reasonable.atheist,
1. Whether it is acceptable to me or not is IRRELEVANT. The
author of a book has the prerogative to write and include what he
thinks is fit. Your point about knowing which book is going to be
canonised or not is rather suspect. The Gospels accounts were
written by the apostles or their close associates to be circulated
and read, and not because they were thinking about a future NT
canon. Again what YOU choose to include in your story is YOUR
prerogative. I don't see how this can be an argument against the
truth of what is being recorded. It's one thing to say "hey, this
fact is wrong" and quite another to say "if I were you I would have
put this and that in". The former is a question of fact, the latter
is a question of the significance that one attaches to a fact.
2. You beg the question by claiming that the end passage of Mark
is a fabricated ending. And what about the John 7:53-8:11? This
passage is not found in the earliest manuscripts but it
is found in the Majority Text. Bible scholars are not ignorant of
this fact. Controversy exists thus as to whether this was
originally there or not. But assuming it was not there, so? What
have we lost in terms of doctrine? And assuming it was there? So?
Does it negate anything we already know? You fall into Bart's
flawed reasoning that because there is some debate based on things
we already know and for which there is room for debate and
plausible resolutions, we should therefore question the entirety of
the Bible and call it flawed. I call this blowing things out of
proportion and hyping things up. Again the only reason why we can
even do textual criticism at all and know such things is BECAUSE of
the embarassment of riches when it comes to the quantity and
quality of the ancient manuscripts concerning the Bible. You will
NOT find such things in other ancient writings that can afford such
a high level of confidence in textual transmission. So you should
look at it from a balanced bigger perspective of things.
Biblical inerrancy does not mean that the copy process is inerrant
and infallible.
3. There's nothing much to say about Ehrman's scenario when he
himself admit that it is unlikely! It's just an ad hoc speculation
(which is not even new or novel) that he coughed up which is not
even well thought up! Why? Simply because he prefers a naturalistic
solution to a miracle. It's anti-supernatural bias at work, pure
and simple. You speculate that the disciples stole the body. Is
this even novel? It's right there in the Gospel! But are you aware
of the arguments against this theory? I am surprised that you don't
seem to know and even think that this stolen body theory is worth
considering.
4. I boast not of any credentials to attack Ehrman, you
have overestimated me. But what I know I read from those who do
have the credentials to take him on. You have read Bart's
works, so have I but I wonder if you
have read books that counter what Ehrman said. If
you need references let me know. One such book is
"Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman".
1. First of all, you were the one who wrote: "And if you knew 3
other authors are also writing on the same series of events,
perhaps you may not mention this thing or that thing because you
think the other guy has also wrote it."
In other words, you are assuming that each gospel author knew
what the others were writing, and whether their accounts would go
into the canonical bible, and hence allowed some "slippage" in
terms of mentioning key details. This is such a weak argument that
I really wish you would concede that it was a mistake.
Second, go ahead and believe that two angels were
talking to the witnesses, and that Mark and Luke just conveniently
left this fact out, while Matthew mentioned only one of
them. Maybe in those days, angels were pretty commonplace, so the
authors of Mark and Luke went "bah".
But to me, this is the weaker explanation.
2. If we agree that a big part of Mark's account of the
resurrection was possibly fabricated, then it throws the bible's
account of the incident into greater doubt. As far as I can see,
scholars seem to agree that there was probably an empty tomb, but
the miracles beyond that are subjected to debate.
Make no mistake, very few people say that the
entire bible is inaccurate -- so don't
misrepresent my views. Instead, all I'm saying is that,
given that there are some forgeries and inaccuracies in the
bible, Christians should read the resurrection accounts with a
bigger dose of skepticism.
3. As I've mentioned before, a miracle is by definition
the rarest of events, so even if a tomb theft is unlikely, it would
still be more likely than Jesus Christ going to heaven, "body and
soul". You call this an anti-supernaturalist bias, sure,
but would you automatically assume that Tan Ah Kow had been
resurrected if one day you find his body missing from the grave?
What if it was Ong Teng Cheong? What if it was the previous Dalai
Lama? What if it was Mother Theresa?
Now, I know I'm not going to convince you, and I'm already going
into re-runs. As always, when I debate with you, it's for the sake
of other people. But I won't keep this going for much longer unless
there are some new arguments.
