Controlled Opposition: Your assertion that Bart Ehrman's assessment may be compromised by the concept of controlled opposition (even though in the next paragraph you say your not calling him controlled opposition - as the master of double speak you are) overlooks the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse. I agree it's valid to remain vigilant against manipulation or biased agendas, but dismissing Ehrman's credibility based on speculative notions of controlled opposition lacks substantive evidence. Ehrman's expertise as a textual scholar and his critical analysis of biblical texts are widely respected within academic circles (something which you throw out all together with your hyper-skepticism of anything called "scholarship"), independent of any perceived alignment with particular narratives.

Historical Revisionism: Your argument about historical revisionism and the selective omission of relevant facts overlooks the complexity of historical inquiry and the rigorous methodologies employed by historians. It's true that historical narratives may be subject to interpretation and revision, but the assertion that all historical truths are deliberately suppressed or manipulated oversimplifies the multifaceted nature of historical scholarship (again, a trigger word for you).

Historians engage in a continuous process of evaluating evidence, reassessing interpretations, and refining narratives to construct more accurate understandings of the past.

Biblical Canon: Regarding the inclusion or exclusion of books in the biblical canon, it's essential to consider the historical context and criteria (something you appear to simply gloss over) used by early Christian communities and church councils. While variations in biblical canons existed in antiquity, the process of canonization involved careful deliberation and theological discernment by religious authorities. While disagreements may exist about certain texts, the canonical books were ultimately selected based on their theological coherence, widespread acceptance, and conformity to doctrinal standards established by the early church.

Church Fathers' Influence: Your critique of the influence of Church Fathers and their potential conflicts of interest fails to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity and the multiplicity of factors shaping doctrinal development. While it's true that certain individuals may have wielded significant influence within the church hierarchy, attributing all doctrinal decisions to their personal agendas overlooks the collective deliberation and theological consensus that characterized early Christian communities.

Additionally, the assertion that Church Fathers systematically destroyed opposing evidence ignores the complex historical realities and diverse sources of early Christian literature that have survived to the present day.

Certainly, let's delve deeper into each point with concrete examples and references to scholarship:

Relevance of Evidence: While it's true that the Church Fathers played a significant role in the process of canonization, their decisions were not made in isolation but were informed by theological criteria and communal consensus. For example, texts such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary were excluded from the canon due to concerns about their theological coherence with mainstream Christian doctrine and their perceived lack of widespread acceptance among early Christian communities. This decision-making process involved theological discernment and critical evaluation of doctrinal consistency, rather than arbitrary exclusion based solely on the authority of the Church Fathers.

Moreover, recent scholarship, such as the work of Bart Ehrman in "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament," provides valuable insights into the diverse range of early Christian writings and the complex dynamics of canon formation. Ehrman's analysis highlights the multiplicity of perspectives within early Christianity and the challenges involved in establishing a standardized biblical canon.

Destruction of Evidence: While it's true that some texts may have been subject to suppression or censorship in certain contexts, attributing all doctrinal decisions to deliberate destruction, AGAIN, oversimplifies the historical realities. For example, the suppression of Gnostic texts by orthodox Christian authorities in the early centuries of the Christian era is well-documented. However, it's essential to recognize that not all doctrinal decisions were motivated by nefarious intent, and many texts were excluded from the canon based on theological considerations rather than deliberate destruction.

Scholars such as Elaine Pagels in "The Gnostic Gospels" and Karen L. King in "What Is Gnosticism?" have explored the historical context and theological conflicts surrounding the suppression of Gnostic texts. Their research sheds light on the complex interplay of theological, political, and cultural factors shaping the formation of the biblical canon.

Conflicts of Interest: While it's important to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity, attributing doctrinal decisions solely to conflicts of interest overlooks the sincere commitment to faith and scholarship among many Church Fathers. For example, scholars such as Larry W. Hurtado in "The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins" and Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" have highlighted the rigorous intellectual engagement and theological reflection evident in the writings of early Christian leaders.

Additionally, the process of canonization involved extensive debate, dialogue, and theological reflection within the early Christian community, as evidenced by the writings of influential figures such as Origen, Tertullian, and Athanasius. While disagreements and conflicts certainly existed, attributing all doctrinal decisions to personal agendas fails to capture the complexity of theological discourse and the communal nature of early Christian identity.

To wrap this up, by critically engaging with historical evidence and scholarly research, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the formation of the biblical canon and the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity. I think it's essential to approach these questions with nuance and humility, recognizing the multifaceted nature of historical processes and the ongoing dialogue between faith, scholarship, and interpretation.

Kudos for engaging in such a constructive dialogue! Your commitment to maintaining a respectful and intellectually rigorous conversation is truly commendable. It's refreshing to have exchanges where ideas are exchanged without resorting to ad hominem attacks or condescending tones.

Keep up the excellent discourse!

Controlled Opposition: Your assertion that Bart Ehrman's assessment may be compromised by the concept of controlled opposition (even though in the next paragraph you say your not calling him controlled opposition - as the master of double speak you are) overlooks the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse. I agree it's valid to remain vigilant against manipulation or biased agendas, but dismissing Ehrman's credibility based on speculative notions of controlled opposition lacks substantive evidence. Ehrman's expertise as a textual scholar and his critical analysis of biblical texts are widely respected within academic circles (something which you throw out all together with your hyper-skepticism of anything called "scholarship"), independent of any perceived alignment with particular narratives.

Historical Revisionism: Your argument about historical revisionism and the selective omission of relevant facts overlooks the complexity of historical inquiry and the rigorous methodologies employed by historians. It's true that historical narratives may be subject to interpretation and revision, but the assertion that all historical truths are deliberately suppressed or manipulated oversimplifies the multifaceted nature of historical scholarship (again, a trigger word for you).

Historians engage in a continuous process of evaluating evidence, reassessing interpretations, and refining narratives to construct more accurate understandings of the past.

Biblical Canon: Regarding the inclusion or exclusion of books in the biblical canon, it's essential to consider the historical context and criteria (something you appear to simply gloss over) used by early Christian communities and church councils. While variations in biblical canons existed in antiquity, the process of canonization involved careful deliberation and theological discernment by religious authorities. While disagreements may exist about certain texts, the canonical books were ultimately selected based on their theological coherence, widespread acceptance, and conformity to doctrinal standards established by the early church.

Church Fathers' Influence: Your critique of the influence of Church Fathers and their potential conflicts of interest fails to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity and the multiplicity of factors shaping doctrinal development. While it's true that certain individuals may have wielded significant influence within the church hierarchy, attributing all doctrinal decisions to their personal agendas overlooks the collective deliberation and theological consensus that characterized early Christian communities.

Additionally, the assertion that Church Fathers systematically destroyed opposing evidence ignores the complex historical realities and diverse sources of early Christian literature that have survived to the present day.

Certainly, let's delve deeper into each point with concrete examples and references to scholarship:

Relevance of Evidence: While it's true that the Church Fathers played a significant role in the process of canonization, their decisions were not made in isolation but were informed by theological criteria and communal consensus. For example, texts such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary were excluded from the canon due to concerns about their theological coherence with mainstream Christian doctrine and their perceived lack of widespread acceptance among early Christian communities. This decision-making process involved theological discernment and critical evaluation of doctrinal consistency, rather than arbitrary exclusion based solely on the authority of the Church Fathers.

Moreover, recent scholarship, such as the work of Bart Ehrman in "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament," provides valuable insights into the diverse range of early Christian writings and the complex dynamics of canon formation. Ehrman's analysis highlights the multiplicity of perspectives within early Christianity and the challenges involved in establishing a standardized biblical canon.

Destruction of Evidence: While it's true that some texts may have been subject to suppression or censorship in certain contexts, attributing all doctrinal decisions to deliberate destruction, AGAIN, oversimplifies the historical realities. For example, the suppression of Gnostic texts by orthodox Christian authorities in the early centuries of the Christian era is well-documented. However, it's essential to recognize that not all doctrinal decisions were motivated by nefarious intent, and many texts were excluded from the canon based on theological considerations rather than deliberate destruction.

Scholars such as Elaine Pagels in "The Gnostic Gospels" and Karen L. King in "What Is Gnosticism?" have explored the historical context and theological conflicts surrounding the suppression of Gnostic texts. Their research sheds light on the complex interplay of theological, political, and cultural factors shaping the formation of the biblical canon.

Conflicts of Interest: While it's important to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity, attributing doctrinal decisions solely to conflicts of interest overlooks the sincere commitment to faith and scholarship among many Church Fathers. For example, scholars such as Larry W. Hurtado in "The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins" and Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" have highlighted the rigorous intellectual engagement and theological reflection evident in the writings of early Christian leaders.

Additionally, the process of canonization involved extensive debate, dialogue, and theological reflection within the early Christian community, as evidenced by the writings of influential figures such as Origen, Tertullian, and Athanasius. While disagreements and conflicts certainly existed, attributing all doctrinal decisions to personal agendas fails to capture the complexity of theological discourse and the communal nature of early Christian identity.

To wrap this up, by critically engaging with historical evidence and scholarly research, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the formation of the biblical canon and the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity. I think it's essential to approach these questions with nuance and humility, recognizing the multifaceted nature of historical processes and the ongoing dialogue between faith, scholarship, and interpretation.