Misquoting Jesus, Stanford Lecture

[rwenzori]

I dunno why you actually do respond to rwenzori, I just don't bother. I come around by and by for healthy debate, not to be ridiculed at every statement I make.

Hey, don't get rude now! I've been staying clear of your whole "trinity" debate out of respect!

[PeterCH]

Oh lordy! What a long monologue!

Where does one begin? The Catholic church and Ehrman - so? It's not known as the most progressive church out there - do they still forbid the use of condoms?

Your "rebuttals" - see my post in the other thread about the ex-sheriff.

My "conscience" and some crazy idea that I am "crying out" to god/church/whatever. You're barking up the wrong tree there, old boy.

Education - you seem to frequently bring this up IIRC, assuming that your own is way ahead of all the dumb proles on the forum. I hold a post-grad degree in Philosophy & Logic, amongst others, though it was taken a long time back and I admit to being a tad rusty, LOL.

Regarding how I post in this section - I always like to challenge claims and pomposity. Many misunderstand or don't get the implications of some of what I post, but so what. I type quite slowly so am not given to long posts. I have always liked the Socratic "gadfly" method - so that is a bit of what I do. If some won't respond, c'est la vie.

Regarding respect - I will give it to those who have earned it. I don't tend to argue against Cerebus, for one, any more, since he has earned deep respect from me even although our beliefs are poles apart.

Regarding "insults" - all I will say is that you are quite a pro yourself, and you tend to get there quite quickly when on the losing end of the stick LOL! You sound as though you could do a bit of maturing yourself!

Regarding your claim that I do "not understand" christianity - believe me old boy, I understand it very well.

Enuf!

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000

Here's a nice response. The author is as respected or maybe more so that your Dr Phil of Biblical Academia.

rwenzori, you do not understand. An intelligent man would know he doesn't.
You can't possibly.

You don't appear to know how scientific or any research works for the matter. And research which can be critiqued by a sheriff on its methodology is very poor.

[ghoti]

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000

Here's a nice response. The author is as respected or maybe more so that your Dr Phil of Biblical Academia.

rwenzori, you do not understand. An intelligent man would know he doesn't.
You can't possibly.

You don't appear to know how scientific or any research works for the matter. And research which can be critiqued by a sheriff on its methodology is very poor.

I know he knows how it works. So your statement is false.

[rwenzori]

rwenzori, you do not understand. An intelligent man would know he doesn't.
You can't possibly.

You don't appear to know how scientific or any research works for the matter. And research which can be critiqued by a sheriff on its methodology is very poor.

So you continue with insults, assumptions, falsities and insinuations. And you wonder why your christianity gets no respect from me. I've posted once in response to your personal accusations against me - that's enough. I'll reserve my responses for non-personal claims you make.

[ghoti]

So you continue with insults, assumptions, falsities and insinuations. And you wonder why your christianity gets no respect from me. I've posted once in response to your personal accusations against me - that's enough. I'll reserve my responses for non-personal claims you make.

Has he discussed any of the lectures in here at all yet? Or has he just attacked the author and the posters? I cant remember and I am too lazy to browse back.

[rwenzori]

I know he knows how it works. So your statement is false.

Thanks.

[rwenzori]

Has he discussed any of the lectures in here at all yet? Or has he just attacked the author and the posters? I cant remember and I am too lazy to browse back.

No - not AFAIK. Only bible-belt quotes.

[PeterCH]

I'm staying out of the ring except to differ with this point. A church will give you their version of an answer and the answers will vary depending on the church.

RZ may not be the most diplomatic or subtle poster but I'm not sure there should be a special sensitivity when discussing religious beliefs. Surely we are better than those who are prepared to kill if you draw a picture of their prophet.

I am always concerned when it is implied that ones faith is so fragile that it can be threatened by a critic or skeptic .

Christianity has withstood far worse than RZ.

My faith is not fragile. However, some people simply upset me. Guys like rw because they have absolutely no scientific training (from what they post).

1. You ignore 300 years of official, dedicated Biblical research.
What were all those researchers doing? Smoking crack?
Pretending to do literary research?

2. You base everything on one article - one one theory which is flawed because its only a supposition. If you read deeper into the subject you see that Ehrman accepts one meaning here, and a different there, all to fit his agenda. That's not how science works and in this case its extra diffcult because of the huge amount of old manuscripts floating around.

3. To interpret anything scientific you need background in the subject. Erhman may be understood by his peers but for ordinary lay people who do not study Bible history - well he can say anything and because he 'attended Princeton seminary' he will be sanctified.

4. In other disciplines YOU NEVER change your guidelines on the basis of one piece of research no matter how good and no matter who is behind it. This is in objective research eg medical research a field I am familiar with. We never, absolutely never ever, discover one thing (it has to be statistically significant) and we never ever base guidelines, treatment, diagnosis - whatever you want ie we never apply the results of just one study - no matter who does it - be it John's Hopkins or UCSF or NIH - no matter who it is. Research needs to be confirmed after beeing reviewed and verified.
It has to be repeated by other researchers and has the same conclusion (usually numerous conclusions because research studies almost never have only one end point).

5. Maybe this discipline of evaluating old texts and considering different meanings then verifing each text and from that drawing conclusions on the motivations of the scribes is different, maybe one miraculous genius has done what thousands of scholarly researchers and translators have not done.
I doubt it. This sort of thing never happens. Scientists in other disciplines don't write books for the common man on the subject and go on lecture circuits.

6. None of us has any formal education in this, AFAIK. I don't. So I cannot judge Dr Ehrman. However, what Ehrman has said has not changed Church dogma, it has not swayed thousands of other academics around the world and it has not brought about any fundamenta shifts in the way theology is expressed. So I doubt that it is significant. I have not seen any responses from major scholars who I presume have been doing similar work - after all what else is there if you're studying the origins of the New Testament - either for or against Ehrman. It's as if Ehrman's views have been added to a list of possible theories but no-one has come out against or for.

Maybe someone has a research search engine for this?

Finally let it be put clear, I have no faith issues in this. There is nothing groundbreaking in what this guy has said other than give argument to simplistic attitudes of some people who want to find artificial faults with others' organisational beliefs.

As for civility and respect, guys like rwenzori, ridicule and insult scriptures all the time. It is simply impossible to have any meaningful debate with people who behave in such a conceited manner. Religion, needs respect, IN FACT ALL DEBATES SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT IN A RESPECTFUL WAY. However,
matters of religion, race, family and nationality need special respect.

[PeterCH]

I know he knows how it works. So your statement is false.

What qualifications do you have to know?
Reading science-daily.com does not count.

I don't mean to insult you but unless you can show me that you
work for a research institution, You don't. Believe what you want
but you don't.

[rwenzori]

Long post, more attempts at insult. Tell me - have you read any of Ehrman's books yet? "One article" - not so. For your edification and spiritual upliftment allow me to quote Exodus 20 verse 16:

U no tell bad stuff about ur neibor.

[rwenzori]

What qualifications do you have to know?

Maybe try that question again, in English.

[PeterCH]

So you continue with insults,

Saying you have a contemptous attitude to Christianity is NOT an insult.
It's derrived from the tendecy of your posts.
I don't know what your story is but you're terribly obscessed by all of this.

assumptions,

Can you explain to me why the posts I made are assumptions. So far your only arguments for Dr Ehrman have been:

1. He lectured at Standford.
2. He is famous and respected.
By whom???
3. You cut down the last guy, called him a sheriff. However, rocket science this is not if a sheriff can cut apart the methodology this guy used. Did you read the links I posted? I doubt you did.

Can you explain to me why these links are assumptions?
Can you explain why you think Erhman is correct? Did you review the old manuscripts yourself? Do you have training in ancient Greek and ancient history in the Mediterranean?

Do you just buy what Erhman says because it's agrees with you?

falsities and insinuations.

Prove the 'falsities'. Prove that the links I posted are nonsense. Come on.

And you wonder why your christianity gets no respect from me.

In a debate between civilised people, everyone and everything is respected. That is you don't joke, ridicule and insult other peoples' beliefs. It's good manners, shows you have respect for those you're debating against. This has nothing to do with Christianity. Even if we were debating Hitler's ascent to power we would not be throwing slurs at each other if we were debating in a civil fashion.

I've posted once in response to your personal accusations against me - that's enough. I'll reserve my responses for non-personal claims you make.

I have made no attacks against you personally. I am responding to your constant attacks and insults. If you do not know how to phrase a response in a polite manner, you will be attacked for that. Learn to be polite first and show respect to other people, you don't seem to show it.

[PeterCH]

Maybe try that question again, in English.

What qualifications do you have to know how scientific research is conducted?

Did you not grasp the meaning of the question earlier?

[PeterCH]

Long post, more attempts at insult. Tell me - have you read any of Ehrman's books yet? "One article" - not so. For your edification and spiritual upliftment allow me to quote Exodus 20 verse 16:

You misunderstand. I'm not saying bad stuff about you. I am saying stuff about the ATTITUDE OF YOUR POSTS (capitalised for emphasis).

If you can't seperate the criticism of the way you handle sensitive or any other subjects (in most of your posts on PD, not just today) from personal criticism of you I don't know. I'm not attacking you personally, I am saying that the way you debate religious issues is IMPOLITE. Maybe you don't know
any better, I dunno.

[PeterCH]

No-one's responded yet to:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000

I'll give you my response. I honestly don't know. I don't have formal training in Bible History and so can't judge what Ehrman or Wallace mean or say. I would need to spend months (at least) of intensive study to get up to scratch in all of this. Time I just don't have.

That's an honest answer. Taking Erhman as dogma is incorrect. I'll take him as dogma once his version of the Bible becomes canon or at least once it's vetted by the majority of biblical scholars. I would have to trust their opinion in the same way I trust that the bridge I drive my car over every day has been approved by a legitimate scietific body.