Bart Ehrman's work is criticized

[Chuckt]

What no one would have anticipated, however, was the extent of the furor and negative review of the book within the days and weeks after its publication. The quality and legitimacy of Ehrman’s case has been questioned and condemned by many on blogs and discussion boards across the Internet, by amateurs and professionals alike. The latter, thus far, do not include established scholars from mainstream academia, whether conservative or liberal; they have so far kept quiet. But many from outside the establishment who possess qualifications and knowledge more than sufficient to judge Ehrman’s case (and that includes many of those technically referred to as “amateurs”) have roundly reproached the failings of Ehrman’s case and his less-than-objective treatment of mythicism and mythicists.

http://vridar.org/2012/04/09/earl-d...-ehrmans-case-against-mythicism-introduction/

So much for his "scholarship" haha.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What no one would have anticipated, however, was the extent of the furor and negative review of the book within the days and weeks after its publication. The quality and legitimacy of Ehrman’s case has been questioned and condemned by many on blogs and discussion boards across the Internet, by amateurs and professionals alike. The latter, thus far, do not include established scholars from mainstream academia, whether conservative or liberal; they have so far kept quiet. But many from outside the establishment who possess qualifications and knowledge more than sufficient to judge Ehrman’s case (and that includes many of those technically referred to as “amateurs”) have roundly reproached the failings of Ehrman’s case and his less-than-objective treatment of mythicism and mythicists.

http://vridar.org/2012/04/09/earl-d...-ehrmans-case-against-mythicism-introduction/

So much for his "scholarship" haha.

As noted in your post, academics are not the ones criticizing the work.
His scholarship is unquestioned among his peers, even those that question his conclusions. Among those that actually study textual criticism, his scholarship is universally respected.
You have discovered bloggers that resent his very deep research credentials.
Shocking.
"Blogs and discussion boards"!
There's a place to look for authoritative scholarship!
LOLOLOL!
This guy really threatens you.
Is it the fact that he started as a devout evangelical and through serious study lost that faith, finding it completely unsupportable and collapsing under the weight of its own rationalizations?

 

[Chuckt]

What no one would have anticipated, however, was the extent of the furor and negative review of the book within the days and weeks after its publication. The quality and legitimacy of Ehrman’s case has been questioned and condemned by many on blogs and discussion boards across the Internet, by amateurs and professionals alike. The latter, thus far, do not include established scholars from mainstream academia, whether conservative or liberal; they have so far kept quiet. But many from outside the establishment who possess qualifications and knowledge more than sufficient to judge Ehrman’s case (and that includes many of those technically referred to as “amateurs”) have roundly reproached the failings of Ehrman’s case and his less-than-objective treatment of mythicism and mythicists.

http://vridar.org/2012/04/09/earl-d...-ehrmans-case-against-mythicism-introduction/

So much for his "scholarship" haha.

As noted in your post, academics are not the ones criticizing the work.
His scholarship is unquestioned among his peers, even those that question his conclusions. Among those that actually study textual criticism, his scholarship is universally respected.
You have discovered bloggers that resent his very deep research credentials.
Shocking.
"Blogs and discussion boards"!
There's a place to look for authoritative scholarship!
LOLOLOL!
This guy really threatens you.
Is it the fact that he started as a devout evangelical and through serious study lost that faith, finding it completely unsupportable and collapsing under the weight of its own rationalizations?

He doesn't threaten me. Anyone who puts out garbage isn't worried about putting out truth.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What no one would have anticipated, however, was the extent of the furor and negative review of the book within the days and weeks after its publication. The quality and legitimacy of Ehrman’s case has been questioned and condemned by many on blogs and discussion boards across the Internet, by amateurs and professionals alike. The latter, thus far, do not include established scholars from mainstream academia, whether conservative or liberal; they have so far kept quiet. But many from outside the establishment who possess qualifications and knowledge more than sufficient to judge Ehrman’s case (and that includes many of those technically referred to as “amateurs”) have roundly reproached the failings of Ehrman’s case and his less-than-objective treatment of mythicism and mythicists.

http://vridar.org/2012/04/09/earl-d...-ehrmans-case-against-mythicism-introduction/

So much for his "scholarship" haha.

As noted in your post, academics are not the ones criticizing the work.
His scholarship is unquestioned among his peers, even those that question his conclusions. Among those that actually study textual criticism, his scholarship is universally respected.
You have discovered bloggers that resent his very deep research credentials.
Shocking.
"Blogs and discussion boards"!
There's a place to look for authoritative scholarship!
LOLOLOL!
This guy really threatens you.
Is it the fact that he started as a devout evangelical and through serious study lost that faith, finding it completely unsupportable and collapsing under the weight of its own rationalizations?

He doesn't threaten me. Anyone who puts out garbage isn't worried about putting out truth.

Are you one of the insightful bloggers we should be paying attention to?

 

[Chuckt]

As noted in your post, academics are not the ones criticizing the work.
His scholarship is unquestioned among his peers, even those that question his conclusions. Among those that actually study textual criticism, his scholarship is universally respected.
You have discovered bloggers that resent his very deep research credentials.
Shocking.
"Blogs and discussion boards"!
There's a place to look for authoritative scholarship!
LOLOLOL!
This guy really threatens you.
Is it the fact that he started as a devout evangelical and through serious study lost that faith, finding it completely unsupportable and collapsing under the weight of its own rationalizations?

He doesn't threaten me. Anyone who puts out garbage isn't worried about putting out truth.

Are you one of the insightful bloggers we should be paying attention to?

I don't blog.

 

[thebrucebeat]

He doesn't threaten me. Anyone who puts out garbage isn't worried about putting out truth.

Are you one of the insightful bloggers we should be paying attention to?

I don't blog.

Thank you Jesus!

 

[Chuckt]

Are you one of the insightful bloggers we should be paying attention to?

I don't blog.

Thank you Jesus!

Craig begins by saying there are two Bart Ehrmans: the scholarly Ehrman and the popular Ehrman. The scholarly Ehrman knows the text of the New Testament has been established to 99% accuracy, and with greater certainty than any other ancient document, but the popular Ehrman gives the impression that important Christian doctrines are up in the air

- See more at: William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman

In other words, there are two Bart Ehrmans.

 

[Chuckt]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjh8_eh9msc]Part 1/4 - Bart Ehrman exposed by Dr. Norman Geisler - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Chuckt]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4-vU0-ABCs]Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Normon Geisler Part 2 of 4 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Chuckt]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ800mt78Ig]Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Normon Geisler Part 3 of 4 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Chuckt]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q36kHxw9TKA]Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Normon Geisler Part 4 of 4 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Chuckt]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvewbrYFiY]A Challenge To Dr Bart Ehrman by Jason Burns - YouTube[/ame]

 

[thebrucebeat]

A noted right wing Calvinist apologist and who is Jason Burns?

 

[DriftingSand]

What no one would have anticipated, however, was the extent of the furor and negative review of the book within the days and weeks after its publication. The quality and legitimacy of Ehrman’s case has been questioned and condemned by many on blogs and discussion boards across the Internet, by amateurs and professionals alike. The latter, thus far, do not include established scholars from mainstream academia, whether conservative or liberal; they have so far kept quiet. But many from outside the establishment who possess qualifications and knowledge more than sufficient to judge Ehrman’s case (and that includes many of those technically referred to as “amateurs”) have roundly reproached the failings of Ehrman’s case and his less-than-objective treatment of mythicism and mythicists.

http://vridar.org/2012/04/09/earl-d...-ehrmans-case-against-mythicism-introduction/

So much for his "scholarship" haha.

As noted in your post, academics are not the ones criticizing the work.
His scholarship is unquestioned among his peers, even those that question his conclusions. Among those that actually study textual criticism, his scholarship is universally respected.
You have discovered bloggers that resent his very deep research credentials.
Shocking.
"Blogs and discussion boards"!
There's a place to look for authoritative scholarship!
LOLOLOL!
This guy really threatens you.
Is it the fact that he started as a devout evangelical and through serious study lost that faith, finding it completely unsupportable and collapsing under the weight of its own rationalizations?

There are extra-biblical/secular documents that describe Jesus Christ's existence and even describe His physical appearance:

Physical Description of Jesus

I don't personally require extra-biblical "proof" of His existence but they're out there for folks who do.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What no one would have anticipated, however, was the extent of the furor and negative review of the book within the days and weeks after its publication. The quality and legitimacy of Ehrman’s case has been questioned and condemned by many on blogs and discussion boards across the Internet, by amateurs and professionals alike. The latter, thus far, do not include established scholars from mainstream academia, whether conservative or liberal; they have so far kept quiet. But many from outside the establishment who possess qualifications and knowledge more than sufficient to judge Ehrman’s case (and that includes many of those technically referred to as “amateurs”) have roundly reproached the failings of Ehrman’s case and his less-than-objective treatment of mythicism and mythicists.

http://vridar.org/2012/04/09/earl-d...-ehrmans-case-against-mythicism-introduction/

So much for his "scholarship" haha.

As noted in your post, academics are not the ones criticizing the work.
His scholarship is unquestioned among his peers, even those that question his conclusions. Among those that actually study textual criticism, his scholarship is universally respected.
You have discovered bloggers that resent his very deep research credentials.
Shocking.
"Blogs and discussion boards"!
There's a place to look for authoritative scholarship!
LOLOLOL!
This guy really threatens you.
Is it the fact that he started as a devout evangelical and through serious study lost that faith, finding it completely unsupportable and collapsing under the weight of its own rationalizations?

There are extra-biblical/secular documents that describe Jesus Christ's existence and even describe His physical appearance:

Physical Description of Jesus

I don't personally require extra-biblical "proof" of His existence but they're out there for folks who do.

"The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal[2] for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem; no Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented,[3] but the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD).[4] Lastly a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions, "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him." Wiki

I can go on and discredit the rest if you like.
Scholarship is no respecter of dogma.

 

[DriftingSand]

As noted in your post, academics are not the ones criticizing the work.
His scholarship is unquestioned among his peers, even those that question his conclusions. Among those that actually study textual criticism, his scholarship is universally respected.
You have discovered bloggers that resent his very deep research credentials.
Shocking.
"Blogs and discussion boards"!
There's a place to look for authoritative scholarship!
LOLOLOL!
This guy really threatens you.
Is it the fact that he started as a devout evangelical and through serious study lost that faith, finding it completely unsupportable and collapsing under the weight of its own rationalizations?

There are extra-biblical/secular documents that describe Jesus Christ's existence and even describe His physical appearance:

Physical Description of Jesus

I don't personally require extra-biblical "proof" of His existence but they're out there for folks who do.

"The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal[2] for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem; no Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented,[3] but the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD).[4] Lastly a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions, "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him." Wiki

I can go on and discredit the rest if you like.
Scholarship is no respecter of dogma.

While you're hard at work "discrediting" sources you may want to start with Wiki.

 

[thebrucebeat]

There are extra-biblical/secular documents that describe Jesus Christ's existence and even describe His physical appearance:

Physical Description of Jesus

I don't personally require extra-biblical "proof" of His existence but they're out there for folks who do.

"The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal[2] for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem; no Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented,[3] but the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD).[4] Lastly a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions, "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him." Wiki

I can go on and discredit the rest if you like.
Scholarship is no respecter of dogma.

While you're hard at work "discrediting" sources you may want to start with Wiki.

They are never the "source". They are simply an easy way to retrieve data.
You wouldn't begin to know how to value a source if it didn't start with "God did it".

 

[Chuckt]

A noted right wing Calvinist apologist and who is Jason Burns?

So?

 

[DriftingSand]

They are never the "source". They are simply an easy way to retrieve data.
You wouldn't begin to know how to value a source if it didn't start with "God did it".

Considering the fact that I believe God is the Author of all that exists then I suppose I must agree with your post. God is the Creator therefore nothing that is "did" could have been done without Him. Sorry if you disagree.

 

[thebrucebeat]

A noted right wing Calvinist apologist and who is Jason Burns?

So?

You don't know either?