angelo wrote:WTF, I thought Tim O was a figure of history. I also said other things 3 years ago, lets see you dig them up as well!
Angelo, you have never once addressed umpteen different postings from umpteen different posters showing that Ehrman's remarks on the non-scripturals apply only to specific details of the Jesus biography, not to the basic question of historicity at all. In fact, the non-scripturals are indeed relevant to historicity, and Ehrman never once says they aren't. It's not for historicity but only for specific biographical details where Ehrman claims the non-scripturals are -- "more or less" (Ehrman's words) -- not so useful. Those are the facts on what Ehrman says, and you are pointedly ignoring them, after years and years of posters constantly setting the record straight. Once and for all, Ehrman is addressing specific details of the Jesus biography, not basic historicity.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts" (Daniel Patrick Moynihan). Your "facts" on Ehrman are in total error, and there's not a dime's worth of difference between what you say here --
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post5 ... ted#p52297-- versus what you say today over three years later(!) --
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1702887-- after several different posters have demonstrated to you the real facts on Ehrman's real point again and again. What are we to make of that? And there were even some identical exchanges years earlier on the old Dawkins board, so your pointedly ignoring Ehrman's real point, even after it's duly pointed out to you, goes back even further than three+ years. Once and for all, Ehrman is addressing specific details of the Jesus biography, not basic historicity at all.
For years here, you have confounded specific biographical details versus basic historicity by pointedly ignoring every single poster who's pointed out the difference. By just repeating this same nonsensical mantra of yours -- that Ehrman somehow claims that the non-scripturals are of no pertinence to basic historicity when Ehrman claims no such thing -- regardless of what anyone has written back to you for years, you are acting like a hit-and-run bot. It's as if no one at all has ever addressed you on this matter before. On the contrary, dozens have, and your year-in-year-out obfuscations on this are too frequent and blatant by now not to be deliberately provoking. That's what you are plainly doing with this repeated fable of yours about Ehrman. It's thoroughly inaccurate, and by now you plainly know that perfectly well, just as well as anyone else here.
I don't believe you are dumb enough to be unaware of just how inaccurate it is, particularly after such a steady drumbeat of posters pointing out the facts to you for nearly half a decade. Maybe, at first, it was an honest mistake. But it's obviously a deliberate provocation today, plus a deliberate obfuscation by now of what Ehrman really says, and I'm calling you on it.
Stein
by 
