Bible scholar tells the truth about Christianity

[guno]

the Gospels do not claim to be written by any eye witness to Jesus life. all the gospels are anonymous, the names were added later by writer. Some believe that Papias a tested to mark and Matthews gospel, but there is strong evidence to show Papias is not referring to Mark or Matthew more over the first time that the gospels are referred to as Matthew mark Luke and John is 180 years after by irenaeus

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Debunking the phony who purposely ignores the evidence in order to sell books - your Mr. Ehrman. Another God hater bites the dust. Mr. Eherman appears to serves the devil. Why would you expect him to tell the truth? He's a liar.

Bart Ehrman claims the Bible was changed and is unreliable in his book Misquoting Jesus 8211 The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible. Can you comment on his claims Evidence for Christianity

Let me assure
you that folks such as Bart Ehrman are not interested in the truth. They
have an agenda to create an unscholarly and deceitful smear campaign
against the Bible. This fits the pattern of Dan Brown, the author of the
DaVinci Code, as well as JamesCameron, the one who recently produced a
documentary on the supposed finding of the tomb and ossuary of Jesus of
Nazareth, the National Geographic group who published the Gospel of Judas
(which, by the way, is a legitimate document, but their treatment of it as
a credible testament to the life of Jesus is totally outrageous) and
others. Such witnesses are not to be trusted at all. There is not a lot
of money to be made and not much of a reputation to be gained by
supporting the truth?which is that the Bible is an accurate historical
record and is the inspired Word of God. Brown made tens of millions of
dollars by hyping the totally insupportable claim that Jesus was married
to Mary Magdalene. Cameron is cashing in on the same satanic idea. Mr.
Ehrman is of the same ilk, I am afraid.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Another clip to set the record straight here:
Bart Ehrman claims the Bible was changed and is unreliable in his book Misquoting Jesus 8211 The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible. Can you comment on his claims Evidence for Christianity

I do not mind at all
skeptics giving good scholarly input into the discussion. It is just that
popularizers of completely unfounded ideas who make large profits from
their bogus so-called scholarship are not welcome, in my opinion.

This is what Bart Ehrman is. I have read some of his
material. He is not a careful scholar. He may do a lot of research, but
his conclusions are blatantly biased and not useful for discussion of the
facts. First of all, there is not a single scholar (legitimate one, that
is) who says that the composition of the New Testament began seventy years
after the death of Jesus. It is obvious what Ehrman is trying to do. He
is trying to say that all the eye-witnesses were dead before the New
Testament was written. There is one problem with this thesis. It is
proven wrong by facts of which Ehrman absolutely has to be aware. We have
manuscripts as old as AD 125 (the Rylands Papyrus). In addition, there
exist a large body of letters written by the early church “fathers” such
as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and others. These
early Christian writers from the very late first and the second century AD
quoted extensively from every part of the New Testament. The letters known
as the Epistle of Barnabus, the Didache and the Letter of Clement of Rome
have all been dated from around 100 AD. These authors quote from Matthew,
Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, I
Peter and others. The early church father Ignatius was martyred in 115 AD.
In a set of letters he composed on his way to his execution in Rome, he
quoted from nearly every New Testament book. One could continue by
mentioning the much more extensive writings of Justin Martyr from around
150 AD, and those of Iranaeus, from near the end of the second century.
Justin called the gospels the “memoirs of the apostles.” Experts have
claimed that using quotes from early Christian writers in the second
century, one could reconstruct nearly the entire text of the New
Testament. Nearly all scholars agree that Matthew Mark and Luke were
written before AD 70. John was almost certainly written before AD 90, and
probably at least ten years before that. Some debate whether Paul wrote 1
and 2 Timothy and Titus. However, virtually no scholars debate his
authorship of Romans, 1,2 Corinthians, and Galatians-2 Thessalonians.
Ehrman chooses, to ignore all these facts. Why? You will have to ask him.
_________________
I wouldn't bother to ask Ehrman a thing. He is a liar and a deceiver and he purposely ignores all evidence that proves him wrong. It's a common problem with deceitful people. They hate evidence that exposes them for what they are.

Back to the drawing board for you, Guno.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

One more to drive the nail in the coffin of all doubt............

Again, Ehrman?s mention of “hundreds of years scribes copied the New
Testament until the King James version” shows his obviously deceitful
intent.

I am sure Ehrman is aware that we have entire manuscripts of the
New Testament in Greek from about AD 350, including the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, as well as a number of manuscripts of entire books of the New Testament and large parts of others from the third century (The Washington Manuscripts, the Chester Beaty Papyri, etc.), and even some from the second century.

Why would anyone who was well aware of this fact pretend that errors in copying after the second or third century matter, when all scholars know that they are basically irrelevant to the accuracy of the New Testament?

The fact is that we have a virtually perfect version of the original New Testament documents. We can cross check this by reading the extensive quotes of Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin and others in the second century AD who were quoting from the manuscripts in their possession.

Of the criticisms you mention by Ehrman, I believe that one of them has at least some validity.

The claim that these documents were not written by
eye-witnesses is disproved by the evidence.

The claim that hundreds of years allowed for massive mistakes in the New Testament is disproved.

However, he does raise one legitimate question, in my opinion. It is
almost certainly true that we do not have exact word-for-word transcripts of the sayings of Jesus. I believe that the gospel writers are reliable witnesses, but surely the speeches recorded are not exact, perfect word-for-word quotes. Surely the memory of the apostles is a factor in what we read. This I will concede. It is probably true that we do not have every single word spoken by Jesus, exactly as he spoke.

What we have is the report of men who were with him for three years, twenty-four hours per day. Jesus said many things, and I assume he had a similar message wherever he went. There is a place for faith in this.
I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

For this reason, I believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, had
influence on the final form of the things written in the Bible. “Above
all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet?s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). The original writings were inspired by God. I believe this by faith, but also because of the incontrovertible evidence for inspiration found everywhere I look in the Bible.
________________
So much for Bart! Next?!

Bart Ehrman claims the Bible was changed and is unreliable in his book Misquoting Jesus 8211 The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible. Can you comment on his claims Evidence for Christianity

 

[Hollie]

You are free to believe in supernatural intervention by one or more of the partisan gawds prevalent in Western Civilization as others are to believe in the gawds common in their geographic location.

Nothing in any manuscript of any book written by men is a meaningful indication of any connection to any gawds.

Next?!

 

[MaxGrit]

One more to drive the nail in the coffin of all doubt............

Again, Ehrman?s mention of “hundreds of years scribes copied the New
Testament until the King James version” shows his obviously deceitful
intent.

I am sure Ehrman is aware that we have entire manuscripts of the
New Testament in Greek from about AD 350, including the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, as well as a number of manuscripts of entire books of the New Testament and large parts of others from the third century (The Washington Manuscripts, the Chester Beaty Papyri, etc.), and even some from the second century.

Why would anyone who was well aware of this fact pretend that errors in copying after the second or third century matter, when all scholars know that they are basically irrelevant to the accuracy of the New Testament?

The fact is that we have a virtually perfect version of the original New Testament documents. We can cross check this by reading the extensive quotes of Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin and others in the second century AD who were quoting from the manuscripts in their possession.

Of the criticisms you mention by Ehrman, I believe that one of them has at least some validity.

The claim that these documents were not written by
eye-witnesses is disproved by the evidence.

The claim that hundreds of years allowed for massive mistakes in the New Testament is disproved.

However, he does raise one legitimate question, in my opinion. It is
almost certainly true that we do not have exact word-for-word transcripts of the sayings of Jesus. I believe that the gospel writers are reliable witnesses, but surely the speeches recorded are not exact, perfect word-for-word quotes. Surely the memory of the apostles is a factor in what we read. This I will concede. It is probably true that we do not have every single word spoken by Jesus, exactly as he spoke.

What we have is the report of men who were with him for three years, twenty-four hours per day. Jesus said many things, and I assume he had a similar message wherever he went. There is a place for faith in this.
I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

For this reason, I believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, had
influence on the final form of the things written in the Bible. “Above
all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet?s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). The original writings were inspired by God. I believe this by faith, but also because of the incontrovertible evidence for inspiration found everywhere I look in the Bible.
________________
So much for Bart! Next?!

Bart Ehrman claims the Bible was changed and is unreliable in his book Misquoting Jesus 8211 The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible. Can you comment on his claims Evidence for Christianity

Liberals notorious for their lack of integrity.

 

[oldfart]

One more to drive the nail in the coffin of all doubt............

Again, Ehrman?s mention of “hundreds of years scribes copied the New
Testament until the King James version” shows his obviously deceitful
intent.

I am sure Ehrman is aware that we have entire manuscripts of the
New Testament in Greek from about AD 350, including the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, as well as a number of manuscripts of entire books of the New Testament and large parts of others from the third century (The Washington Manuscripts, the Chester Beaty Papyri, etc.), and even some from the second century.

Why would anyone who was well aware of this fact pretend that errors in copying after the second or third century matter, when all scholars know that they are basically irrelevant to the accuracy of the New Testament?

1. Please explain why the last 12 verses of Mark, the only mention of resurrection, are missing from the Codex Sinaiticus. When were they added?

2. Please explain why scribal "corrections" in the Codices, many hundreds of years after the original coying of the manuscript, find their way into subsequent Bible text. Are the original texts wrong?

But of course since you think that no scholars question the authenticity of the text, you have been out of touch with scholarship for the last 150 years.


________________
So much for Bart! Next?!

Bart Ehrman claims the Bible was changed and is unreliable in his book Misquoting Jesus 8211 The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible. Can you comment on his claims Evidence for Christianity[/QUOTE]

 

[norwegen]

Jesus is the reason for the season. Merry Christmas, all.

 

[Avatar4321]

You are free to believe in supernatural intervention by one or more of the partisan gawds prevalent in Western Civilization as others are to believe in the gawds common in their geographic location.

Nothing in any manuscript of any book written by men is a meaningful indication of any connection to any gawds.

Next?!

you're ironically right. No book shows any connection to any gawds.

but there are many books that testify of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. He is your Father

 

[AmericanFirst]

the Gospels do not claim to be written by any eye witness to Jesus life. all the gospels are anonymous, the names were added later by writer. Some believe that Papias a tested to mark and Matthews gospel, but there is strong evidence to show Papias is not referring to Mark or Matthew more over the first time that the gospels are referred to as Matthew mark Luke and John is 180 years after by irenaeus

He is a liar and you are an idiot.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Jesus is the reason for the season. Merry Christmas, all.

You also.

 

[AmericanFirst]

You are free to believe in supernatural intervention by one or more of the partisan gawds prevalent in Western Civilization as others are to believe in the gawds common in their geographic location.

Nothing in any manuscript of any book written by men is a meaningful indication of any connection to any gawds.

Next?!

Only one , the Bible pointing to the one true God. Move along satan worshiper.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just chill, guys. You will all find out soon enough.

 

[Hollie]

You are free to believe in supernatural intervention by one or more of the partisan gawds prevalent in Western Civilization as others are to believe in the gawds common in their geographic location.

Nothing in any manuscript of any book written by men is a meaningful indication of any connection to any gawds.

Next?!

Only one , the Bible pointing to the one true God. Move along satan worshiper.

There are many true gawds. Yours is false.

Move along thumper.

 

[Avatar4321]

You are free to believe in supernatural intervention by one or more of the partisan gawds prevalent in Western Civilization as others are to believe in the gawds common in their geographic location.

Nothing in any manuscript of any book written by men is a meaningful indication of any connection to any gawds.

Next?!

Only one , the Bible pointing to the one true God. Move along satan worshiper.

There are many true gawds. Yours is false.

Move along thumper.

what's truly sad is you really believe yourself to be an educated person while posting tripe like that. Your proud of being ignorant of God. Rather than learn for yourself you pretend your ignorance makes you superior to the rest of us.

I truly pity you and pray that your heart will some day be softened to regain the light of Christ

 

[JoeB131]

the Gospels do not claim to be written by any eye witness to Jesus life. all the gospels are anonymous, the names were added later by writer. Some believe that Papias a tested to mark and Matthews gospel, but there is strong evidence to show Papias is not referring to Mark or Matthew more over the first time that the gospels are referred to as Matthew mark Luke and John is 180 years after by irenaeus

Dammit, Guno, you set Jerry off into full crazy mode.

 

[guno]

the Gospels do not claim to be written by any eye witness to Jesus life. all the gospels are anonymous, the names were added later by writer. Some believe that Papias a tested to mark and Matthews gospel, but there is strong evidence to show Papias is not referring to Mark or Matthew more over the first time that the gospels are referred to as Matthew mark Luke and John is 180 years after by irenaeus

Dammit, Guno, you set Jerry off into full crazy mode.

why would someone be upset with scholarship and research?

 

[Hollie]

You are free to believe in supernatural intervention by one or more of the partisan gawds prevalent in Western Civilization as others are to believe in the gawds common in their geographic location.

Nothing in any manuscript of any book written by men is a meaningful indication of any connection to any gawds.

Next?!

Only one , the Bible pointing to the one true God. Move along satan worshiper.

There are many true gawds. Yours is false.

Move along thumper.

what's truly sad is you really believe yourself to be an educated person while posting tripe like that. Your proud of being ignorant of God. Rather than learn for yourself you pretend your ignorance makes you superior to the rest of us.

I truly pity you and pray that your heart will some day be softened to regain the light of Christ

May Zeus bless me.

 

[guno]

 

[PostmodernProph]

You are free to believe in supernatural intervention by one or more of the partisan gawds prevalent in Western Civilization as others are to believe in the gawds common in their geographic location.

Nothing in any manuscript of any book written by men is a meaningful indication of any connection to any gawds.

Next?!

Only one , the Bible pointing to the one true God. Move along satan worshiper.

There are many true gawds. Yours is false.

Move along thumper.

what's truly sad is you really believe yourself to be an educated person while posting tripe like that. Your proud of being ignorant of God. Rather than learn for yourself you pretend your ignorance makes you superior to the rest of us.

I truly pity you and pray that your heart will some day be softened to regain the light of Christ

I fully expect that when Hollie graduates from high school she intends to continue her education....