极速赛车168官网 Comments on: Why Jesus is God: A Response to Bart Ehrman

极速赛车168官网 By: John

John — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 02:05:00 +0000

I'm late to the party but came across this article and found it pathetic in its tone, logic and argument in general. The author openly states falsehoods about Ehrman, his intentions and literally the content of his book. The author sarcastically and dishonestly pretends that Ehrman is trying to present his argument as a great revelation that he alone stumbled upon. Laughable at best as Bart explains quite thoroughly that he is summarizing old arguments for a general layman audience. The author ascribes sinister motives to Ehrman simply because he is searching for intellectual and scholarly answers. Sadly this is probably the most generic, common and worn out response anyone who dares to examine Christianity with an even remotely critical aim gets from scared and threatened believers. But the article is a good case study of how die hard ideologues will criticize a book they HAVEN'T EVEN READ and smear the author with probably false statements. Sadly most Christians are scared to death and threatened by scholarly examination of the bible by anyone who doesn't have predetermined conclusions to always affirm the bible no matter what. It's actually sickening and incredibly easy to see through. But yet it still angers me lol

极速赛车168官网 By: Michael Murray

Michael Murray — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 09:32:00 +0000

In reply to MattyTheD.

You won't get a reply from M. Solange O'Brien as she has been banned. Most of the atheists who have tried to contribute here have been banned. You can find her over at

http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com.au

极速赛车168官网 By: MattyTheD

MattyTheD — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 09:30:00 +0000

In reply to M. Solange O'Brien. Where does he admit that Ehrman is correct?

极速赛车168官网 By: George

George — Fri, 02 May 2014 03:46:00 +0000

In reply to Brandon Vogt. "If all natural explanations have been exhausted then the probability of a supernatural explanation increases significantly." Why? Why ever approach the supernatural? (and here I'm not even going to touch on why anyone would just split reality into these two categories) How would you even know that all natural explanations had been exhausted? What's a reasonable timeframe to say "they'll never figure it out"?

极速赛车168官网 By: Ignorant Amos

Ignorant Amos — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:37:00 +0000

In reply to asker42.

There are many variants with minor issues and a lot of that is discussed here...

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html

Granted, most people only talk about the Long Ending and Short Ending variants, but there are others.

I know of at least one theory in a paper outlining my point.

There is what is considered the Original Ending (OE), the Short Ending (SE), the Long Ending (LE), the Very Long Ending (VLE), the Double Ending (DE) and the Bobbio Ending (BE). Some scholars argue for a a lost Original Long Ending, but we can let that fly.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends2

极速赛车168官网 By: asker42

asker42 — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 01:09:00 +0000

In reply to Ignorant Amos. Mark is considered to have a short ending and an expanded ending, and most scholars believe the expansion is a later edition. There may be a number of "versions" of the ending due to minute descrepencies, but I have not seen any theory about there being 6 substantially different endings.

极速赛车168官网 By: Ignorant Amos

Ignorant Amos — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:50:00 +0000

In reply to asker42. Naaaàh!....it doesn't have two.....know yer new testament I say....bible criticism is a bitch...look it up.

极速赛车168官网 By: asker42

asker42 — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:47:00 +0000

In reply to David Nickol. Fr. Barron didn't say they were explicit claims. He said they were claims that could have been interpreted as Jesus implicitly claiming divinity.

极速赛车168官网 By: asker42

asker42 — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:46:00 +0000

In reply to Ignorant Amos. What 6 different endings? Mark has 2 endings.

极速赛车168官网 By: Jim (hillclimber)

Jim (hillclimber) — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:31:00 +0000

This is not a criticism of the post, which necessarily had very limited scope, but to me it is important to recognize that historical reasons are not the only reasons for believing Jesus to be God. There is also an aesthetic identification to be made, a sensibility that "sees" that a perfect human offering to God IS God. Without this sensibility, I think one loses the key insight that we all, insofar as we "do the right thing" with our lives, partake in divine reality. Conversely, when one does have this sensibility, our individual experiences of partaking in the divine reality become "evidence" of the divinity of Jesus. By extrapolating from our own experiences, we can see that if only a human were able to make a completely selfless gift of his life, he would be God.