Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "MAGA PANICS over election disaster: "We're getting crushed"" video.

 @jtrain9926 Jesus is a real historical figure. What you believe happened after the crucifixion is a question of faith, but to say that Jesus didn't exist is a false statement.
2
@jtrain9926 According to whom? Bart Ehrman is just someone who gets money with sloppy research, dishonesty about his standards for verification, and telling skeptics what they want to hear.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 You can say that about a lot of historical figures. Ehrman may be consistent about his "findings," but he also shows quite a bit of circular logic in his textual criticism. For example, he insists that Paul couldn't have possibly written certain epistles because they include household rules, which Paul was unconcerned about... even though I Corinthians has a list of household rules, and nobody disputes its authorship. His methods are closer to that of Thomas Jefferson whose version of the Bible is basically cutting out all of the stuff that he doesn't like.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 I've read the scholarly ones, and they leave a lot to be desired. The popular books ask for less evidence, so of course it's easier not to show the faulty logic underneath.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 If the scholarly work isn't well sourced, and it shows incredible logical leaps, how can you trust what he says in his popular works, when pretty much every academic source dumbs down popular works?
1
@jeffreylehman1159 Re: the source of disagreement vs. how mainstream he is, if you don't know his scholarly work, and clearly haven't engaged with his criticism, how do you know? You don't.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 I am talking about his scholarly work, and I have pointed out how circular his logic is using his textual criticism as an example. There are far better skeptical writers than Ehrman, but because he tells a group of people exactly what they want to hear, that's why you think it's pretty good. Funny how you want to make the accusation while failing to see the fact that you do the exact same thing you criticized. If someone's scholarly work is unsound, and that is the most rigorous work that they do, by definition anything else is a house built on sand.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 I pointed out the problems with his textual analysis, and I pointed out that the more rigorous work is always what one presents for scholars and in textbooks. You just think he's right because he's confirming your bias, so you project. If someone gives faulty analysis for their best and you just repeat "I think he's right," you are admitting that you are doing the very thing that you are saying I did. Go back and read my example of his faulty analysis. He does the same thing with other things he disagrees with.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 I believe in inspired, not inerrancy.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 No, it's not one minor thing. It shows that his is a thought process that works backwards toward a conclusion. And "it makes sense to [you]" because it reinforces your idea that anyone with theistic beliefs is a dumb-dumb. Even better if that person is a Christian, what better way of denigrating them than by saying that Jesus wasn't only not the Messiah, but wasn't real?
1
@jeffreylehman1159 In other words, you agree because you do like his conclusions. You project more than a drive-in movie.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 And your little quip about "thought" proves me right that you just like what Ehrman says because it reinforces your prejudice that any theist is a dumb-dumb.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 You clearly don't as much as you say you do, because you keep saying "I think he's right" while demanding me to say why I think that he is wrong, when you've never actually bothered to look at the stuff that is judged by a more rigorous standard. When I asked you how you know that his research is solid, you make the same "it just makes sense to me" argument that I hear from fundamentalists.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 "If you share starting from a place that a book is inspired by a being who can't be shown to exist, then you are placing huge constraints on your analysis of textual criticism of that book." In other words, anyone who does not have the same religious beliefs as you do cannot possibly have anything of value to say. It doesn't take about apologist to see that someone who says "someone couldn't have possibly wrote this because he never cared about such things" when that person clearly wrote about such things in books that nobody disputes is operating from a bias of a desire to discredit the writing. He shows a lot of circular thinking when writing about miracles and messianic claims as well, but being so blinded by your biases that you clearly can't see them when you dismiss out of hand the vast majority of scholars all across the theological spectrum, so I focused on the most obvious one that all but the most ardent atheist fundamentalist would look and say, "Yeah, that's some pretty faulty logic."
1
@jeffreylehman1159 There are fundamentalists of all stripes. And I'm not the one who said that I reject the view of those who disagree with me. You did. Oh, you might say that you've done your research, but if you've never actually looked at the basic work but the watered down stuff and said "it makes sense to me," it's obvious what you're doing. That's why I'm the only one of us who gave supporting evidence. Next time you make assertions, you just might find that others have done the actual homework and not the Cliffs Notes version.
1
@jeffreylehman1159 But it's obvious that you were looking for a way out considering that the "ardent atheist fundamentalist" was in reference to the argument that Paul couldn't have written Ephesians because Paul didn't write about household rules when he clearly did in I Corinthians. If you felt that referred to you, maybe that is your guilty conscience speaking, because you originally pled ignorance on the question at hand.
1