Bible scholar tells the truth about Christianity

[guno]

 

[guno]

 

[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

He is a liar and you are an idiot.

How christian of you, well you really convince me its true!

 

[guno]

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.

I wouldn't bother to ask Ehrman a thing

Of course not, he is educated and a scholar who cut though all the bs with facts.

 

[chikenwing]

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

And your real point is what,you hate people?

 

[chikenwing]

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.

I wouldn't bother to ask Ehrman a thing

Of course not, he is educated and a scholar who cut though all the bs with facts.

What facts,everything in the OP is pure conjecture,when you use words like most likly,or it seems to be,you can't then call them facts.

 

[chikenwing]

Bottom line the OP is a hater simple as that,there is no proof one way or the other,just wait your turn,you will get the answers.

 

[guno]

 

[guno]

Bottom line the OP is a hater simple as that,there is no proof one way or the other,just wait your turn,you will get the answers.

Yes, scholarship, research and education is hate to you fundy's

 

[AmericanFirst]

Bottom line the OP is a hater simple as that,there is no proof one way or the other,just wait your turn,you will get the answers.

Yes, scholarship, research and education is hate to you fundy's

Intelligence is foreign to you.

 

[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.

There are many true gawds. Yours is false.

Move along thumper.

No, mine is the one true God. Your are delusional or possessed, I think you are both.

 

[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.

No, mine is the one true God. Your are delusional or possessed, I think you are both.

Your argument is with all the other religions, come and gone, which also made claims to the true gawds.

To the back of the line you go with your new fangled designer gawds.

 

[Moonglow]

Jesus was man, married to a woman and had to flee his rock star like status for another country...

 

[guno]

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.

No, mine is the one true God. Your are delusional or possessed, I think you are both.

possessed,

you are really mentally ill

 

[Moonglow]

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.

No, mine is the one true God. Your are delusional or possessed, I think you are both.

Like Akhenaten's and the copper scrolls?

 

[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.

There are many true gawds. Yours is false.

Move along thumper.

No, mine is the one true God. Your are delusional or possessed, I think you are both.

possessed,

you are really mentally ill

No, you are.

 

[Pogo]

Jesus was man, married to a woman and had to flee his rock star like status for another country...

And did those feet, in ancient times, walk upon England's mountains green?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have always been somewhat disturbed by the similarity of Christianity to Voodoo. I mean, resurrecting the dead, the son of god killed and brought back to life, and such. Frankly, it all seems kind of like a Bella Lugosi movie.

 

[Mindlight]

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.

"Did Jesus exist" is something an Evangelical could quote from to defend the historical existence of Christ. So maybe there are some positives to come out of Ehrmans long dark night of the soul. But until he comes out the other side of this dark and distrustful cloud, he seems to live under, most of what he says is rather boring really and little to do with Jesus. That is assuming he ever does come out the other side- as I pray he will. I would be interested to hear what he says about Jesus when he finally meets him for real. His thoughts right now are not worthy of the intellect God gave him. That he is lauded as a great bible scholar when he in fact does little if any biblical theology and far more in the way of historical criticism would be funny if it were not so sad and typical of so many theological institutions these days.

 

[Mindlight]

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?

Verse 4-8 alludes to the resurrection surely. It says the tomb was empty and that Jesus has risen!

Mark 16 v 4-8
But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid

All the other 3 gospels have uncontroversial and fuller accounts of the resurrection. Justin Martyr quotes the extended chapter of Mark 16 in his Chapter XLV First Apology 160AD well before the Codex Sinaiticus. It is the quality of the Codex Sinaiticus covering all the other major biblical texts that causes some people to use as a resource to question the absence of Mark 16s end.
The extra verses do not really add or take away from the text at all and definitely do not alter a basic understanding of the theology of Christ as having died and then been raised. It is the imposition of the historical critical framework onto this discussion for what are after all speculative reasons that suggests the missing section is serious because of Markan priority. But even that fails to account for verses 4-8.

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?

Have to take those case by case. There are answers for all of them. One major effort is to find the correct translation of the original words for instance.

The scriptures as they were originally inspired are true and none of these controversies damage any of the most important doctrines of the faith.