Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
thormas

NT Reliability

Recommended Posts

On 10/30/2019 at 7:27 PM, PaulS said:

When compared to the Gospel writers, there is a significant difference to how they portray a wonder working Jesus and how Paul does.  That's why I contend that Paul doesn't reflect on Jesus as one who did miracles.  If he did, it wouldn't be a  big ask to expect a simple one liner about this or that miracle that Jesus supposedly executed somewhere in the multitude of writings we have of Paul (Gospel writers made it pretty clear), but on the balance of probabilities (which of course is not conclusive evidence by any stretch of the definition) it would seem Paul was oblivious to Jesus the wonder worker or simply didn't accept it as true.  I don't see the 'obvious support' you claim for Corinthians simply because Paul talks about 'gifts of the spirit' (to me, the gift seems to be more about receiving Christ wisdom and the strength to withstand opposition to their beliefs, etc).  Possibly also the gift of talking in tongues.  And this, particularly in light of the clear claims made in the Gospels about Jesus' miracles, would seem to suggest Paul simply didn't know or believe in a miracle-doing Jesus.

Of course, personal experience is a different kettle of fish to discuss and naturally is fairly limiting to those outside of the personal experience.

Good try Paul but read more of Corinthians.... I find this reasonable to assume Paul supported miracles as a follower of Jesus.

2 Corinthians is universally regarded as an authentic letter of Paul, not a later forgery.) In this letter Paul wrote, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles” (2 Corinthians 12:2). As he tried to assert his God-given authority as an apostle, Paul reminded his readers about the signs, wonders, and miracles he did when he was with them. This fits our description of self-authenticating testimony. If Paul had done no signs, wonders, and miracles while he was in Corinth, he would have lost all credibility the moment the church read that claim. Why? Because they would have known better. So, we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul did, in fact, perform miraculous deeds in Corinth.

 ....... according to Paul's letter to the Corinthians unless you want to disregard or play that down also. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PaulS said:

...I am simply arguing with you that you cannot say that any gist of Jesus is historically verifiable which is the claim you were initially making and laboring the point that our scholars says so.  That is ALL my point has ever been - on the initial thread, in our private conversations, and here.    The only point I was making is that we simply cannot, historians simply cannot, biblical scholars simply cannot, call any of the NT materials we have as historically verifiable for Jesus. 

Paul, you are 'verifiably' all over the place. You complained (above) that I have continually asserted that the (gist) information for Jesus is "historically reliable and accurate,......" and then you're complaining that I cannot say that any gist of Jesus is "historically verifiable."  So, at times, you have been about historical verifiability and, at other times, about historical reliability. It is obvious that you have not really differentiated.  

I stated from the beginning (see below) that the gist is reliable and I have shown, relying on their own words, that Ehrman and others assert the historical reliability or probable historical reliability or the accuracy or the truth of the gist. In addition, I have stated from the beginning, echoing these scholar, that there is no absolute certainty when doing history. On the other hand, it is apparent that you have switched back and forth in your complaints (above) between reliability and verifiability. 

Since, as I have said before, I am not interested in a game of 'gotcha' - if you want to decide between historically verifiable or historically reliable that is fine  - but don't rewrite what you have previously written.

If you acknowledge that the 'Jesus gist" has a very high probability of historical reliability - which is even more reliable that I stated in the beginning of this thread - then we do agree :+}

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PaulS said:

historically verifiable .......That is ALL my point has ever been 

When you said recently that I (meaning me) 'have consistently claimed that the gist of Jesus is historically verifiable' and I asked what you were referring to. I had hope that you would point me to something specific, to see what I wrote (so I could consider it or even reconsider it) but you didn't. This is what I found:

My first response in Messges:  "I also recognize that what is there (in the NT).......captures the gist of the man, Jesus......."

My last response in Messages: "I do content they (the Gospels) contain the essence or the gist of Jesus..........it cannot be demonstrated (i.e. proved) that the gist is accurate (in whole or parts) or that it is inaccurate (in whole or parts)."  

Opening this Thread I wrote, I content that the gospels contain the essence or the gist of Jesus. Note: by way of explanation, I am saying that the gist found in the gospels is reliable." 

So from early on in the Messages and continuing in this Thread, I have been talking about reliability while also acknowledging that the gist cannot be verified/proven. The intriguing question becomes how close is very high probability to verification or proof? Again, I believe it is unanswerable but it is interesting to ponder.

I have been referring to historical reliability - and that has been verified :+}  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Can reliable information or reliable evidence also be verifiable?

One gathers information and builds evidence in a trial and if it is beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is judged to be proof of reality, historical proof, i.e. what really happened (innocence or guilt). So if scholars build a case for the gist of Jesus, they are gathering information and 'building evidence.' Can that information/evidence attain a level beyond a reasonable doubt? Does beyond reasonable doubt occur when there are multiple witnesses (sources) and other criteria are met?

And what is meant by verifiable evidence (although it sounds redundant)? If the historian sets rigorous criteria and it is passed at each stage, this is certainly demonstrable but is it verifiable? We can verify that criteria has been passed, just like we can verify if the evidence in a trial has met certain standards/criteria (multiple sources, unbiased, plausible, etc,) but in either case, does such verification determine or reveal the truth? And can such Truth ever be truly and actually verified?

Finally, is there a point when information (presented by a lawyer or a scholar) is judged to be so highly probable that it is deemed accurate and reliable and must render a definitive verdict?

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JosephM said:

Good try Paul but read more of Corinthians.... I find this reasonable to assume Paul supported miracles as a follower of Jesus.

2 Corinthians is universally regarded as an authentic letter of Paul, not a later forgery.) In this letter Paul wrote, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles” (2 Corinthians 12:2). As he tried to assert his God-given authority as an apostle, Paul reminded his readers about the signs, wonders, and miracles he did when he was with them. This fits our description of self-authenticating testimony. If Paul had done no signs, wonders, and miracles while he was in Corinth, he would have lost all credibility the moment the church read that claim. Why? Because they would have known better. So, we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul did, in fact, perform miraculous deeds in Corinth.

 ....... according to Paul's letter to the Corinthians unless you want to disregard or play that down also. 🙂

Joseph, you and I were discussing about whether or not Paul believed that Jesus performed miracles during his life, like those mentioned in the Gospels, not whether Paul believed in miracles themselves.  Paul makes no mention whatsoever of Jesus doing a single miracle which is significantly different to how the later Gospel writers portray Jesus.  Are you saying that because Paul writes that a true apostle does miracles, that therefore he must have believed that Jesus performed miracles during his earthly life, just like those outlined in the Gospels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thormas said:

Can reliable information or reliable evidence also be verifiable?

Of course it can, if it is verified.

7 hours ago, thormas said:

One gathers information and builds evidence in a trial and if it is beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is judged to be proof of reality, historical proof, i.e. what really happened (innocence or guilt). So if scholars build a case for the gist of Jesus, they are gathering information and 'building evidence.' Can that information/evidence attain a level beyond a reasonable doubt? Does beyond reasonable doubt occur when there are multiple witnesses (sources) and other criteria are met?

Again, of course they can.  What is interesting to note is that scholars like Erhman NEVER states support for his gist of Jesus being beyond a reasonable doubt.  In fact, Erhman makes it clear in 'Did Jesus Exist' that even his argument for the existence of Jesus is based on the balance of probabilities, a lower threshold of substantiation of evidence than beyond reasonable doubt.  I doubt Erhman would only consider on the balance of probabilities that Jesus exist but then jump to beyond reasonable doubt when it came to any gist of Jesus.  That is clearly not logical.

7 hours ago, thormas said:

And what is meant by verifiable evidence (although it sounds redundant)? If the historian sets rigorous criteria and it is passed at each stage, this is certainly demonstrable but is it verifiable? We can verify that criteria has been passed, just like we can verify if the evidence in a trial has met certain standards/criteria (multiple sources, unbiased, plausible, etc,) but in either case, does such verification determine or reveal the truth? And can such Truth ever be truly and actually verified?

Typically, verifiable evidence is backed up with specific proof.  This is not usually working assumptions, reliable sources, or other speculative evidence but rather, demonstrable evidence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true.  Even Erhman doesn't dare claim 'beyond reasonable doubt' because he knows the scholarship can only be based on the balance of probabilities because we simply do not have the proof to support a stronger argument.

7 hours ago, thormas said:

Finally, is there a point when information (presented by a lawyer or a scholar) is judged to be so highly probable that it is deemed accurate and reliable and must render a definitive verdict?

Yes there is - when it is considered beyond reasonable doubt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, thormas said:

Paul, you are 'verifiably' all over the place. You complained (above) that I have continually asserted that the (gist) information for Jesus is "historically reliable and accurate,......" and then you're complaining that I cannot say that any gist of Jesus is "historically verifiable."  So, at times, you have been about historical verifiability and, at other times, about historical reliability. It is obvious that you have not really differentiated.  

Yes, it seems once I did misuse the word reliable once (along with the word accurate which should give you some reference that I am talking about verifiability more so than reliability, but if that's the way you see it...). 

11 hours ago, thormas said:

On the other hand, it is apparent that you have switched back and forth in your complaints (above) between reliability and verifiability. 

Once.  In 7 pages of discussion.  

Quote

Since, as I have said before, I am not interested in a game of 'gotcha' - if you want to decide between historically verifiable or historically reliable that is fine  - but don't rewrite what you have previously written.

If you acknowledge that the 'Jesus gist" has a very high probability of historical reliability - which is even more reliable that I stated in the beginning of this thread - then we do agree :+}

It's not a gotcha point - it is clarifying intent and your previous statements.  I can't say what probability of historical reliability any Jesus gist has - that is beyond my, and any scholars', ability - we just can't get to that point because we don't have the evidence.  That's why scholars such as Erhman don't claim beyond a reasonable doubt but rather make clear that they are referring to the balance of probabilities.   For sure, some early Christians thought these things about Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thormas said:

When you said recently that I (meaning me) 'have consistently claimed that the gist of Jesus is historically verifiable' and I asked what you were referring to. I had hope that you would point me to something specific, to see what I wrote (so I could consider it or even reconsider it) but you didn't. This is what I found:

My first response in Messges:  "I also recognize that what is there (in the NT).......captures the gist of the man, Jesus......."

My last response in Messages: "I do content they (the Gospels) contain the essence or the gist of Jesus..........it cannot be demonstrated (i.e. proved) that the gist is accurate (in whole or parts) or that it is inaccurate (in whole or parts)."  

Opening this Thread I wrote, I content that the gospels contain the essence or the gist of Jesus. Note: by way of explanation, I am saying that the gist found in the gospels is reliable." 

So from early on in the Messages and continuing in this Thread, I have been talking about reliability while also acknowledging that the gist cannot be verified/proven. The intriguing question becomes how close is very high probability to verification or proof? Again, I believe it is unanswerable but it is interesting to ponder.

I have been referring to historical reliability - and that has been verified :+}  

Okay, so it should be easy for us to clarify this mess - Do you believe that Erhman's 'gist' about Jesus is historically verifiable?  Can you answer yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Joseph, you and I were discussing about whether or not Paul believed that Jesus performed miracles during his life, like those mentioned in the Gospels, not whether Paul believed in miracles themselves.  Paul makes no mention whatsoever of Jesus doing a single miracle which is significantly different to how the later Gospel writers portray Jesus.  Are you saying that because Paul writes that a true apostle does miracles, that therefore he must have believed that Jesus performed miracles during his earthly life, just like those outlined in the Gospels?

Yes, it would be reasonable if you believe Paul wrote Corinthians that he believed Jesus also performed miracles. Whether he believed it was "just exactly like those outlined in the Gospels" i did not say because those Gospels were not published for him to read at that time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Yes, it would be reasonable if you believe Paul wrote Corinthians that he believed Jesus also performed miracles. Whether he believed it was "just exactly like those outlined in the Gospels" i did not say because those Gospels were not published for him to read at that time. 

I think it's a stretch to say that Paul believed such, just because he fails to make any obvious representation of a miracle-doing Jesus, even though we have extensive writings from him, and this against a backdrop of him conveying a message of just why Jesus is so special to these followers.  To not mention one-single sentence where he says Jesus did a miracle seems to me that he either wasn't aware of such or didn't believe in such.  I think it's more probable that Paul thought of his miracle-abilities as something that occurred post-Jesus and doesn't actually connect back to Jesus' earthly life at all.  That's my take on it anyway, but I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think it's a stretch to say that Paul believed such, just because he fails to make any obvious representation of a miracle-doing Jesus, even though we have extensive writings from him, and this against a backdrop of him conveying a message of just why Jesus is so special to these followers.  To not mention one-single sentence where he says Jesus did a miracle seems to me that he either wasn't aware of such or didn't believe in such.  I think it's more probable that Paul thought of his miracle-abilities as something that occurred post-Jesus and doesn't actually connect back to Jesus' earthly life at all.  That's my take on it anyway, but I could be wrong.

Picky, Picky, Picky. 🙂  Not saying you are wrong BUT ...  it is my opinion that you are being a bit unreasonable on this issue. He was a self proclaimed Apostle of Jesus and did the miracles as a servant and in the authority of the master (Corinthians) which he referred to as Jesus. (the servant is not above the master) Read ALL the text that you attribute to Paul for yourself and i think you might be a bit more reasonable and conceding on this small issue. 🙂😄😊😄

PS Not asking you to believe in miracles just that according to the NT the collaboration of Paul confirms miracles were performed by Jesus and later by the apostles to a reasonable man that accepts the writing therein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PaulS said:

Again, of course they can.  What is interesting to note is that scholars like Erhman NEVER states support for his gist of Jesus being beyond a reasonable doubt.  In fact, Erhman makes it clear in 'Did Jesus Exist' that even his argument for the existence of Jesus is based on the balance of probabilities, a lower threshold of substantiation of evidence than beyond reasonable doubt.  I doubt Erhman would only consider on the balance of probabilities that Jesus exist but then jump to beyond reasonable doubt when it came to any gist of Jesus.  That is clearly not logical.

Ehrman, other scholars and I, quoting them, have affirmed no absolute certainty. 

But where exactly is 'beyond a reasonable doubt?' I have not seen that idea expressed by Ehrman: he says no absolute certainty.  Has he actually said 'no support beyond a reasonable doubt?' You say this and it seems to be your interpretation, that's why I ask (and also why I provide) quotes from Ehrman and other scholars - so people on the site can read and check for themselves. So, where do I check, specifically? If Ehrman says this, I actually want to know and also know if and how that is different from no absolute certainty. And don't simply tell me there is no difference - that's your position and your interpretation, I'm asking about Ehrman.

My concern is this: your 'reasonable' doubt seems to be greater than any scholar I have read. That's why I keep asking for references and quotes - to determine if what you are 'seeing' is what others see also when reading the same material. As a simple example: in a jury, if they are not 'sure' beyond a reasonable doubt, they can't move on, by that I mean they are not convinced, they won't convict (or find fault). If, on the other hand, they believe the lawyer has made his case and they are sure beyond a reasonable doubt - they move forward, they are convinced. Are they all, ever, absolutely certain? Probably not! The thing is that the historians do move forward, they are convinced and they make a decision for the gist. Have they moved beyond a reasonable doubt? Are they all, ever, absolutely certain? It seems there is a different. Again, I'm not asking for your opinion or your interpretation, I'm asking for references and exact quotes.

I may be wrong on this (and it is not an earthshaking issue) -  but I am asking to see the Ehrman (or other scholar's) 'transcript' to determine if there is space between beyond a reasonable doubt and no absolute certainty.

 

 

Please tell me where Ehrman talks specifically about the balance of probabilities and that being a lower threshold that beyond reasonable doubt - give me an exact quote or a page number. If he is saying that I really want to know, read it and ponder it against what else he has said. Bottom line if - in the words of these scholars - no absolute certainty is equal to beyond a reasonable doubt - I'm fine because I totally accept the former statement. 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first question is, “what did the authors believe when they wrote the texts?”.

One must determine that before making personal judgments.

There also seems to be an unwarranted assumption that the NT books are all histories.  In just the gospels alone there is indeed some history, but also folklore, biography, wisdom literature, educational simplifications and tropes, etc.

Literary analysis is needed.  History is just a fraction of the required deconstruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PaulS said:
22 hours ago, thormas said:

Can reliable information or reliable evidence also be verifiable?

Of course it can, if it is verified.

Can it be verified - and your answer is of course - if it is verified??  😑

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burl said:

The first question is, “what did the authors believe when they wrote the texts?”.

One must determine that before making personal judgments.

There also seems to be an unwarranted assumption that the NT books are all histories.  In just the gospels alone there is indeed some history, but also folklore, biography, wisdom literature, educational simplifications and tropes, etc.

Literary analysis is needed.  History is just a fraction of the required deconstruction.

That's the age old question and I see it asked by scholars. Most times the caution given is that simply because something doesn't make sense to us, given our world view, that cannot be assumed of a 1st C writer or believers. Seemingly there is no answer. 

No, we mentioned this early on (perhaps in Messages) that, seemingly, it is not meant to be histories (then again given your question above) or better we do not take them as histories although they do contain some history or historical facts. So I agree with you. BTW, did Matthew create the Sermon on the Mt. and therefore know it was his creation or did he inherit it (not from Mark or Q) but from M (singular or multiple sources) and assume it to be factual?

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PaulS said:

Erhman doesn't dare claim 'beyond reasonable doubt' because he knows the scholarship can only be based on the balance of probabilities because we simply do not have the proof to support a stronger argument.

Again - provide a quote from Ehrman. I would like to read this so I can see his reasoning (vis-a-vis no absolute certainty) and consider it. I'm not saying he never said this, I 'm saying I have not come across it or simply forgotten that he said it and the specific context. I'm just curious what Ehrman and the guild are saying about 'beyond a RD.' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, PaulS said:

 I can't say what probability of historical reliability any Jesus gist has - that is beyond my, and any scholars', ability - we just can't get to that point because we don't have the evidence.  That's why scholars such as Erhman don't claim beyond a reasonable doubt but rather make clear that they are referring to the balance of probabilities.   For sure, some early Christians thought these things about Jesus.

Well, perhaps not you (or me), but it is apparent that critical scholars do say what 'probability of historical reliability' gist materials have. By the fact that 'virtually all critical scholars' consider only very specific, limited material as gist, they are definitively saying that specific material has the highest degree of probability of historical reliability (as opposed to material that does not). See quotes above.

Your opening sentence is opinion and is at odds with the scholars, including Ehrman (see above).

You're confusing terms. You have just tacked "beyond a reasonable doubt' to probability of historical reliability - which doesn't make sense since probable historical reliability has already been affirmed by these scholars, Ehrman included.  Scholars have made clear that the gist material has (a very high) probability of historical reliability. There is no absolute certainty but there seems to be a level of certainty. Now we're just waiting on you to give us references to determine if scholars talk about BRD. Perhaps they do??

Previously you tacked BRD to verifiability.

 

 

Who thought what about Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thormas said:

That's the age old question and I see it asked by scholars. Most times the caution given is that simply because something doesn't make sense to us, given our world view, that cannot be assumed of a 1st C writer or believers. Seemingly there is no answer. 

No, we mentioned this early on (perhaps in Messages) that, seemingly, it is not meant to be histories (then again given your question above) or better we do not take them as histories although they do contain some history or historical facts. So I agree with you. BTW, did Matthew create the Sermon on the Mt. and therefore know it was his creation or did he inherit it (not from Mark or Q) but from M (singular or multiple sources) and assume it to be factual?

 

My guess is that Jesus had a basic intro sermon he used every time there was a new crowd.  I bet he used the same outline dozens of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burl said:

My guess is that Jesus had a basic intro sermon he used every time there was a new crowd.  I bet he used the same outline dozens of times.

I agree with that from what I have read - makes sense for an itinerant teacher..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JosephM said:

Picky, Picky, Picky. 🙂  Not saying you are wrong BUT ...  it is my opinion that you are being a bit unreasonable on this issue. He was a self proclaimed Apostle of Jesus and did the miracles as a servant and in the authority of the master (Corinthians) which he referred to as Jesus. (the servant is not above the master) Read ALL the text that you attribute to Paul for yourself and i think you might be a bit more reasonable and conceding on this small issue. 🙂😄😊😄

PS Not asking you to believe in miracles just that according to the NT the collaboration of Paul confirms miracles were performed by Jesus and later by the apostles to a reasonable man that accepts the writing therein.

Okay Joseph, over time I will continue to read the writings of Paul and try to detect support for your argument.  To me it seems more the principle of common sense at play here - clearly Paul was forever trying to convince others to stand up for Jesus, to hold on because he's coming back soon,  and to worship Jesus as their Savior, etc.  It just seems odd to me that he never, ever, refers to even a single miracle supposedly performed by Jesus, to help convince his fellow worshipers (or others) of the greatness of Jesus.  This against the context of Gospel miracles such as bringing alive dead people - but not worth a mention by Paul at all?  Seems odd to me if indeed Paul believes in a miracle-performing Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Burl said:

The first question is, “what did the authors believe when they wrote the texts?”.

I actually think that's the last question anyone would want to ask.  In fact, one has to use personal judgement just to get to that point.  The issue isn't what they believed but rather to what degree they accurately portray the Jesus story (or are you talking about a different issue?).  If authors never met Jesus and only received stories from others (who themselves may have only been relaying stories from others) then personal belief may incorrectly influence any actual historical veracity, wouldn't you think?  And history is the fraction of the required deconstruction that we are discussing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thormas said:

Please tell me where Ehrman talks specifically about the balance of probabilities and that being a lower threshold that beyond reasonable doubt - give me an exact quote or a page number. If he is saying that I really want to know, read it and ponder it against what else he has said. Bottom line if - in the words of these scholars - no absolute certainty is equal to beyond a reasonable doubt - I'm fine because I totally accept the former statement. 

You will have to do the work yourself on what the difference is between balance of probabilities being a lower threshold than beyond reasonable doubt ( a pretty well known legal understanding).  Erhman doesn't explain these legal concepts but a quick Google will explain it for you.

What Erhman does talk about is probability and certainty.  Certainty is beyond reasonable doubt because one can't be certain if there is reasonable doubt.  Erhman uses the term 'probability' throughout DJE and probability by definition is not certainty (as you acknowledge).  So clearly you see a distinction between certainty and probability.  I only skimmed the book looking for a reference for you and I think p.39 makes the point when Erhman agrees with Price's approach to establishing likelihood  and agrees that "...But it is all a matter of probabilities".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 9:32 AM, PaulS said:

Okay, so it should be easy for us to clarify this mess - Do you believe that Erhman's 'gist' about Jesus is historically verifiable?  Can you answer yes or no?

Are you able to answer the question, Thormas?  I don't understand why you are avoiding it - either you think the gist is historically verifiable, or you don't.  Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thormas said:

Again - provide a quote from Ehrman. I would like to read this so I can see his reasoning (vis-a-vis no absolute certainty) and consider it. I'm not saying he never said this, I 'm saying I have not come across it or simply forgotten that he said it and the specific context. I'm just curious what Ehrman and the guild are saying about 'beyond a RD.' 

I can't provide a quote for something that I have just pointed out Erhman doesn't make a claim for - he doesn't claim 'beyond all reasonable doubt' - that should be obvious to you.  Perhaps you could demonstrate where Erhman states that any of the gist is historically verifiable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PaulS said:

I can't provide a quote for something that I have just pointed out Erhman doesn't make a claim for - he doesn't claim 'beyond all reasonable doubt' - that should be obvious to you.  

Are you saying what I think you're saying?

 

Ehrman makes no claim that there is absolute certainty - and, yet, he actually states there is no absolute certainty - and I provided the quote. I didn't make this up, I quoted an expert.

If Ehrman makes no claim that we can affirm beyond a reasonable doubt, does he then (like above) actually state, somewhere, that the gist is not beyond a reasonable doubt?  Does he even use this language, this phrase?  You now say you can't provide a quote, so you were not quoting an expert, it's simply your interpretation, your opinion of Ehrman - not his actual words? 

It was (or now only seemed) apparent, given that you have been evoking Ehrman on this topic, that you had read something that I had not or that I missed or even forgotten - I was interested in comparing and contrasting his 'certainty' quote with the his 'reasonable doubt' quote and the context for both. And, it's not even there?

Does Ehrman ever, regarding the gist, use the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt?" I remain interested in knowing if he did or did not. If Ehrman doesn't use this language, doesn't make this claim, is there a reason - especially in light of the fact that he does use the language of and did make the 'no certainty' claim? If he did use it, does the context indicate an equivalency with the certainty quote or does it indicate a different evaluation (to be clear I am not asking for your opinion or your interpretation). And don't try to obfuscate by saying it should be obvious. It is obvious that there is no absolute certainty in this venture and Ehrman took the time to state the obvious! Why would he not do it again (again I am not asking for your opinion)?

 

Come on Paul.

 

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...