Sorry to burst your bubble of delusion, but Jesus is a mythical character like Zeus and Apollo. Besides, vicarious redemption is an immoral concept even if the scapegoat is an imaginary godman.
Basically he's saying that if a gospel doesn't agree with my preferred theology (similar to the hebrews) it can't be accepted as authoritative. Yep that's how the "Bible" was canonized. Sounds quite human, doesn't it?
The "winners" made it into the cannon of the Protestant church.
I think y'all need to look up the word "refute." This is hardly a refutation. It is merely adding some Christian spin. Some pretty weak spin at that. Read Ehrman's books and note the mounds of evidence he provides.
@choochtrain yep - wise man ! most of us have read Ehrman's rubbish - errors consisting of spellings but no change in core doctrine . Ehrman is truly refuted .
“It is true the manuscripts we have are later…” As in after the prime councils that decided what would be orthodoxy, and after selection of 27 documents that made the final canonization cut. Not that settled orthodoxy could have affected transmission of the texts.
YWHWs plan of salvation created before foundation of world.Man not yet created.God know man will fall and have to go to his hell where he will torment forever.He loves man so much,he creates a plan which is evil an vile.
YWHW rapes a 13yr engaged girl no doubt all night long.He doesnt even get Joes permission.He then must get men to lie and murder to have this demigod bastard killed..not just kill,brutalized.Just believe this wicked pagan lie and you are saved.
a good start from dickson there: "ehrman would say [something that ehrman has never and would never say". why do these christian apologists have to lie to make their case? it is absolutely shameful.
@BozoTheBear - They do it because after YEARS of thinking and saying one thing. And, not just anything. Inspired by god things.
There would be no way in hell that they would resend what they said. That ego, that arrogance. It stops people from being honest with ones self. Also, it helps to have others in the same boat. Not wanting to admit they were/are wrong.
When it comes to religion. The truth should make you free. Instead it just makes you look stupid.
@harpo103 -the oral culture came into being at the time of Jesus and his death - if it changed during this generation , the disciples would have died for a lie . Use your brains Mr.
@MegaFraudbuster Sorry to burst your bubble about the apostles, but, we must follow the story wherever the facts will lead us. The book of Mark was written about a generation after Jesus preached. How many people would recall, VERBATIM, what he said 30-40 years previous? Especially, if they were old and probably a bit absent minded by then? Most folks didn't live past 50 in those days. Remember the game of telephone from school? Oral stories get changed over time. As do written ones as well.
@MegaFraudbuster Anway, the Gospels were most likely NOT really written by any of the original apostles of Jesus! The apostles were largely illiterate peasants who spoke Aramaic. The Gospels were probably written by someone who knew Greek, especially, Luke. Which was probably written by a well educated person of the day. I think that Luke may have been Paul of Tarsus personal secretary. But, I'm not sure about that one. Nobody followed Jesus around with a steno pad taking dictation!
@MegaFraudbuster how do you know the disciples died for their beliefs? ehrman has asked many christian apologists, and they all refuse to answer. as ehrman said himself, he has read every christian document from the first 5 centuries, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the disciples were killed for their beliefs. as far as we know, they never had any say in the stories that were written about them in the gospels.
I took a course of his while he was going to Princeton in the 1980s, and I take him to be a serious, sincere student. He has no agenda that I can see, except for writing books. He is just an historical investigator. He insists on evidence and proof.
I've read about 5 or 6 of his books so far, and they make perfect, reasonable sense. Unlike the evangelicals who warp and twist everything to suit their preconceived ideology.
He was asked " how do you know the gospels that ARE used are true?" His reply is; they are true because their origins go back a generation or two.
Thats kind of like saying to a newspaer editor " hey mate I just seen a guy rise from the dead" Editor asks; when did you see this?? You reply " ROUGHLY 30- 60 YEARS AGO"
In Erhman's books he clearly shows that the gospels couldn't have been written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, who were illiterate and aramaic speaking, not highly literate, educated Greek writers, of which the gospels were produced. So the gospel writers weren't eye witnesses to the events they describe, but rather collating oral stories after 40 years or so......
@ianjrivers - if you ever observe court hearings - you will hear evidence that is written by the lawyer presented in court. Does this mean the evidence is not from the eye witness ?
Why refute Bart Ehrman? He is an honest scholar. Listen to his personal story from Misquoting Jesus. He was an evangelical himself. He does not do what he does to offend conservative scholars, he is just being true to himself.
@madamemuslim He has not changed the facts, but he has put them in a more presentable fashion. He is allowing lay people to understand the world of Biblical Scholarship. This is wonderful & new. He also does the text books for Religious Studies classes as far as the NT is concerned. He is not an opponent of Christianity. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens obviously are though...he does not align himself with their movement (New Atheist).
@hawkertruffelsnout Not Bart. A new atheist is merely a 21st century atheist. Their content is not different, but I think their antagonism towards religion has been augmented.
@madamemuslim What facts? The Bibble is so full of contradictions, errors and additions that we cannot know what the FACTS are! If you listen to him and yet still blindly believe in the Bibble, you are beyond help.
PS. I think the Qu'ran is a steaming heap of shit as well!
@drewskione well said, BUT, christian scholars are NOT going to be honest like Ehrman because to do so put them at risk in possibly(rather likely)seeing the truth and as a result doing what Ehrman did, dumping their faith.
@drewskione Of course, they need to refute him and vilify him in anyway they can because their way of looking at the World is threatened - which of course looks to them like the "truth" is being attacked.
@drewskione Ehrman has said that he is NOT a Christian so I don't know where you get the idea he is an evangelical himself. (No doubt he was 'an evangelical himself' at one time but he certainly isn't now. However, give Ehrman his due. He will simply not concede that Jesus did not exist. He is too much of a professional historian to believe that garbage.
@riian1946 You clearly misread what drewskione wrote. He did NOT say that Ehrman "is" an evangelical. He said that Ehrman "WAS" an evangelical ... past tense... as in Ehrman used to be an evangelical but no longer is one.
Sorry to burst your bubble of delusion, but Jesus is a mythical character like Zeus and Apollo. Besides, vicarious redemption is an immoral concept even if the scapegoat is an imaginary godman.
a0eoj 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@a0eoj you haven't bust my bubble - you have shown that YOU ARE AN IGNORANT UNEDUCATED MORON .
MegaAngrycat 1 week ago
2:07
Basically he's saying that if a gospel doesn't agree with my preferred theology (similar to the hebrews) it can't be accepted as authoritative. Yep that's how the "Bible" was canonized. Sounds quite human, doesn't it?
The "winners" made it into the cannon of the Protestant church.
HellRehab 1 week ago
Apparently no one thinks the fat man actually refuted Ehrman, only 2,410 views and already 65 percent or so dislike it.
AMpufnstuf 2 weeks ago
I think y'all need to look up the word "refute." This is hardly a refutation. It is merely adding some Christian spin. Some pretty weak spin at that. Read Ehrman's books and note the mounds of evidence he provides.
choochtrain 1 month ago 2
@choochtrain yep - wise man ! most of us have read Ehrman's rubbish - errors consisting of spellings but no change in core doctrine . Ehrman is truly refuted .
MegaAngrycat 1 month ago
Comment removed
Rocketryman 3 weeks ago
@choochtrain - Without any need for blind faith.
Rocketryman 3 weeks ago
“It is true the manuscripts we have are later…” As in after the prime councils that decided what would be orthodoxy, and after selection of 27 documents that made the final canonization cut. Not that settled orthodoxy could have affected transmission of the texts.
Cathmoytura 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YWHWs plan of salvation created before foundation of world.Man not yet created.God know man will fall and have to go to his hell where he will torment forever.He loves man so much,he creates a plan which is evil an vile.
YWHW rapes a 13yr engaged girl no doubt all night long.He doesnt even get Joes permission.He then must get men to lie and murder to have this demigod bastard killed..not just kill,brutalized.Just believe this wicked pagan lie and you are saved.
God would never be christian
thedagonjones 1 month ago
a good start from dickson there: "ehrman would say [something that ehrman has never and would never say". why do these christian apologists have to lie to make their case? it is absolutely shameful.
BozoTheBear 1 month ago
@BozoTheBear - They do it because after YEARS of thinking and saying one thing. And, not just anything. Inspired by god things.
There would be no way in hell that they would resend what they said. That ego, that arrogance. It stops people from being honest with ones self. Also, it helps to have others in the same boat. Not wanting to admit they were/are wrong.
When it comes to religion. The truth should make you free. Instead it just makes you look stupid.
No one likes that.
Rocketryman 3 weeks ago
Isn't it easier to change a story via an oral culture rather than a written one?
Especially over several decades, or even centuries?
Bock is fulla crap!
harpo103 1 month ago
@harpo103 -the oral culture came into being at the time of Jesus and his death - if it changed during this generation , the disciples would have died for a lie . Use your brains Mr.
MegaFraudbuster 1 month ago
@MegaFraudbuster Sorry to burst your bubble about the apostles, but, we must follow the story wherever the facts will lead us. The book of Mark was written about a generation after Jesus preached. How many people would recall, VERBATIM, what he said 30-40 years previous? Especially, if they were old and probably a bit absent minded by then? Most folks didn't live past 50 in those days. Remember the game of telephone from school? Oral stories get changed over time. As do written ones as well.
harpo103 1 month ago
@MegaFraudbuster Anway, the Gospels were most likely NOT really written by any of the original apostles of Jesus! The apostles were largely illiterate peasants who spoke Aramaic. The Gospels were probably written by someone who knew Greek, especially, Luke. Which was probably written by a well educated person of the day. I think that Luke may have been Paul of Tarsus personal secretary. But, I'm not sure about that one. Nobody followed Jesus around with a steno pad taking dictation!
harpo103 1 month ago
@MegaFraudbuster how do you know the disciples died for their beliefs? ehrman has asked many christian apologists, and they all refuse to answer. as ehrman said himself, he has read every christian document from the first 5 centuries, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the disciples were killed for their beliefs. as far as we know, they never had any say in the stories that were written about them in the gospels.
BozoTheBear 1 month ago
@MegaFraudbuster - That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Rocketryman 3 weeks ago
Ehrman is just taking scholarly material and giving it to the average person!
There isn't that much to dispute as far as what Bart says!
harpo103 1 month ago
@harpo103 are you a biblical scholar ?
MegaFraudbuster 1 month ago
@MegaFraudbuster
No, but, Ehrman is!
I took a course of his while he was going to Princeton in the 1980s, and I take him to be a serious, sincere student. He has no agenda that I can see, except for writing books. He is just an historical investigator. He insists on evidence and proof.
I've read about 5 or 6 of his books so far, and they make perfect, reasonable sense. Unlike the evangelicals who warp and twist everything to suit their preconceived ideology.
harpo103 1 month ago
@MegaFraudbuster are you?
WolfSyndrome 3 weeks ago
He was asked " how do you know the gospels that ARE used are true?" His reply is; they are true because their origins go back a generation or two.
Thats kind of like saying to a newspaer editor " hey mate I just seen a guy rise from the dead" Editor asks; when did you see this?? You reply " ROUGHLY 30- 60 YEARS AGO"
stonewall1888 1 month ago
This guy's SPEWING BS so don't buy into this evil cult.
mythicalhell 3 months ago
Islam is using Erhman the Jew Judas to spread Islam. He is getting paid for his research by them.
TheLionessjudah 3 months ago
In Erhman's books he clearly shows that the gospels couldn't have been written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, who were illiterate and aramaic speaking, not highly literate, educated Greek writers, of which the gospels were produced. So the gospel writers weren't eye witnesses to the events they describe, but rather collating oral stories after 40 years or so......
ianjrivers 6 months ago
@ianjrivers - if you ever observe court hearings - you will hear evidence that is written by the lawyer presented in court. Does this mean the evidence is not from the eye witness ?
MegaAngrycat 6 months ago
Why refute Bart Ehrman? He is an honest scholar. Listen to his personal story from Misquoting Jesus. He was an evangelical himself. He does not do what he does to offend conservative scholars, he is just being true to himself.
drewskione 7 months ago 8
@drewskione - people think it is cool to write against christianity - new book ,more money !Ehrman has not changed any facts !
madamemuslim 7 months ago
@madamemuslim He has not changed the facts, but he has put them in a more presentable fashion. He is allowing lay people to understand the world of Biblical Scholarship. This is wonderful & new. He also does the text books for Religious Studies classes as far as the NT is concerned. He is not an opponent of Christianity. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens obviously are though...he does not align himself with their movement (New Atheist).
drewskione 7 months ago
@drewskione whats a new atheist?
hawkertruffelsnout 6 months ago
@hawkertruffelsnout Not Bart. A new atheist is merely a 21st century atheist. Their content is not different, but I think their antagonism towards religion has been augmented.
drewskione 6 months ago
@madamemuslim What facts? The Bibble is so full of contradictions, errors and additions that we cannot know what the FACTS are! If you listen to him and yet still blindly believe in the Bibble, you are beyond help.
PS. I think the Qu'ran is a steaming heap of shit as well!
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
@drewskione well said, BUT, christian scholars are NOT going to be honest like Ehrman because to do so put them at risk in possibly(rather likely)seeing the truth and as a result doing what Ehrman did, dumping their faith.
mythicalhell 3 months ago 9
@drewskione Of course, they need to refute him and vilify him in anyway they can because their way of looking at the World is threatened - which of course looks to them like the "truth" is being attacked.
laxr5rs 1 month ago
@drewskione And true to mankind.
OneAtheist1 1 month ago
@drewskione Ehrman has said that he is NOT a Christian so I don't know where you get the idea he is an evangelical himself. (No doubt he was 'an evangelical himself' at one time but he certainly isn't now. However, give Ehrman his due. He will simply not concede that Jesus did not exist. He is too much of a professional historian to believe that garbage.
riian1946 1 month ago
@riian1946 You clearly misread what drewskione wrote. He did NOT say that Ehrman "is" an evangelical. He said that Ehrman "WAS" an evangelical ... past tense... as in Ehrman used to be an evangelical but no longer is one.
crucisnh 1 month ago
@crucisnh Yes, sorry you are right. I did misread it what had been said.
riian1946 1 month ago