Does Jesus's Prayer Show Christianity Is False?

[Gary]

More ad hominem and also just false. Christ had plenty of stern words for his opponents.

Yea, sure. Your behavior and Jesus' behavior are very similar.

Right...

[Apologiaphoenix]

Somehow it seems that my style is somehow relevant to the data....

[Gary]

You're caricaturing my position, what a surprise.

Ehrman should be listened to on questions of textual criticism, for example, did Mark 1:1 originally read "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" or "the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God?" He's eminently qualified to commentate on that kind of thing. Or, was John 21 part of the original John or not?

He's not qualified to commentate on Jewish burial practices.

Ehrman unfortunately makes too much of the contradictions in much of his work.

The entire point of the Ehrman video that I posted above is that a professional historian would not touch the alleged Resurrection of Jesus with a ten foot pole! Why! Because the evidence stinks!

Ehrman is not claiming to be an historian, he is just stating a fact: there isn't enough evidence for the Resurrection claim for any reputable historian to include it as an historical fact in his or her history book.

Period.

You don't need to be an historian to figure that out.

[Gary]

Somehow it seems that my style is somehow relevant to the data....

No. It is completely unrelated.

I guess it just struck me the difference between you and your father-in-law: He seems to debate the Bible to win souls to Jesus and you seem to debate to stroke your ego. Nothing wrong with either one. Just a big, very noticeable difference. That's all, Nick.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes. Plenty of times. I used to be a dispensationalist who argued against evolution for instance.

My character is not the issue here but the arguments I made. Got anything because this is just ad hominem.

No, Gary doesn't have much beyond ridicule and selective reading.

[Apologiaphoenix]

No. It is completely unrelated.

I guess it just struck me the difference between you and your father-in-law: He seems to debate the Bible to win souls to Jesus and you seem to debate to stroke your ego. Nothing wrong with either one. Just a big, very noticeable difference. That's all, Nick.

More ad hominem.

Mike and I also deal with different types of people and in different locales and such. The differences makes the difference.

But again, you are just mind reading and ignoring the data.

[Gary]

More ad hominem.

Mike and I also deal with different types of people and in different locales and such. The differences makes the difference.

But again, you are just mind reading and ignoring the data.

Well, I'm sure you are doing things exactly the way Jesus wants you to. Keep it up!

[Apologiaphoenix]

And I am sure you are ignoring the data the way you want to. Keep it up!

[Gary]

And I am sure you are ignoring the data the way you want to. Keep it up!

You keep telling yourself that, Nicky. I have looked at the data...and found it sorely lacking...

You just refuse to accept than anyone with a functioning brain would question your INERRANT belief system.

IT
IS
A
SUPERSTITION!

[Apologiaphoenix]

I have no problem with someone questioning Christianity. In fact, I wish more people would.

I have a problem with people questioning it who don't know what they're talking about.

You know, like you.

But hey, let's try to argue your style.

CHRISTIANITY
IS
A
FACT!

[Gary]

I have no problem with someone questioning Christianity. In fact, I wish more people would.

I have a problem with people questioning it who don't know what they're talking about.

You know, like you.

But hey, let's try to argue your style.

CHRISTIANITY
IS
A
FACT!

I wish I could help you, Nick. I really do. You are devoting your life to a non-existent being and a superstitious, highly improbable, belief system. But further discussion with you is futile.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Translation: I can't answer the questions and it's easier to blame the opposition rather than interact with scholarship.

[psstein]

The entire point of the Ehrman video that I posted above is that a professional historian would not touch the alleged Resurrection of Jesus with a ten foot pole! Why! Because the evidence stinks!

Ehrman is not claiming to be an historian, he is just stating a fact: there isn't enough evidence for the Resurrection claim for any reputable historian to include it as an historical fact in his or her history book.

Period.

You don't need to be an historian to figure that out.

Ehrman doesn't claim to be a historian... "a professional historian (Ehrman) won't touch the Resurrection."

Hmm, contradiction much?

Ehrman is not some sort of unbiased, objective scholar. Nor is Ludemann, nor is Licona, neither was Casey. We all come to the table with presuppositions. Ehrman sees the burial account itself as legendary.

The Resurrection is not included in history books because it's not an event you can show through strictly historical methods. History is methodologically naturalist. The responsible scholar cannot adjudicate on the Resurrection WITHOUT arguing for the existence (or lack thereof) of miracles. Miracles are a philosophical, not historical question.

Finally, YOUTUBE VIDEOS ARE NOT SCHOLARLY SOURCES. Watching a video DOES NOT equate to reading a book.

[psstein]

I have no problem with someone questioning Christianity. In fact, I wish more people would.

I have a problem with people questioning it who don't know what they're talking about.

You know, like you.

But hey, let's try to argue your style.

CHRISTIANITY
IS
A
FACT!

Obligatory snarky response about science, reason, and how miracles are overwhelmingly improbable.

I can't read John Earman. Or Craig Keener. Or anything that might challenge my worldview.

[Gary]

Ehrman doesn't claim to be a historian... "a professional historian (Ehrman) won't touch the Resurrection."

Hmm, contradiction much?

Ehrman is not some sort of unbiased, objective scholar. Nor is Ludemann, nor is Licona, neither was Casey. We all come to the table with presuppositions. Ehrman sees the burial account itself as legendary.

The Resurrection is not included in history books because it's not an event you can show through strictly historical methods. History is methodologically naturalist. The responsible scholar cannot adjudicate on the Resurrection WITHOUT arguing for the existence (or lack thereof) of miracles. Miracles are a philosophical, not historical question.

Finally, YOUTUBE VIDEOS ARE NOT SCHOLARLY SOURCES. Watching a video DOES NOT equate to reading a book.

THANK YOU, STEIN!

You just admitted what I have been trying to get you guys to admit to all along: the EVIDENCE itself is not strong enough to convince the average person of the Resurrection claim as an historical event. It can only be believed with the assistance of the metaphysical---faith.