Thread 24651944

Pic related, when it comes to the christianity he is without a doubt the biggest midwit there is. Ehrman is, at best, expert in lower criticism. He serves a milquetoast factoid soup to the "I love science" crowd of video essay junkies. His work is the "safe horny" of biblical criticism.

I have several of the worst books ever written in my private collection, but I wouldn't share them here, and none of them are particularly prominent writers.

>>24651944 (OP)
t. assblasted tradlaper

>>24651944 (OP)
>His work is the "safe horny" of biblical criticism
That's exactly what he's trying to be, anon. Biblical Criticism 101. You didn't think that Ehrman was on the cutting edge of Biblical scholarship because you saw him memed on /lit/, did you?

>>24651950
>dumbest non-fiction authors in their field
low hanging fruit, mainly posting to ask what the fuck his "field" is even supposed to be
i'm sure he clears it though

>>24651944 (OP)
>Educated Greeks reading the NT in their native language within living memory of people taught by the Apostles or their immediate successors: "Jesus is God. Paul and Peter are both apostles."
>American ex-fundy with an agenda in the 21st century: "Well, acktually, the Apostolic Fathers are wrong, it's Paul versus Jesus. Buy my book. When Paul says he fought with Peter he is trustworthy, but when he says they got along he and Luke are lying. All of Peter's letters are fake but I 100% know what he thought about Jesus for real."

>>24651978
meant for
>>24651950
>>24651956

wtf is "lower criticism"?

>>24651944 (OP)
Ehrman is a pretty cool guy. He teaches Americans that they're reading translations of translations of translations and eh isnt afraid of anything.

>>24651944 (OP)
>the "I love science" crowd of video essay junkies. His work is the "safe horny" of biblical criticism.
what a feminine way to try and undermine a man. you use these memes to mask your butthurt the way a hole would use "creepy" or "toxic." please grow testicles

>>24651944 (OP)
The only time I met someone critical of Ehrman he turned out to be a huge Jesus freak.

>>24651944 (OP)
He writes books for the general public where he presents the basic summary of mainstream contemporary NT scholars.

The only people who have an issue with that are low IQ Christians who are still seething because NT scholars clearly showed that the historical Jesus never claimed to be god and wrongly believed that he was living in the end times, among other embarrassing things.

Its the history equivalent of Christians seething over evolution.

>>24651944 (OP)
>not a single criticism about him being wrong
Are you gay or something?

Who is the anti-Ehrman? I want to read them. Only interested in actual, respectable NT scholars who aren’t writing articles in answersingenesis, or thinly veiled polemic, or are annoying tradcaths who make grand pronouncements about the state of biblical scholarship based on two books they read. Thanks. Even better is if they aren’t even Christian.

>>24653760
Michael R Licona

>>24653760
> or thinly veiled polemic, or are annoying tradcaths
There aren’t any.
I’ve actually tried to find some and any book that tries to start out with a “hey I’m just looking into the facts” premise ends with pascal’s wager type appeals. It’s pure cringe and it seems like they can’t help themselves.
The big problem for them with Ehrman is that his criticisms are so basic they’re taught in seminary. And the problem is the old “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” which you see in debates including with
>>24653765
This cunt. They become experts at slithering away from what they know and have studied because their role in writing books or debating is no longer about facts it’s about saving souls (or if you’re more crass just filling the coffers the only way their misspent education can).

At least with the new atheist types it was all just about competing sophistry and who could have the best snappy retorts, and these people could at least try to compete.

>>24651978
>Educated Greeks reading the NT in their native language within living memory of people taught by the Apostles or their immediate successors: "Jesus is God. Paul and Peter are both apostles."
You need to read your Ehrman. If you had, you'd know that this is so laughably wrong the only people who unironically argue it are retarded bible college evangelicals and tradlarpers on 4chan.

>>24653760
>anti-Ehrman
>but has to agree with Ehrman on everything
If everyone agrees on the matter except for him and him only, maybe he's the problem.

>>24653760
I'm not even Catholic, but the opening statement of Akin in this debate demolishes Ehrman's spiel.
https://youtu.be/Zn7lmu0pek0=1564

>>24654292
Ehrman must've been sleepy that day or something because this is really easy to poke holes at
>read 2 biographies of lincoln
>they agree on all the points that are in the wikipedia article
>they do however disagree on their new material not found on wikipedia
>can they therefore be said to be "accurate" just because they "accurately" copied an earlier source? And we're assuming the earlier source is reliable to begin with because... two later books that copied it agree with it?

>>24654292
this guy thinks marrian apparitions are well attested btw

>>24654292
ehrman's refutation was really weak ngl, but the point is pretty shit
there's plenty of books on hitler that have all the basic details right like date of birth time of death born in austria ect, that we would never the less consider complete horseshit because of other things the book says. If i were to copy some well established but basic biography and insert some bullshit about him being a wizard casting fireballs at russians in the middle, would ww2 historians be in the wrong for calling my book unreliable because "well you agree on MOST of the facts, we both say he was born in austria for example!"

Also, as bart says, the matter of jesus being god or not doesn't seem like a "minor" contradiction.

>>24654304
>>24654326
I'm talking about the part starting at 35:30

>>24654334
and i answered to that part here >>24654326 ?

unless you're referring to the high 5 specifically i guess, no argument there?

>>24654339
>the claims in the bible are outrageous because miracles can't happen
aren't you begging the question at the point

>>24654350
miracles are, by definition, the least likely thing that could have happened, otherwise they wouldn't be miraculous. this isn't begging the question so much as it is looking at the definition of the word miracle.

>the claims in the bible are outrageous because [the least likely thing to have happen] was the least likely thing to have happened

>>24654350
>>24654358
accdentally pressed enter, whoops

moreover, a lot of the "miracles" in the bible that he takes issue with, most of them in fact, aren't actually "miracles" but "mysteries" or shit that is later called miracles just because it's too ridiculous to defend. Like the roman census that (if we're interpreting charitably) was supposedly empire-spanning, but we have 0 record of. "the miraculous vanishing census!" problem solved. or the "miracle" of jesus having spent both 50some days travelling there and back around palestine AND at least several months bumming around egypt, him and his family defying all time and space, what a miracle!

All the people on either side of the Ehrman debate should just take the secular theology pill, you get to believe in God (either as a Spinozistic monad or postmodern event), uphold Christian ethics, and be part of the church community, all without having to defend supernatural nonsense, cling to outdated metaphysics, or deny modern historical scholarship. Secularization is the outcome of Christian civilization, and Christianity must settle itself within its begotten social framework if it does not wish to become completely irrelevant.

>>24651953
It got you to respond didn't it?

>>24653515
You do know lower IQ people tend to breed more, right?

>>24653423
He still seems like a disingenuous fuck

>>24654269
I didn’t say anything remotely close to that but it’s interesting how the three examples I mentioned triggered you. Which one was it?

>>24653760
Ehram is mainstream, right? So anti-Ehrman would be fringe, it doesn't really work - what you're asking for

>>24654292
If witnesses and attestations actually mattered they would all be mormon, which on the exact same basis has far more witnesses and proof, including martyrs (the old “nobody would die for what they thought false” bullshit christians pull about people they can’t even prove died as martyrs).
But of course when confronted with this the same people who in their last breath said this was sufficient evidence now scoff since mormonism is obviously fake and gay.
This is because “proof” and “witness testimony” never mattered in the first place.

>>24651956
He wanted to be but he made a living selling controversial shit takes. It’s cute when he tries to deny it publically bc it’s like a pro wrestler trying to keep keyfab but the adults all know it’s fake and he knows they all know it’s fake

>>24654530
>controversial shit takes.
Such as?

Ok so surely if the gospels portray an historically real event, and, orthodox chalcedonian Christianity has retained and developed an accurate understanding of that event and its implications, then, those two things being objectively true, it should be a possible, even likely conclusion reached, to one degree or another, by non believing scholars situated in a disinterested, secular context. Yet, it seems to me, maybe I’m wrong, that secular, disinterested scholars in the whole do not tend towards the chalcedonian interpretation of the gospels, while Christian ones do. Is there an agnostic scholar out there who is the anti-Ehrman? Someone who is autistic about near eastern Mediterranean culture and textual analysis who veers close to the orthodox understanding of the gospels without any suspicious priors which a believing Christian brings with them? This is a genuine question, this should be an observable phenomena if it’s true. A convert who goes on to study these questions post-conversion doesn’t count for the same reason above.

>>24654542
I think you underestimate people's ability compartmentalize

>>24654542
That's the funny thing, isn't it? As much as so many theologians and Biblical historians have claimed to find irrefutable evidence of the Triune God's existence, there hasn't yet been some mass conversion of academics the moment any of these "proofs" were published. You'd think that if any given proof was so certain, it would persuade most people who read it without any preconceived notions, but no, these sort of apologetics only seem to convince Christians who are trying to provide further grounding for their already-held beliefs. I say all this as a Christian who desperately yearns for the faith to come to terms with the conclusions of modern Biblical scholarship without retreating into mental gymnastics. If our faith is true, it can withstand the truth.

>>24651944 (OP)
I don’t read non-fiction

95% of non fiction is just such garbage it honestly feels like talking about the writers or giving them any attention or any discussion of their book at all is still giving it way more dignity than it actually deserves.

>>24654628
>most people who read it without any preconceived notions
its almost as if most people have those, including soientists and scholars

>>24651944 (OP)
He makes introductions to Biblical criticism and in it just says the least controversial things possible in the field. How is that bad other than hurting your feelings?

>>24655383
Feelings are way more important than facts in discussions of religion and politics

>>24654637
I feel the same way about fiction, honestly

>>24655383
even those that dont adhere to some literalist interpretation of scripture, still hold to some vague notion that the bible fell of the sky and is removed from history, so someone saying otherwise is scary (even someone as bland as ehrman)

I want him to talk to Wesley Huff.
Both seem like dudes who know what they're talking about.

>>24654472
Explains why I'm a virgin.

>>24654292
>The Spiderman comics include the real, historical, geographically accurate New York City, therefore Spiderman is real
Yawn.

>>24654446
wtf is secular theology, what, you believe the events described are total bullshit but uh... you pretend to think they happened anyway?

https://ehrmanblog.org/the-original-blog-post-misquoting-misquoting-jesus/

I like how even when someone criticises him, they can't even say he isn't being truthful past the title because that's obviously bullshit so they go with "well that doesn't matter!"

>>24654446
Schizobabble post

>>24651944 (OP)
Big Dick Carrier mogs Err-man

>>24653875
>read your Ehrman
I love that I can still get surprised on this site after all these years.

>>24651978
>their native language
no

>>24658949
Greek would be the native language of educated Greeks anon

NT was written in greek

>>24658949
not the native language of jesus but the native language of gospel writers

Hes a lib

>>24654539
The claim that there was a historical jesus

>>24662175
How is that controversial? He's mentioned by Josephus

>>24662185
He's mentioned by editors *inserting* shit into Josephus. That's like saying my shit is the saviour because I froze it and inserted it into your father.

>>24662175
As a group, mythicists are renowned for their 'controversial shit takes'. They are not ones to talk.
Richard carrier is the most respectable of the lot.

>>24662195
The consensus (aka the opposite of a hot take) is that he probably did mention jesus originally, just not in this exact way. He does mention him later.

>>24662392
The connection between a militant Essene carpenter from a Pharisee family who considered righteous gentiles and Samaritans and bad jews to be in an unending connection with God's capacity for forgiveness and Sauls' SIPO greek philosophy shit is marginal.

>>24662401
>Jesus, the one who is called messiah
idk seems pretty direct to me

>>24651944 (OP)
Skydaddy-issues? Do you need a pacifier?

>>24653423
I can always giggle when I think about American radical Christians who need to claim the King James Bible is somehow divinely inspired because they cannot read the original. They claim every single part of the Bible is divinely inspired, yet they don't even bother to read the original. It’s really intellectually poor.
I recognize there are widespread educational problems and that some Christian fundamentalists lack the relevant knowledge. Still, I can't help seeing their position as intellectually weak.
>>24653515
>He writes books for the general public where he presents the basic summary of mainstream contemporary NT scholars.
It appears that this is a necessary tasks to do.
>>24654358
Guys, we need a new Hume-Thread at this moment. Giese!
>>24654446
Why should I?
If I feel the need for ethical orientation, I would look to some older philosophers or moral teachers. They sometimes rely on metaphysical or theological assumptions, but their overlap is impressive.
And if I need something quick and dirty, the law of my country does a sufficient job. I know law is something else than moral and cannot replace it. Yet the basic consideration like what not to do or rights of men are a good start point.

>>24654633
That's too bad

>>24663939
Bilingualism is psychological colonialism

>>24651944 (OP)
Bruh the dumbest is Yuval Noah Harari who wrote the fucking Homo-whatever books. Apt because he himself is a RAGING homo. He likes dick.

>>24653760
you see, the thing is, ehrman isn't just publushing his own work, he's publishing academic consensus
so if someone was serious, they'd agree with him on 99% of points, and bickering about the 1% is something you do in academic publications, not popular books

>da consensus!!!!
The flying magic zombie rabbi never existed

>>24666568
explain to me how jesus never existing (not the miracles, just a historical cult leader who died via crucifixion) is the same as 2+2=4

>>24666808
because it is something anomalous that takes much greater pains to explain away than you are presenting

>>24651953
hey! I like assblasting. It waterboards my anal hole clean so I can take my partner's dick balls deep. I am a boy, btw.

>>24667462
True. It's impossible to believe that a guy with the most common jewish name started a apocalyptic cult and died, while other apocalyptic cults existed. Basically 1/1,000,000 chances of actually happening

>>24666808
you are a fucked in the head idiot whose uncle visited you at bath time way too much

>>24666808
>(not the miracles, just a historical cult leader who died via crucifixion)
lol
>(not the extraordinary miracle worker son of god character specifically, just any crucified messianic jew)
That wouldn't be jesus then, would it? No one is denying ordinary messianic jewish claimants existed. Mythicists are denying mythological jewish sorcerers i.e. jesus, being real historical figures. Funny how this dimished, christianity-denying cope version of jesus you're pushing happens to be noahide compliant, what a coincidence lol. I'm 100% sure you're not a kike.

>>24667462
what ever helps you sleep at night

>>24667518
for you it is probably a warm hand of your dad stroking gently your cock while fucking you hard in the arse, yeah?

>>24667530
mmm thats hot, go on

>>24667513
Then clearly siddartha gautama was never a real person, unless you think he has golden skin and is stronger than a hundred thousand men. Clearly the pharaohs and roman emperors weren't real people too, unless you think they're avatars of the gods and wield supernatural powers.
Obviously you, along with all mythicists know that it's common for historical figures to be deified. You're just so irrationally opposed to the idea that jesus existed that you'll come up with new, impossible to meet burdens of proof that you will never apply to any other historical figure

>>24667535
his warm breath musking your neck while tingling sensation somewere around your sack and a tip of your penis rises just about the time you are cumming. Which does not really stop your dad from fucking your arse. You may have finishes, but he surely did not. You are breathing heavy cumming buckets all over the newly put bedsheets your mom put few hours ago on your bed...

>>24667545
>siddartha gautama was never a real person
Yes, most likely
>pharaohs and roman emperors
Have mountains of contemporary evidence of their existence, unlike magic zombie rabbi. Should've said socrates, his existence is more questionable
>so irrationally opposed to the idea that jesus existed
Clearly not from my comment lol I was expecting you to go the other way and act as though I had practically admitted it. I like that pilpul better
>impossible to meet burdens of proof that you will never apply to any other historical figure
I dont think the pharaohs or roman emperors were divinely magical either lol. Buddha is a myth just like jesus imo.

>>24651944 (OP)
You’re right but it feels like it’s on accident as your argument is in bad faith; youre just butthurt because you love Rabbi Yeshua so much.
>>24654475
He’s got some residual evangelicalism in him. Competitive, has appointed himself official opinion-shaper and setter of the boundaries of acceptable discourse, etc. He won’t tell anyone what he really thinks and wants to shepherd them. Whether he is motivated ultimately by a good faith strategy or a desire to remain employed and sell books, who knows.
>>24666568
The magical universalist pacifist rabbi deity didnt exist because the nationalist insurgent one actually did. The Bible’s Jesus is, at least at its origins, propaganda to cover for Jewish nationalist messianic violence, if he were one recognizable figure or not.

Mythicists, despite being a bunch of lefties whom one might think would be eager to criticize Jewish nationalism in our current climate, are too afraid of the political implications to do so. And then you remember most of them were spawned in the New Atheisn of Hitchens and Harris and it isn’t as puzzling.

>>24668057
Frederick was gay

>>24668322
Allegedly. Also, even faggots have correct opinions sometimes.

>>24668322
Which makes him even more trustworthy. His thoughts are untainted by the presence of femoids

>>24668057
>The magical universalist pacifist rabbi deity didnt exist because the nationalist insurgent one actually did.
>jesus didnt exist because messianic jewish insurrectionists really did exist
Jesus is a magical flying miracle worker zombie jew. That's the alleged person we're talking about. You have to erase his identity completely to pretend "he" existed at all lol. The more obvious answer that the entire character is simply fictional a la Ned Ludd eludes you for some reason
>too afraid of the political implications
You're literally pushing a kosherized, noahide compliant version of jesus lmao. That's all this cope euhemerization amounts to.
>le nu atheists!!
rent free

>>24669178
Why did no early roman pagan or jew deny jesus's existence then? They claimed that his miracles were either exaggerations of the truth or complete falsehoods, they said a monotheistic god couldn't exist, that jesus couldn't have been divine, but they never claimed that he did not exist . Why do you think you have better access to information than a 2nd century pagan arguing against christianity?

>>24669772
Why do you think that early Roman pagans or Jews were as skeptical as we moderns are?

>>24669902
Because they viewed jesus as a charlatan and despised christians for disrupting the social order. If they could have debunked christianity in the easiest way possible (showing that jesus did not exist) they would have done so

>>24669920
>If they could have debunked christianity in the easiest way possible (showing that jesus did not exist) they would have done so
This already happened ITT, see >>24666568

>>24669178
Mythicist insistence that Jesus dropped out of the ozone is the exact same fucking thing the ‘early Christians’ did— and the purpose of it is the same: to deny the violent political realities of the first century.

Magic rabbi universalist pacifist wandering philosopher nice guy who dindu nuffin Jesus was a fictional counter narrative to messianic Jewish nationalist insurgent violence and was produced initially by Hellenic Jews. Diaspora Media Jews today lying and spinning reality-inverting tales about messianic Jewish nationalist violence and Zionism were doing the same exact thing 2000 years ago. Mythicists who insist on Him alpha and omega-img in the pleroma or whatever are, unbeknownst to them, helping them get away with it. That they are a bunch of fag leftist admirers of Sam Harris is not at all surprising.

The mythical Jesus exists because they wanted to hide the reality of the real one (or real ones). A synthesis of Zealot Jesus and Mythical Jesus is where the truth is.
>>24669772
How does a figure like Jesus exist for a Roman as anything other than a text or as an encounter with a fanatic on the fringe of Roman society?
>>24669920
What was there to debunk? What could there be?

There was obviously a charismatic figure at the start of the early Jesus movement in the 1st century, just as there were dozens of other charismatic religious leaders predating and postdating the 1st century both within and outside Judaism. Thousands of people convert within two decades on the basis of testimony from a variety of firsthand accounts that originated in Roman Judea, and Paul spoke to many of them. Textual criticism that has isolated the earliest written passages or oldest oral traditions of the New Testament show a religious movement that is clearly and rationally related to the Second Temple cultural context. Call Jesus whatever you want but you don’t have to be a mythicist to deny that Chalcedonian Christianity’s claims have no historical merit. It’s the Reddit atheist strategy of being the most annoying and choosing the worst argument.

“Uhh actually a near eastern, uniquely apocalyptic ethnic religion with doctrinal beliefs in a coming messiah, suffering under the thumb of empire in the 1st century AD, couldn’t possibly produce an apocalyptic preacher that convinced thousands of people that the end times were nigh.” What?

>>24651944 (OP)
DFW is the biggest midwit when some magazine paid him to go on a cruise and he was oblivious to the fact that the old boomers he was friendly with were only there to swing.

>>24671499
>How does a figure like Jesus exist for a Roman
As the founder of a dangerous and quickly spreading cult, like l ron hubbard
>What was there to debunk
I assumed that was obvious from context, christianity
>What could there be?
Court documents, polemics written after jesus died, things that we don't have access to anymore. Obviously it's impossible to prove a negative but if the pagans or jews thought there was any possibility that jesus wasn't a real person they would have brought it up

>>24659250
It was written in koine greek you larping buffoon. Why are christcucks so thoroughly delusional? Just try real religion instead of some middle eastern crackpot ideology.

>>24654446
That's what modern liberalism already is. Christian ethics is the problem, the mythology is already dead to any serious thinker.

>>24671556
Who is DFW?

>>24651944 (OP)
Dude seems to have a monopoly on research regarding textual forgeries. Can anyone suggest anyone else with books on the subject?

>>24674144
Oh wise one, tell us how much of a serious thinker you are!

>>24667498
I thought that name was more common among hispanics?

>>24674265
It's not that he is the only reasercher on the subject, his scholarly contributions are on par with other modern academics, nothing special, I'm not even sure if there is any reaserch original to himself in his popular books because itd be too technical, he's just one of the very few with a deep knowledge of the subject who isn't part of a shadow cabal intent on keeping the reaserch away from the general public.

This sounds schizo but I'm serious, 99% of serious biblical scholarship is done by... Well... Christians. It's in part due to Christians being well more likely to choose this field of study, for obvious reasons, but also because once you're there, you look at what your peers are doing and it seems as though your options are either academia (minimum wage or close to that for 99% of them), consultation work (unreliable as hell, especially as someone who doesn't have 10+ years of experience) or publishing feel good apologist nonsense like "Noah's ark discovered in Armenia" or "world's smartest man says the bible is perfect!"
If your job relies on pretending something isn't real, that's a good motivator to pretend, or even believe it

>>24654628
>Scholars are absolutely objective and would never dismiss evidence or arguments that make them uncomfortable
How are you this naive?

Ehrman is a disingenuous faggot. He'll pretend the consensus is on his side, but if you dig deeper you'll find he's only talking about the liberal consensus.

>>24674661
Obviously Christian scholars who already believe that Jesus rose from the dead, Biblical inerrancy, or whatever Catholic dogma- will not agree.
Else they'd be "liberal"

At this point it's just a head counting game, of how many Christians you get in the field

>>24674521
>shadow cabal intent on keeping the reaserch away from the general public.
Any books on this phenomenon? I need it. For research. Its personal.

>>24674702
There are plenty of Christians on the moderate or liberal side, and it's not like atheists or agnostics have no pre-conceived ideas.

>>24674724
Sorry, I don't really think of liberal Christians, as Christians. So I forgot to make the distinction being about how many REAL Christians you got in the field.
Real Christians believe in stuff like traditional authorship, so get enough real Christians into textual criticism, and the census is going to be: Traditional authorship. No mystery to that.

I just don't get why the consensus of people who already believe in these things (Christians), would be interesting

I forget who it is, but it's like the #1 guy in contemporary NT scholarship and the historical case for a resurrection
his conclusion is basically:
If you believe in magic, you're rationally justified in thinking there was a historical resurrection
If you don't believe in magic, you're rationally justified in thinking there was no historical resurrection

And I just think that's such a fucking lukewarm take. I got no idea why Atheists and Christians alike praise him for this.

>>24674661
It's so cute when chuds try to be intellectuals. They talk a big game about the classics and scholarship and knowledge, how they're conservative because they know their history or whatever, and then they actually start reading academic work and immediately sperg out about how it's all woke pozzed libtard bullshit because it disproves them lmao. They start saying retarded shit like this
>>24674743
>I don't really think of liberal Christians, as Christians.
>Real Christians believe in stuff like traditional authorship
with a straight face. Genuinely don't realize how fucking retarded they sound.
>everyone who agrees with my fringe fundiefag interpretation of textual criticism is a REAL christian
>everyone who disagrees with me is a FAKE CHRISTIAN so THERE
>no I will not read people who disagree with me I've already decided they're wrong because... because... they're not REAL christians
>the entire field disagrees with me? that's because... because... uh... they're not REAL christians so THERE
The funniest fucking part is that you genuinely think you sound very knowledgeable and intelligent. Go ahead, post a link to a pdf by Cleetus McCocksucker from Alabama Higher Bible Institute that proves the Gospels were written by direct eyewitnesses kek

>>24668057
>Quoting a gay freemason to make your point
This is like quoting Yuval Noah Harari

>>24674794
Dilate.

>>24674261
If Shakespeare is the Moses, if Melville and Dickens are the David and Solomon, and if Joyce, Pynchon and McCarthy are the Mark, Matthew and Luke of literature, then DFW is John.

>>24674822
>ctrl-f "trans," "tranny," "transgender"
>0 results
>obsessed

>>24663939
I read the Geneva Bible, are you saying I should learn Greek?

>>24674995
You should probably read a better translation of the bible first

>>24674794
>everyone who disagrees with me is a FAKE CHRISTIAN so THERE
I am being 100% serious
If you think it's okay for ever increasing parts of the Bible and Church tradition to be made-up. You're a phony.

At least trads are principled. Liberal Christians can endlessly modify their beliefs to be whatever they need not to get pinned down.


Besides, weren't you (someone?) just whining about Ehrman being a disingenuous faggot because he "pretends" to have consensus (but only among Liberals)?
Liberal Christians don't disagree with me. They AGREE with me.

>>24675210
Do you think that christians should believe the truth or whatever's most in line with traditions developed after jesus died?

>>24675210
I'm nta, different guy.
>I am being 100% serious
I know you are, which is why you're so funny. Believing provably false things about the Bible's origins -- not even because you think believing those things in themselves is heckin based, that would already be funny, but because the other things come from fake Christians and they're fake because they're libs and so they're wrong because... because... they just are okay!!! Negatively polarized yourself into complete retardation to own the libs kek

>>24675221
Yes, I think people should believe true things.

Liberal Christians have made their faith as to be impervious to belief revision. They put nothing on the table, nothing to push back against, no claims that can't be given up on or modified
Which makes it so they can get suck with false beliefs as long they want to

>>24674318
1% of mexicans are named jesus. 20% of jewish 1st century men are named jesus

>>24675248
>Believing provably false things about the Bible's origins
No, I don't think Christians should believe "provably false" things about the Bible's origins.
I think Christians should revise their beliefs and admit to be wrong about whatever was "proved false".

My issue is with Liberal Christians that they can, and do, revise those beliefs. Without it doing anything to their overall belief in the truth of Christianity, whatever that means....
Because the truth of Christianity is infinitely flexible to them.
Apparently it's fine for the flood the be a made-up story, and the gospel authors to be pulling stuff out of their asses.
They are phony Christians.

>>24674720
>Any books on this phenomenon?
none that i know of
it's something you gleam between the lines when reading ehrman, and even then it's almost like he's trying to hold back because they're all still his colleagues and friends.

This sounds like my claims are poorly sources but they're all true, Ehrman has made most of his career out of publishing 30-ish years of reaserch that has been well established in academia but gatekept from the wider world.
Other academics have had over 25 years to jump on the bandwagon, but fundies are very much against spreading this knowledge so they refuse to use it in their books unless when directly adressing criticism.

I mean, think of the catholic church. They teach most of this stuff in seminary school... and yet they never talk about it.

>>24675300
>No, I don't think Christians should believe "provably false" things about the Bible's origins.
>I think Christians should revise their beliefs and admit to be wrong about whatever was "proved false".

>immediately complains about people not believing something that has been debunked by archeological records and common sense centuries ago

Idk how you expect to be treated seriously insisting that every animal on earth fit on a boat... and then somehow land dwelling mammals walked from palestine to south america.

>>24675333
This thread is pretty good proof of that. Literally every half-educated priest already knows this stuff but the average TRVD christian despises ehrman for popularizing it

>>24675300
>I don't think Christians should believe provably false things about the Bible's origins
>They should revise their beliefs, of course
>But the gospel authors were all direct eyewitnesses to Jesus's ministry and if you don't believe that you're a FAKE CHRISTIAN and a LIB
Fascinating

>>24675339
>>24675358
No, you misunderstand me.
I think people should NOT believe in a global flood, or the gospel authors being eyewitnesses.

>>24675019
Please make your criticism constructive, you've left me in a no better place than I started
What would you recommend?

>>24675553
Anything translated in the last century. The NRSVue is probably the best one but it's too new for there to be many high quality copies. I use the NRSV