Bart Ehrman VS Atheist The Infidel Guy Part 1.wmv

Bart Ehrman gets into a disagreement with atheist the Infidel Guy over the Historical Jesus on the Infidel Guy Show

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Bart
• Ehrman
• Infidelguy
• atheism
• HistoricalJesus
• Christianity

[NUAGESA]

Yes, that exchange, re. Price, amused me too! Ehrman: "I don't really know him, no.. . why would I? . . what books has he published?" Infidel: "Deconstructing Jesus." Ehrman: Yeah he's actually communicated with me and he's told me some of his doubts and I've been puzzled by it because I don't really understand . . I haven't seen any evidence that he's produced". What a gem! All the same I like Ehrman; at least he's recognisably human unlike many of his usual adversaries in the apologetics camp!

[woodenmajor]

im surprised that Dr Ehrman would merely argue that "no serious historical scholars doubt that there was ever a historical jesus" ..based apon what ? paul's letters are unimpeachable proof ? his rather rude dismissal of Dr Price ..first he never heard of him ,then he actually talked with him about this very subject ?

[MrBabyMaddox]

I believe on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he love all mankind, he created everything. This is my testimony.

[NUAGESA]

@prodfootz

Thanks for your "brother of the Lord" contribution - this makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone happen to know the chapter and verse of the "off the cuff" and "disinterested remark" that Ehrman is referring to with regard to Paul in this part interview? I gather that it's probably from Galatians, lol, but even that isn't entirely certain . . or is it? I also agree with your comment about motivations being unimportant too btw - quality of argument does it for me every time, lol!

[NUAGESA]

@Dogsneeze

I totally agree that 'infidel guy' handles this interview appallingly badly - however the underlying objections that he is attempting to articulate are not without merit! I like Bart Ehrman but his methodology is not is not beyond criticism and I don't mean that either personally or professionally. It is simply that historians struggle with sparse material and are forced to use what is available! However, the conclusion that Jesus definitely existed is stretching things considerably!

[NUAGESA]

@proudfoot

My understanding is that Q is a speculative document, predicated on the assumption that everything common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark must have another prior source. Problem is, Ehrman further speculates M and L as prior sources for exclusive Matthew and Luke. He also identifies the problems of TF but then proceeds to treat Q, M, L and TF as good independent sources & concludes multiple attestations! Limitations of the historical method perhaps, but a stretch nonetheless.

[proudfootz]

@boblackey1

Yes, scholars on all sides of the issue.

No consensus.

[proudfootz]

@boblackey1

No, took the name for Tolkien's novel.

[boblackey1]

@proudfootz Is your handle connected to an Indian name? My great grandmother on my father's side was half Indian. Or so they say but that could be a myth..I don't know:-) I've got to get a haircut and go to the bank (closes on Sat at noon) so I've got to run for now. Hope you have a good day and it's nice to see you again via this thread.

[proudfootz]

@boblackey1

In any kind of science there has to be an awareness that new information might make our current theories obsolete.