tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4444268752293597611..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Arguing For The New Testament Text (Part 1)Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19476846816035573972009-10-28T09:38:45.450-04:002009-10-28T09:38:45.450-04:00John wrote:
"You stated that Ehrman offered ...John wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"You stated that Ehrman offered little to skeptics. Based on this debate, I think he does, at least in terms of the historicity of the Resurrection. This is about the validity of the New Testament text, no?"</i></b> <br /><br />What did I refer to just before making the comment about having little to offer? I referred to "his work on the text of the New Testament". And what did I go on to quote from one of Ehrman's books? His comments on the text of the New Testament.<br /><br />You refer to "the validity of the New Testament text", apparently suggesting that any concept affirmed by the New Testament would therefore be relevant to my post. Using that reasoning, I should not only be willing to use this thread to argue for the resurrection, but also should be willing to use this thread to defend monotheism, the historicity of Paul, the role of women in the church, the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, or any of thousands of other issues that are associated with the New Testament in some manner. Do you think that was my intention for this thread? There are differences between an issue like the text of the New Testament and the meaning of that text or the accuracy of the message conveyed by that text.<br /><br />Ehrman's debate with William Lane Craig on the resurrection was reviewed by me and by Steve Hays. I've reviewed Ehrman's two debates on the resurrection with Mike Licona as well. Our material on the resurrection probably numbers in the thousands of pages by now, including Steve Hays' e-book on the subject, which is a few hundred pages long by itself. If you're impressed with Ehrman's material on the resurrection, then you apparently don't know much about the subject. And it isn't the topic of this thread.<br /><br />You need to exercise more self-control in your comments on our posts. You're involving yourself in a lot of threads, not always in a way that's on-topic, and you don't make much of an effort to do your own research, to document your claims, or to interact with what other people write in response to you. Do you realize how much that sort of behavior wrongs other people and discourages them from interacting with you?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48453295434022434902009-10-27T22:26:56.646-04:002009-10-27T22:26:56.646-04:00I'm using the transcript of a debate between C...I'm using the transcript of a debate between Craig and Ehrman: http://www.freewebs.com/deityofchrist/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf<br /><br />You stated that Ehrman offered little to skeptics. Based on this debate, I think he does, at least in terms of the historicity of the Resurrection. This is about the validity of the New Testament text, no?<br /><br />For the record, I don't think that Ehrman's claims mean one must necessarily be an atheist, it's just that I think it's foolish to insist that the Resurrection is a scientificaly provable event or that reason alone should conclude it occurred.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04361879638625626574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51217533183296434382009-10-27T18:54:04.939-04:002009-10-27T18:54:04.939-04:00John,
You've made some unsupported assertions...John,<br /><br />You've made some unsupported assertions about a subject I wasn't addressing.<br /><br />Why?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79714059991142367172009-10-27T17:45:50.446-04:002009-10-27T17:45:50.446-04:00From my readings of Ehrman, the main thrust of his...From my readings of Ehrman, the main thrust of his point is that verifying that actuality of the Resurrection is outside the scope of history and the archeological sciences. History and science must use certain parameters and methods for determining what is or, at the very least, what is most likely. <br /><br />The most that we can verify is that people have confessed to witnessing the Resurrection. Whether they witnessed it or not is, to science, unverifiable just as it is unverifiable whether Zeus or Mithra "actually" existed, eyewitnesses or not.<br /><br />Science is generally concerned with making statements about measurable and quantifiable aspects of the material universe (at least as it is up until today).<br /><br />Ultimately, acceptance of the Resurrection depends on faith.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04361879638625626574noreply@blogger.com