Part 7 - Craig Evans vs. Bart Ehrman Debate: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?

[bentopapa007]

This isn't a debate, it's an a88 whooping. Thank God for Bart Ehrman.  He is a REAL messenger of truth.

[MrGoodNKinky]

Even by any of the Gospels Jesus wasn't in the tomb for 3 days!

A day is Evening to Morning!

Friday Evening to Saturday morning = 1 Day!

Saturday Evening to Sunday Morning = 2 Days!

Having Jesus rise from the dead before Monday means it was not 3 days but 2 Days!

Wouldn't an ALL KNOWING God have known this fact?

[HellRehab]

2:45

restating erhman's arguments with a sarcastic tone isn't much of an argument. almost feel sorry for Evans....almost.

[MrJohndl]

People make stuff up all the time to suit their needs - the Bible is no exception. Ehrman is completely right about this.

[Nashamoshe]

Bible is the Word of God...All Scripture is God-breathed. Dont believe it? Give me a proof

[Garabaldi323]

@Nashamoshe You made me laugh out loud... Thanks!

[Nashamoshe]

@Garabaldi323 1 Corinthians 1:18

[Garabaldi323]

@Nashamoshe 'Father Zeus, is there any mortal left on the wide earth

who will still declare to the immortals his mind and his purpose?

Do you not see how now these flowing-haired Achaians

have built a wall landward of their ships, and driven about it

a ditch, and not given to the gods any grand sacrifice?

Now the fame of this will last as long as dawnlight is scattered,

and men will forget that wall which I and Phoibos Apollo

built with our hard work for the hero Laomedon's city.'

[Nashamoshe]

@Garabaldi323 You quote me from Iliad but reject the Bible... That s so strange!

[liduq]

Sorry to blow up the balloon of certain person, BUT, Bart D. Ehrman was discredited long ago ...

He just continue to write his insane lies. Bad quotations, gross inventions, unverifiable research etc...

The least we can say of him, is that he is quite arrogant to continue to write his lies even after being debunked!

Sorry

[prosario2008]

One clarification: Craig Evans is *not* a fundamentalist, but he is more conservative regarding the issue of inerracy in the Bible.

[andrewlgm]

If one "t" differs from manuscript to manuscript, which many of them do, then the book is not perfect. How hard is it to understand this? Evans agree with verses being changed and he still claims immutability and perfection? How can someone be so intellectuality dishonest and not realize it?

[jimmo42]

@andrewlgm Sorry, but I don't see how you interpret Evans' comment to mean he claims "immutability and perfection". While he is definitely a fundie and that fits, he was very careful with his wording, and that is not what I got. He is saying despite all of the problems the core is still there.

Further, one 't' being different does not invalidate the book. It was alledgedly "god breathed", but to dictated. That particular argument will get you into trouble.

[andrewlgm]

@jimmo42 His entire comment is founded on the idea of perfection and immutability. Christians believe the Bible has been transferred through the ages perfectly as it was written by the apostles themselves. Evans, a "smarter-but-still-dumb" christian, believes that the Bible is entirely perfect and fit to be taught. 2 Timothy 3:16. In my critical view one "t" differing form manuscript to manuscript invalidates the entire presupposition of perfection. But maybe i'm asking for too much

[jimmo42]

@andrewlgm "His entire comment is founded on the idea of perfection and immutability. "

Incorrect. He quite openly admitted there were difference and mistakes.

"Christians believe the Bible has been transferred through the ages perfectly"

Incorrect. Most Christians do not even believe in a literal interpretation of the bible (e.g. catholics, europeans)

[jimmo42]

@andrewlgm

"written by the apostles themselves"

Incorrect. Christians are very much aware that, at the very least, The Gospels of Mark and Luke, plus Acts were *not* written by apostles. Further, the majority of Christians believe that many of the letters were not written by the people to whom they are attributed.

You are operating for the assumption that most Christians believe the bible was "dictated" by God and thus must be "perfect". That is also incorrect.

[andrewlgm]

@jimmo42 Considering that I was a Christian most part of my life, a pentecostal, evangelical, protestant Christian, I think I may know what I am talking about. Research also confirms this. 45% of Americans believe the Bible is the perfect word of God. That the rapture will happen. etc. Most will not admit to thousands of mistakes, and the few educated that do, like evans, believe they are God directed. He just won't say it. Again, I come from an evangelical background that preaches exactly that.

[jimmo42]

@andrewlgm "I come from an evangelical background that preaches exactly that."

Accepted. However, your experiences do not reflect all Christians.

"I come from an evangelical background that preaches exactly that."

I attended a Methodist church when I was kid, Pentacostal (Four Square Gospel) when I was in the army and a Lutheran now. (I even do their IT work) A claim that Christians universally believe or even the majority believe the bible is "inerrant" contradicts my experience.

[andrewlgm]

@jimmo42 "You are operating for the assumption that most Christians believe the bible was "dictated" by God and thus must be "perfect". That is also incorrect."

My assumption could not be more correct. Read the declarations of faith of every protestant denomination in America. "We believe the Bible is the perfect word of God. Inerrant, immutable, unchanged, etc." Most Christians do believe the Bible was dictated through the ages by the Holy Spirit. The main, only, author is GOD.

[jimmo42]

@andrewlgm "Read the declarations of faith of every protestant denomination in America."

There are two key problems with that. First, "protestant". Catholics are not "protestant" and are not bible literalists. I have had many discussions with Catholics (even priests) about errors in the bible. Second, "America". It is common for Americans to think of the world as being exactly like the US. It's not. I am an american living in Germany, the "home of the protestants". It not like you claim.

[richwfd2002]

@mattetho Anyone would get angry after listening to liars and crooks for so long. We rational thinkers are fed up with the lies, hypocrisy and arrogance of "christians" and will no longer keep quiet about it. It's a tidal wave and it's coming for you and your flimsy beliefs. We renounce fear and put it in its place. "Christians" deny their own and, thus, live a lie by sticking their fingers in their ears and going, "la, la,la....". Willful ignorance epitomized.

[COLDB33R]

@mattetho He's no more fired up than most of the sermons I've heard, and besides he's merely responding to the hostility he feels being directed towards him. Perfectly natural IMO.

Why don't you get away from the tone of what he says and address the substance? Oh, that's right you can't.

[COLDB33R]

Geez, do you notice the extremely hostile body language of Evans and the other two holy rollers on the stage? And why are those other two men even there? They look like they're acting as Evans body guards in case the crazy atheist goes berserk.

[jimmo42]

Not surprising that Evans claims that the changes/additions do not effect christians theology in any way, but ignores the comma johaneum (1 John 5:7-8) which seems to confirm the trinity, but was not in the original.

[LothairOfLorraine]

@jimmo42 Evans does address the Trinitarian formula in I Jhn 5:7-8 as an interpolation, one added long after Trinity was established in the Church.

[jimmo42]

@LothairOfLorraine "Evans does address the Trinitarian formula in I Jhn 5:7-8 as an interpolation, " FIrst, exactly where does he do that in *this* video? Second, an "interpolation" is invalid in this context. Evans claims the additions have no effect on doctrine. The Comma Johanneum has an obvious effect on doctrine because without it, the trinity "interpolation" (read: interpretation) and not part of any manuscripts (even non canonical). It was simply a device to counter other sects.

[LothairOfLorraine]

@jimmo42 Evans addesses the Comma Joahanneum in the debate. In which segment I do not recall. The verses did not give rise to Trinitarian theology. The Comma Johanneum reflected it. Erasmus was suspicious of the CJ, but included it in his Greek translation. Also, Evans is right that none of the controversial verses in the NT threaten any necessary doctrine of the Church.

[jimmo42]

@LothairOfLorraine Whether Evans "addesses" the Comma Joahanneum is irrelevant unless it is within the context of the question of whether the changes effect doctrine. Whether Erasmus was "suspicious" or the TR includes it or not is also irrelevant. Since the doctrine of the trinity is not specifcally addressed and is only seen when you interpret verses in very specific ways, then the lack of the CJ most definitely "threatens" doctrine, particularly considering it is still used today as "proof".

[jimmo42]

@LothairOfLorraine Further, the trinity of the doctrine was invented by the early church as a weapon against the sects that believed Jesus was not human at all (only divine), as well as against those that beleived he was not divine at all (only human). The only way to differentiate themselves from *both* groups was to have a doctine that was different from both groups. To this end the doctine of the trinity was invented.

[jimmo42]

@LothairOfLorraine When using your sect's interpretation of scripture to support the trinity, do keep in mind that scripture is almost always interpreted by the various christians sects differently. This differing interpreation is why there are thousands of different sects, or do you believe that those saved have already been pre-determined or that you need to babble in front of a wall for salavation? To insist you have the "one true" interpretation is pretty arrogant.

[jimmo42]

@LothairOfLorraine Third, as you pointed out, Jhn 5:7-8 was added long after the trinity was created in the church. The doctrine did not exist in any christian sect at the beginning, it was added later as we see in 1 John 5:7-8. Thus Evans is demonstably wrong.

[grassburner]

Why doesnt Craig Evans just stop reading and just say. I'm still going to believe no matter how many problems there is with the Bible.

[ClumsyRoot]

@grassburner

"I'm still going to believe no matter how many problems there is [sic] with the Bible."

Why???

[Nashamoshe]

@ClumsyRoot If you don`t believe internal testimony of the Bible to be the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16 AND 2 Peter 1:20-21) I can give you many external proofs as well... remember science and history are biased and Ehrman as a normal human being, although more intelligent than dumb, tends to be wrong... if you believe this man or other human beings like Marx or Darwin (and their theories) are infallible, so you are prone to be biased too... only choose your battles, I stand for Jesus.

[ClumsyRoot]

@Nashamoshe

Yet I should put my trust in the words of the fallible, biased men who wrote the Bible?

[Nashamoshe]

@ClumsyRoot No Put your trust in God who superintends His message... God is God and He can use any broken vessel. fallible men for His Grander Purpose... He can do ALL thing. I agree with you that the men who wrote the Bible were fallible but yet the Word is infallible as God`s power goes beyond our weakness.

[ClumsyRoot]

@Nashamoshe

You keep telling yourself that...

[Nashamoshe]

@ClumsyRoot I will no need for your command

[Cootabux]

I can't believe this! Evans still doesn't get it.

The problem is, is we found just a few contradictions and errors, how would we know about the remaining texts? Evans says all writings have errors but he's supposedly talking about god's words and how they're supposed to be inerrant!! So, in this light, the slightest differences are totally important. They are critical!

And if the bible were from god, why allow it to cause so much difference and opposition within it's many, many different ranks?

[RealName007]

@Cootabux Well said!

[facilisdescenus]

@Cootabux Craig Evans is not a fundamentalist like you are. He understands that even if there were minor contradictions or discrepancies in the gospels , the overall story could be true.

[Surah72]

@Cootabux

The Creator does not make mistakes, nor forgets: Surah 4:82, 20:52

If it comes from man, it will contain mistakes. If it comes from our Creator, it will not.

'Nuff said.

Peace.

[MrTruthAddict]

@Surah72 The quran comes from man, nuff said...

[Surah72]

@MrTruthAddict

The Quran contains a falsification test. Surah 4:82

Prove it comes from man.

Find a mistake.

Peace.

[MrTruthAddict]

@Surah72 Prove god or allah exists first of all. IF you cant do that, which you cant, you've got nothing.

[Surah72]

@MrTruthAddict

Proof: God: watch?v=zzcVu-CpzXQ

Was the Universe a monoblock? Yes.

Are all living things made of water at a cellular level? Yes.

Peace.

[mrplainclothesman]

why are you YELLING Bart??

[Surah72]

@mrplainclothesman

He's not yelling.

Peace.

[PerilocutionAZ09]

So apparently "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (since it's from the phoney story of the adultress) isn't an important part of Christian doctrine.

Sure.

[PerilocutionAZ09]

"Well I SUPPOSE skeptics could point to such-and-such...but I don't REALLY have an answer to that criticism, so I'll just say it's not a big deal."

[AtheistToothFairy]

So Evans is okay with removing/ignoring pieces of the gospels, if he feels it was inserted later on, but then thinks that such a removal isn't a problem.

But wait....If there is a god and this is his book, how does a god allow his ONLY book to be modified in such a manner, which god knew would cause problems in the future as to the validity of his own scripture.

Face it, there is no god behind this ancient book!.

[Lightmane321]

WAIT! Did Evans just multiple times admit that the Bible isn't inerrant?

EXCOMMUNICATE THAT HERETIC!!!!!

Evans needs a 'road to Damascus' encounter with Jesus! RIGHT?????

[rfora540]

congratulations you're finally glimpsing the world of mainstream Christianity, from Lewis to Polkinhorn and Barr to McGrath, we're not all fundamentalists.

[Lightmane321]

@rfora540 Yes, I know. Thank God for that. ; )

[amayan80east]

Evans committed a Strawman in 2:10. Poor guy! He was nailed by Erhmann big time at least i the context and the very purpose of this so called debate

[bonnie43uk]

Surely if God/Jesus, wanted us to follow his exact word, he would make sure it was written down in such a way, it would be impossible for it to be misconstrued and mistranslated, did'nt he realise, if he left it up to us, we'd make genuine errors along the way. Everything points to mankind making up this stuff. Maybe Jesus existed, i dont know, but to my knowledge, he didn't write a single word down himself ... go figure.

[MATZAMAN76]

@bonnie43uk

Very well put...it should be a T-shirt....

[ClumsyRoot]

Dr. Craig "The Cherrypicker" Evans

[e4mmacro]

Craig is crawling to this audience, tryiong to protect them from what he knows can't be denied by the scholarly side of him

[MATZAMAN76]

Why cant fundamentalists realize that even the slightest error in the bible, in any area and to any degree, automatically disqualifies the bible as super natural. It is either the inerrant word of god or it is not. It is either 100% error free or it is not. The bible fails to meet the very standard it puts forth.....lol,...man has brought forth yahweh.....

[CerebralSimian]

@MATZAMAN76 I've made this points many times but then they act like they didn't even hear it and keep right on going.

[MATZAMAN76]

@CerebralSimian

All of the excuses they use keep bringing forth new denominations of belief. Denomination just means different rationalizations of the same incoherent data(Bible stories). 33,000 and counting.....and they are ALL the god inspired "absolute proof",...just ask any one of them and they'll tell you....lol.........

[Canbuhay]

@MATZAMAN76 Did you not watch this debate? The only way your argument works if you can show that there are fundamental discrepancies between the essential Christian teachings in scripture and the historical events claimed in it. Evans already says it is possible that some possible extrapolations occurred or that sometimes someone couldn't spell correctly but that these alleged changes don't have any bearing on Christian theology. But attacks on fundamentalists always rely on hyperbole.

[MATZAMAN76]

@Canbuhay

The bible is littered with discrepancies. Both from within the text and outside (interpretation/commentary). The bottom line is that the bible consistently fails to meet the very standards or claims it puts forth, ie; prophecy, inerrancy and basic continuity. Hyperbole is hardly needed when matching the claims of the bible against the evidence(archaeology/history). Just be objective.

[Canbuhay]

Which discrepancies and what standard are you talking about? Again, these are simply intellectual crutches you are using to dismiss the historicity of Christianity. As Evans says, which of these "discrepancies" change any of the essential teachings of Christianity? Even Ehrman can't produce evidence that these so-called discrepancies matter.

[MATZAMAN76]

@Canbuhay

If you are asking me about discrepancies, you have either..

1) Not been honest or objective in your assessment of the contents of the bible. or

2)Have a new, more progressive view of christianity.

Finding truth should be the priority over personal bias. Audit your faith. Find out how it was put together, see how its doctrines("essential teaching") has evolved. 33,000 plus denominations is a good start to see how these "discrepancies" matter.

[Canbuhay]

1. I'm not sure how your assertions that the discrepancies in manuscripts makes me intellectually dishonest. There are many so called discrepancies (donkeys, Judas' death the order of Jesus' final sayings) can be explained rather easily - they don't say Jesus ONLY said this or Jesus ONLY took one donkey.

2. What I am doing is defending Christianity - not the baggage you rejected. Besides each atheist I meet have their own truths about existence too - does that make them untrue?

[MATZAMAN76]

@Canbuhay

1) The discrepancies are far more in depth than "manuscript errors". There are critical logical, ethical and prophetical errors. The "infallible" bible argument disintegrates like wet toilet paper under the lightest scrutiny. It is easy to glance over these issues when your are emotionally invested.

2) You are a true "cherry picker". Just take out what is convenient and toss out anything that says otherwise....How is that honest and fully encompassing assessment?.....its not.

[jacksawild]

@Canbuhay The last 12 verses of mark are additions, many centuries later. Scholars have known this for centuries but they do not advertise it because they do not believe that people like you can handle it. Actually, it will be in the footnotes of any good bible. Which version do you read?

[Canbuhay]

Um so what? Bibles mark this as "the oldest and most reliable texts don't have this section. How does that disprove the rest of what Mark wrote? It ends with the tomb being found empty remember? And how does that disprove what the three other gospels write? All it means is someone later on, tried to summarize what other Christian historians wrote - that doesn't make it untruthful. We're summarizing what these two are debating now, that doesn't make it untrue either.

[jacksawild]

@Canbuhay That's the point, none of it proves anything because it is written tradition. Even if it were eyewitness testimony, it would still PROVE nothing. I once read a story about a bear who got on a train and was named after the station where he was found. Is THAT evidence?

[Limbsy]

@MATZAMAN76 im christian, admit there are discrepancies... but believe its from God... i just view it as a historical document with content of a divine source.

[MATZAMAN76]

@Limbsy

I personally believe otherwise. But I do respect what you state as your belief. At least you are honest and admit there are issues with the bible. I respect that. 

[rfora540]

Fundamentalists do believe that. It's one of the many points over which fundamentalist atheists and christians agree. But for the majority of scholars and thinkers [religious or not] the view that the Bible is supernatural IN its inerrancy is an extreme to be avoided. The true debate [like this one] is much more nuanced and complex. This debate shows that those who characterize mainstream christianity as rising/falling on that extreme view of inerrancy, are pushing a strawman argument.

[bernlin2000]

@MATZAMAN76 And the crucial thing (besides the dichotomy you mentioned, which some believers might call a false one) is that once we know there is at least one error, nothing is certain any longer about the Bible, regarding the life of Jesus, his teachings, or his death/resurrection. The fact that we have much much more than one error/discrepancy/contradictio­n just blurs the situation even further. Conclusion: if you wish to believe that Jesus was Lord, it must be on faith alone, not evidence

[MATZAMAN76]

@bernlin2000

A very efficient and accurate summary. Well said. ...The bible argument of super natural inerrantcy falls like a house of cards under the lightest scrutiny....The very definition of the word faith should deter objective people away from engaging in debates with the "willfully ignorant" and "delusional".

[MrTruthAddict]

@MATZAMAN76 True, not only that but the bible itself says that everything man touches is corrupted. (Because of the concept of original sin) Yet Fundies "believe" that through centuries of being in the hands of the corrupt Catholic church the 'word of god' was preserved. These people not only believe in fairy tales, they believe in fairy tales ABOUT fairy tales.

[LothairOfLorraine]

@MATZAMAN76 I think you may not fully understand the doctrine of inerrancy in the Catholic Church. Fundamentalists have saddled the Scriptures with reformation era Calvinism and handed the pure ratioanlists a great weapon against apostolic authority and necessary traditions. Gotta hand it to the Calvinists/Atheists, they know how to kill the Church.

[MATZAMAN76]

@LothairOfLorraine

Well,...inerrancy in the Catholic church is simply maintaining a shallow or superficial perspective of what scripture says. When delving into the scripture and letting the text speak for itself, one finds just how efficient the "church" kills itself. Ignorance is bliss.....

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76 "shallow or superficial perspective of what scripture says"

I have to disagree on that. One of the key problems is exactly "letting the text speak for itself". Because the bible is subject to interpretation due to human nature, translation problems, etc one of the key reason acitivities of the pope (and cardinals, if I remember correctly) to provide the "correct" interpretation.

"Ignorance is bliss....." Like some people's understanding of the catholic church?

[MATZAMAN76]

@jimmo42

"One of the key problems is exactly "letting the text speak for itself". Because the bible is subject to interpretation due to human nature"

Oh ok...so its best to let some one else that "claims" to have direct knowledge of or from "god" interpret the text for you. How perfect. ...and yes ignorance is bliss when you turn a blind eye to the myriad of problems/errors in the so called "god inspired" bible.

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76 'so its best to let some one else that "claims" '. You do realize that everyone can see that I never said that? This is a perfect case of the text "speaking for itself" and someone (*you*) misrepresenting or misinterpreting it. Do *you* speak ancient greek? Mine is no where near good enough to be able to translate the bible without help (but I am working on it). So, I bet when *you* read the bible, you are already reading someone else's interpretation.

[MATZAMAN76]

@jimmo42

Within the catholic church the "lay people" are deterred from "studying" the bible with any depth. They are told to leave the interpretations to the "leadership" and to "trust" what has been interpreted for you. You are a perfect representation of this. Will full ignorance, blind assumptions. Fact: NO MATTER WHAT LANGUAGE THE BIBLE IS TRANSLATED INTO, THE ERRORS AND INCONSISTENCIES REMAIN. Reading the books of the bible in their original language does NOT eliminate the errors!

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76 "Within the catholic church the "lay people" are deterred from "studying" the bible with any depth."

My experience is different. The catholics I have discussed the bible with spend a lot of time studying it. Granted the final interpretation is reserved for the Holy Sea, my experience is that Catholics are will versed in the bible and freely admit to errors.

"You are a perfect representation of this." Excuse me? Just how am I an example of "Will full ignorance, blind assumptions."?

[MATZAMAN76]

@jimmo42

"Granted the final interpretation is reserved for the Holy Sea"....(cue sheep sounds)

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76

Excuse me? Just what are you going on about. First, your comment "You are a perfect representation of this." was made BEFORE my comment about the "final interpretation". So that obviously cannot be used as a basis for your comment. Second, you brought up the context "Within the catholic church". So, within that context, what did I say that is not true? Within that context "final interpretation is reserved for the Holy Sea" is a true statement, like the Pope likes in the Vatican.

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76 So, based on the evidence we can all see, what leads you to the statement that I am some a "perfect representation" of "Will full ignorance, blind assumptions"? That I make statement of facts? Hopefully it cannot be that you assume I am catholic. I said "my experience is that Catholics....". Logically, I do not include myself in that group So, again facts lead you to your conclusion?

[MATZAMAN76]

@jimmo42

"That I make statement of facts" = Will full ignorance, blind assumptions.

Its ok. Just continue your coping strategies..they seem to be working just fine.

(cue sheep sounds)

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76

So you are claiming that within the catholic religion that it is not a fact that the "final interpretation is reserved for the Holy Sea"? Every catholic I have ever talked to in both the US and Europe says that ultimately the final interpretation of what is in the bible is done by the pope. Whether the underlying belief is true or not isn't the issue, but rather the final interpretation is done by the pope. I am curious as to what makes you believe that this is not a fact.

[MATZAMAN76]

@jimmo42 Here is my problem(with religion, yours included)

1) A person claims to be "god incarnate" (ie; the pope, with zero objective evidence and a gruesome history of unspeakable crimes against humanity) and the final say on what the bible says

2) You blindly accept it. (despite an overwhelming body of evidence in and out of the text that shows its claims to be faulty, ie; failed prophecies, factual errors(all kinds) and continuity issues)

Religion, where willful ignorance is virtue!

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76 "yours included"

Excuse me??? Could you at least pretend you are paying attention? Just exactly what is my religion? Just because I demonstrated more knowledge of how a specific church functions I am automatically a member of that church?

I said that within the context of the Catholic church, "final interpretation is reserved for the Holy Sea" (ie. the pope) This is a statement of fact. Just like saying "The pope lives in the Vatican".

[MATZAMAN76]

@jimmo42

My mistake, I lost track of who I was responding to. You are right. I jumped the gun. Usually I get engaged by specific believers. My apologies.

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76

1a) You are simply demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the catholic church. The pope is *not* "god incarnate".

1b) The history of the catholic church does not change the fact that within that organization, they have a set of rules. I simply made a statement of fact about what the rules are. If I make a statement of fact about what the rules are in World of Warcraft, that does not mean I believe World of Warcraft is real.

[MATZAMAN76]

@jimmo42

Yes. I agree. My mistake.

As for the Pope, he is viewed as the carnal representation of god, on earth. I'm positive.

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76

2) Just what exactly did I say to lead you to the obviously incorrect assumption that I "blindly accept it"? You have made a least one statement about the catholic church that is incorrect in my experience, and I addressed it. I am interested in the truth, *even if* it is about a system of bliefs that I do not necessarily agree with. I cannot argue against them, without knowing them. I am not going to make up stories about them simply to make them wrong.

[MATZAMAN76]

@jimmo42

Well, I interpreted you initial responses as defending the faith. that is all. Alot of the comments I respond to I just scan, because of time constraints, so sometimes I miss the mark.

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76 "Religion, where willful ignorance is virtue!"

What is your feeling about people who are willfully ignorant about a religion and yet continue to makes comments when they apparently have no clue about that religion?

Or what about people who can read the posts in front of them and still interpret things into the post which are obviously not there? You know, like alot of Christians who interpret things into the bible which are not there,

[MATZAMAN76]

@jimmo42

a) Well, I know quite a bit about religion and I am qualified to make comments. None of the comments I've made are incorrect.

b) My mistakes lie with jumping to conclusions about your personal stance. Again, i apologize.

[jimmo42]

@MATZAMAN76

a) I never said you weren't qualified. However, "qualified" does not necessarily mean you cannot be wrong, as I believe you are about the pope.

b) No harm done. ;-)

[Prince319]

Craig Evans is not answering the question, Bart Ehrman is very smart and I really admire him but I believe if you believe in the bible then good for you. Instead of us fighting over if the bible is true or not let's practice what Jesus taught which is Love. No I am not a christian but I respect people of all faith. Love and Kindness is what we should all do!

[Sammygirl7466]

Folks, I live in East TN, and poisonous snake handling does still go on. I've seen it on public access TV, just in case anyone was wondering. And occasionally one will see minors performing these acts, which could be viewed as child abuse.

[pretoshohmoofc]

Yet again, this guy is saying "we have no way of knowing" ( 00:37min) And yet he is inserting that there has been changes from the beginning. So all he is doing is using circular reasoning. No Christian questions if there were mistakes i.e spelling, grammar, some saying A others saying B. etc, but what he isn't telling you is that there are many many different versions Greek, Latin, Coptic etc from many different places that all have the same story from different parts of the Roman empire.

[SonnyDelight55]

@pretoshohmoofc Yea, and actually we do have a good way of knowing, because of the quotes from the early church fathers.

[jdnmlm]

@pretoshohmoofc

"So all he is doing is using circular reasoning."

Do you even know what circular reasoning is? I don't think you do, because everything you are defending is based on circular reasoning. You have your Christian beliefs because the bible confirms them for you. That means you believe it because it says it. You are using circular reasoning, which is the only kind you can use since you can't verify if any of those guys, or the guys they heard it from is telling the truth.

[pretoshohmoofc]

@jdnmlm Isn't circular reasoning reasoning in a circle? Well, I guess that I do understand circular reasoning then don't I?

[jdnmlm]

@pretoshohmoofc

"Isn't circular reasoning reasoning in a circle? Well, I guess that I do understand circular reasoning then don't I? "

Yes, and that is exactly what your beliefs are based on. You believe and circle back to the bible to confirm it.

Your argument saying that Bart is using circular reasoning is ridiculous. You can't consider his position circular, especially when he isn't using it as the bases of his beliefs. He is using historical method to avoid circular.

[pretoshohmoofc]

@jdnmlm Your opinion and $1.00 will buy me a $1.00 coffee at a coffee shop. I sent you my response in a private message to you. You *couldn't* answer me. So we're done.

[jdnmlm]

@pretoshohmoofc

"Your opinion and $1.00 will buy me a $1.00 coffee at a coffee shop. I sent you my response in a private message to you. You *couldn't* answer me. So we're done. "

Hmmmm. So my comment has the same value as the dollar bill. Thank you for considering my comments as currency worthy. I thought I was just adding my 2 cents" but thanks for the upgrade in value.

You're so generous :)

Weak wit, try again.