. <BR/><BR/>RonRon Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49478101221910526972009-03-14T05:01:00.000-04:002009-03-14T05:01:00.000-04:00There is no question he is a demagogue.First, the ...There is no question he is a demagogue.<BR/><BR/>First, the best example is how he treated "variants" in MJ; he claims over 200,000, etc. while failing to point out that one is a few thousand manucripts counts many times.<BR/><BR/>Further, he fails to show how any real doctrine is affected. He knows this, and his mentor Bruce Metzger talked about this long ago, but he does not bring that out in MJ in any clear fashion.<BR/><BR/>Second, he keeps pretending that he is not trying to affect anyone's faith, but "just get them to think", while at the same time pointing out (in the last chapter of his latest book) that on his Final Exam he always askes the students a "provocative question"...and we all know that if you don't give a professor like him what he is expecting you are not going to get a top grade. With one hand he denigrates the faith, and then says, "Who? Me? Denigrate anyones faith?"<BR/><BR/>So why the charade? I think he knows that if he came out openly as an atheist, it would hurt his reputation in his particular situation.<BR/><BR/>(I know it is only anecdotal, but when he spoke here in Lawrence Kansas last year he was talking to a group before his speech and was openly laughting that Christian groups kept inviting him...and paying him honorariums...to speak.)Emanuel Goldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653303041185240250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16497275681098008542009-03-13T20:33:00.000-04:002009-03-13T20:33:00.000-04:00The more time Ehrman has had to notice the problem...The more time Ehrman has had to notice the problems with his argumentation, and the more often he's corrected on such matters (including corrections in his own presence), the worse his repetition of those arguments becomes. If he's not being dishonest, then he's remarkably careless, particularly when you consider that he's such a prominent scholar, he knows that many people are observing him, etc.<BR/><BR/>I discuss non-Christian miracle accounts, and provide links to some discussions of specific cases (Vespasian, Apollonius of Tyana, Marian apparitions, etc.), <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/01/non-christian-miracle-accounts-in.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com