Cathar1950 wrote:I think the idea that somehow "secular scholars" are trying "to use these to disprove the biblical as valid" is a straw man.
It may not be directly germane to the topic, but it does bear some relevance. Although Ehrman is not an atheist, I would categorize him with "New Atheist Movement" with the goal of limited the reaches of religion, particularly Christianity.
I donâ€™t see "secular scholars" trying to disprove the Bible any more then non-secular scholars, their goals are to understand or increase understanding, not disprove while you are trying to disprove any scholarship that doesnâ€™t fit your Sunday school understanding of some 19th century vision of the Bible and its purposes. You are reactionary to 19th century Biblical scholarship and historical critical methods when they disagree with your presumptions about the Bible and what you want them to mean.
Although it isnâ€™t germane to the topic it is germane to how you characterize those that disagree with your mischaracterizations of the gospels.
You have categorized Ehrman with "New Atheist Movement" and with some imagined â€œgoal of limited the reaches of religion, particularly Christianityâ€�..
New Atheism refers to a 21st century movement in atheism. The term, which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of Wired magazine, is applied, sometimes pejoratively, to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period 2004â€“2008. These authors are Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger and Christopher Hitchens. The collective representation of Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens has also been termed "The Four Horsemen", based on a discussion in 2007. They and other supporters of the New Atheism movement are hard-line critics of religion. They state that atheism, backed by recent scientific advancement, has reached the point where it is time to take a far less accommodating attitude toward religion, superstition, and religion-based fanaticism than had been extended by moderate atheists, secularists, and some secular scientists. According to CNN, "What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises
I find Ehrman to be rather conservative, and as I read him, he doesnâ€™t question the existence of Jesus as a real historical person.
He seems to accept the idea that Jesus came from Nazareth while I tend to think it was another misunderstood use of the OT, meaning dedicated to God.
Cathar1950 wrote:How is the bible valid except for teaching, indoctrination and the like?
I consider it historically valid, with minor discrepencies here and there.
And if the Bible is historically valild, then
of course the events listed in the book actually happened. So the problem for these non-biblicist is that they seem to accept other ancient texts and stories of ancient events, yet they reject the Bible, and there is certainly more evidence for the Bible then most other ancient texts.
What kind of evidence for the Bible? How is the Bible historically valid?
Granted they are events in a story but that hardly makes the factual and given the nature of the writings there is no reason to assume they are factual.
It isnâ€™t that they are rejecting the Bible as much as they are rejecting your claims about the nature of the stories where the scholarship shows us something else, they are written with purpose.
1) Source material. We generally have 1-5
source documents for ancient authors such as Catullus, Lucretius, Tacitus and Horace. When it comes to the scriptures, we have a wide range of sources spanning from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library.
2) There is extra-biblical evidence to support biblical claims, that is a key factor.
We have independent archaeological evidence confirming major parts of the Old Testament, such as Sennacherib's Prisim and The Black Obelisk.
We also have non-biased historians attesting to the veracity of the New Testament.
In light of all this, I don't think it is honest to say the Bible is just a fancifal book of myths and legends that is banrupt in the area of objective evidence.
Where, and who?
I donâ€™t think it is honest to claim just because some things might be factual that all of it is or that it even implies that of the whole or part is to be accepted as factual historical events.
Cathar1950 wrote:Tales of Baal are valid for Baal worshipers.
However, that would be based on faith alone. Christianity is not based on faith alone, there is evidence and events that can prove the truth of Christian claims. As William Lane Craig and Paul said, Christianity would be falsifiable if Jesus Christ did not resurrect. And if Jesus did resurrect, then Christianity is true. I'm not sure if the same methodology exists in Baal religions.
Cathar1950 wrote:It isn't just secular scholars as there are many non-secular and non-liberal scholars that understand these writings as product of diverse communities and not historical eyewitness accounts of any sort or fashion.
Not all of them are historical-eyewitness accounts. But the Gospels were, but we'll get into this more indepth in the next chapter. I'll probably post it up tomorrow and you can do the debate questions if you like. [/quote]
They are witnesses, not eyewitnesses, to the events surrounding the first Jewish war and an apology for their beliefs and reactions to their circumstances.
Cathar1950 wrote:Do you think it is fair to use the Bible to disprove what secular scholars find valid?
No, I'd rather use secular evidence to disprove the claims of secular scholars.
No, I'd rather use secular evidence to disprove the claims of secular scholars?
When are you going to do that? How does undermining secular research, not claims as it is you making the claims, make your claims more feasible?
Much like the Creationists tries to use biology against evolution and only showing their misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of both biology and their Bibles.