You say that Ehrman makes claims that he did not make. You mislead the viewers, which is typical of biased, closed-minded people like you - very much like politicians. You are incorrect; Ehrman is correct. I ask the viewers of this video to do a survey of true scholars of early Christianity. This guy is a fraud.
This clip disingenuously says that Dr Ehrman claims that the Gospels were written "late in the 1st century". Actually, from what I've heard him say numerous times is that he's using the dates that are commonly agreed to by biblical scholars, i.e. Mark about 60 AD, Matthew and Luke about 80-ish AD, and John about 90-ish AD. 60 AD is hardly "late in the 1st century". So this statement is simply false.
Yeah, but, the Gospels were written WAY after the events actually happened. Probably, AFTER the apostles were dead! Mark is the earliest book, written a generation after Jesus preached. The Gospels are paraphrasing, not dictation.
It matters little who wrote the gospels. The contradictions, omissions of supposedly essential events etc, makes the credibility of the gospels quite iffy
"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
@ndzoko Whats so iffy in people coming out of the graves.IF you are a thiest and you think GOD made heavens,it doesnt take much to imagine ^^,the same happening.
It is inconsistent to depend on fragments of Papias for evidence of your own view while denying all the other zany things that Papias says. For example, do you accept that Mark was written after Matthew and out of chronological order? Do you accept that Matthew was originally composed in a Semitic language? Do you think our eschatology should be chiliastic? I kind of doubt it.
where did this goon get his PhD? The gospels are dated to around 350 years after jesus. Mathew was a contemporary of jesus. So this charlatan is telling us mathew wrote the gospel 350 years after he died? ha ha ha ha, no wonder nobody takes christianity serious anymore.
@ofosusam Today even by the most liberal view, the four gospels were written within a generation of Jesus. Almost all critical scholars, conservative and liberal alike, date the four gospels as having been written before AD 100. Even liberal scholars who do not believe the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew date this gospel before AD 100, most date it in the 70s or 80s. We have numerous manuscripts of all four gospels dated in the 2nd century.
@ProfessorRandy54 The problem is you made that up. There is no consensus that the gospels date from around 100AD, nor are there any copies of the original manuscripts. Now answer this. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, so how did they write entire books in Greek, a foreign lanuague to them.
Its like me being credited for a literary work in Chinese, which I obviously have no clue on. Does that make sense?
@pocketscholar NO problem. Just go ahead and tell me how an exclusive Aramaic speaker wrote a literary work in Greek 3 centuries after he had died. Go on, I am waiting for your answer.
@ofosusam - The simple answer is 'The Romans wrote the New Testament'. That clears up most of these little problems, like it being written in Greek, the centre of Christianity being Rome and the fact that the NT can be proven to be pro-roman.
Paul and Josephus have far too many similarities. This makes it extremely difficult to imagine a real Paul.
Either Paul and Josephus where the same person OR Paul was constructed using the experiences and history of Josephus.
@RhondaH "LOL -- We don't have any copies earlier than the second century."
and that is extremely early. If you compare it to other famous works of antiquity, there's nothing that comes so close to the original. For example the Aeneid by Vergilius, extremely popular, written before 19 BC, the earliest (fragmentary) manuscript is from 400 AD. For more examples see carm(.)org/manuscript-evidence.
so because mark and luke were picked makes it true? also john was a fisherman. fishermen were illiterate, but then again hes chilling with a god who heals the blind so teaching him greek even though jesus spoke arimaic shouldnt be too hard. also papius by most scholars estimates who actually have a history degree not a mythology one is dated to be mid 2nd century, more then 100 years after christ. just saying
@JohnTheHutDweller what's wrong with that? Lots of protestants use church fathers for evidence of doctrines. The protestant doctrine is that if the church fathers contradict the bible then the teaching is to be thrown out.
@Onetruthrgv The bible was compiled by the church fathers in their understanding of what the message of Christ was, texts that heavily contradicted the doctrine just were not included in the bible. In fact, there are contradictions between the texts themselves, that didn't stop church fathers from including them in one book. Because they were to be considered in light of apostolic teaching. You are missing the point of the book if you just read the bible without looking at at it's context.
@MegaVldmr I must disagree with you with what you said about how we got the cannon of the bible decided, The books we discarded were because they claimed no inspiration of God and since the Jews did not hold them as cannon neither do we. Now the contradiction part is plausible but as far as we know that's just modern day reasons not to read them but we are not sure if that was why the church discarded them.
" texts that heavily contradicted the doctrine just were not included in the bible" - I agree.
.
".. there are contradictions between the texts themselves, that didn't stop church fathers from including them in one book. Because they were to be considered in light of apostolic teaching" - I think they included them because they had to. Established Christian communities were already using one or other of the gospels and the Church couldn't just decree that they had been ...
.. wrong all along. So they accepted the most widely used 4 gospels to ensure that as many Christian communities were on board as possible, and had to live with the differences between them. That said though, there certainly were attempts to 'harmonize' the gospels in the early days of the church.
It can't be anything to do with apostolic teachings being used in conjunction with gospels because we don't have any such teachings - other than those that are actually in the Bible.
@TheSmithDorian In Orthodox Christian tradition there are teachings clamed to apostolic . Some of the teachings are clearly not-authentic, however others seem to retain pre-bible practices early Christians had. Like a Christian liturgy, for example.
Ever notice how much emotion there is when discussing this portion of history. No one gets upset about what Davy Crockett said or didn't say at the Alamo..or what really happened at the Boston Massacre. Because it makes no difference what so ever in how we view life. If the truth about Jesus is in the affirmitive or the negative..that changes everything..however you believe.
@lucasdasilvamaria In my opinion I think they get emotional about the way those who call themselves Christians have treated others. I'll be honest..if all of us who claim Christ lived out his two simple commands I don't think the emotion would run as high..at least here in the west. For Christians who display negative emotion (talking trash) its un-called for. We are only to respond with an answer for the our hope. Good question.
@davidpwithun This is incredibly dishonest, it is by far the scholarly opinion we have no clue who actually wrote the gospels, and it isn't just based on them being formally anonymous.
@adrenacrumb I'm very familiar with what it's based on; and I think an evenhanded and levelheaded evaluation of the evidence gives us no reason to believe that they were not written by the individuals whose names they bear.
davidpwithun I can believe that the gospel of Mark was written by someone who was close to Christ. It was written "only" 20 years after crucifixion. The Greek is very poor - exactly what you would expect from man who came from Judea in the 1-st century AD and has found someone barely literate to write a text. Matthew, Luke just wrote from oral tradition, Mark and the Q. Probably were not close to Chriust. I don't trust John at all.
You say that Ehrman makes claims that he did not make. You mislead the viewers, which is typical of biased, closed-minded people like you - very much like politicians. You are incorrect; Ehrman is correct. I ask the viewers of this video to do a survey of true scholars of early Christianity. This guy is a fraud.
AlShaddai 3 days ago
This clip disingenuously says that Dr Ehrman claims that the Gospels were written "late in the 1st century". Actually, from what I've heard him say numerous times is that he's using the dates that are commonly agreed to by biblical scholars, i.e. Mark about 60 AD, Matthew and Luke about 80-ish AD, and John about 90-ish AD. 60 AD is hardly "late in the 1st century". So this statement is simply false.
crucisnh 3 weeks ago
@crucisnh Pretty sure he dates Mark 65-70, not 60
AR333 2 weeks ago
Very good, clear and reasonable.
xchampx 1 month ago
The Gospels were written by the great Greek writer Anonymous.
harpo103 1 month ago
Yeah, but, the Gospels were written WAY after the events actually happened. Probably, AFTER the apostles were dead! Mark is the earliest book, written a generation after Jesus preached. The Gospels are paraphrasing, not dictation.
harpo103 1 month ago
Whatever happened to the 'Q Source' document, that is likely the other source document besides Mark's epistle, for the Matthew and Luke tomes?
bjdon99 4 months ago
Watching Franknarfable interact with ofosusam is like watching a Clash of the Dilettantes.
kuriakos 4 months ago
It matters little who wrote the gospels. The contradictions, omissions of supposedly essential events etc, makes the credibility of the gospels quite iffy
Did the following happen or not ??
.Matthew 27:52-53
"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
ndzoko 4 months ago
@ndzoko Whats so iffy in people coming out of the graves.IF you are a thiest and you think GOD made heavens,it doesnt take much to imagine ^^,the same happening.
bloodhoundHermetic 3 months ago
It is inconsistent to depend on fragments of Papias for evidence of your own view while denying all the other zany things that Papias says. For example, do you accept that Mark was written after Matthew and out of chronological order? Do you accept that Matthew was originally composed in a Semitic language? Do you think our eschatology should be chiliastic? I kind of doubt it.
kuriakos 4 months ago
where did this goon get his PhD? The gospels are dated to around 350 years after jesus. Mathew was a contemporary of jesus. So this charlatan is telling us mathew wrote the gospel 350 years after he died? ha ha ha ha, no wonder nobody takes christianity serious anymore.
ofosusam 4 months ago
@ofosusam Today even by the most liberal view, the four gospels were written within a generation of Jesus. Almost all critical scholars, conservative and liberal alike, date the four gospels as having been written before AD 100. Even liberal scholars who do not believe the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew date this gospel before AD 100, most date it in the 70s or 80s. We have numerous manuscripts of all four gospels dated in the 2nd century.
ProfessorRandy54 4 months ago
@ProfessorRandy54 The problem is you made that up. There is no consensus that the gospels date from around 100AD, nor are there any copies of the original manuscripts. Now answer this. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, so how did they write entire books in Greek, a foreign lanuague to them.
Its like me being credited for a literary work in Chinese, which I obviously have no clue on. Does that make sense?
ofosusam 4 months ago
@ofosusam Your ignorance on these matters is obvious.
pocketscholar 4 months ago
@pocketscholar NO problem. Just go ahead and tell me how an exclusive Aramaic speaker wrote a literary work in Greek 3 centuries after he had died. Go on, I am waiting for your answer.
ofosusam 4 months ago
@ofosusam - The simple answer is 'The Romans wrote the New Testament'. That clears up most of these little problems, like it being written in Greek, the centre of Christianity being Rome and the fact that the NT can be proven to be pro-roman.
Paul and Josephus have far too many similarities. This makes it extremely difficult to imagine a real Paul.
Either Paul and Josephus where the same person OR Paul was constructed using the experiences and history of Josephus.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
As far back as we can see, LOL -- We don't have any copies earlier than the second century.
RhondaH 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RhondaH "LOL -- We don't have any copies earlier than the second century."
and that is extremely early. If you compare it to other famous works of antiquity, there's nothing that comes so close to the original. For example the Aeneid by Vergilius, extremely popular, written before 19 BC, the earliest (fragmentary) manuscript is from 400 AD. For more examples see carm(.)org/manuscript-evidence.
dekelt 5 months ago
@RhondaH
That's extremely early by textual critical standards.
AgApE010 4 months ago
excellent, to the point, concise, thanks for the vid
demonstrationclass8 6 months ago
so because mark and luke were picked makes it true? also john was a fisherman. fishermen were illiterate, but then again hes chilling with a god who heals the blind so teaching him greek even though jesus spoke arimaic shouldnt be too hard. also papius by most scholars estimates who actually have a history degree not a mythology one is dated to be mid 2nd century, more then 100 years after christ. just saying
chasev619 6 months ago
clearly the gospels were written by mark,matthew,luke&john all of which died decades before even the 1st gospel was written
Samura1gamer 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Samura1gamer Except you have no evidence to support your assinine statement.
TheFunkyTheist 6 months ago
A protestant talking about the church fathers. LOL
JohnTheHutDweller 7 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller what's wrong with that? Lots of protestants use church fathers for evidence of doctrines. The protestant doctrine is that if the church fathers contradict the bible then the teaching is to be thrown out.
Onetruthrgv 6 months ago
@Onetruthrgv The bible was compiled by the church fathers in their understanding of what the message of Christ was, texts that heavily contradicted the doctrine just were not included in the bible. In fact, there are contradictions between the texts themselves, that didn't stop church fathers from including them in one book. Because they were to be considered in light of apostolic teaching. You are missing the point of the book if you just read the bible without looking at at it's context.
MegaVldmr 6 months ago
@MegaVldmr I must disagree with you with what you said about how we got the cannon of the bible decided, The books we discarded were because they claimed no inspiration of God and since the Jews did not hold them as cannon neither do we. Now the contradiction part is plausible but as far as we know that's just modern day reasons not to read them but we are not sure if that was why the church discarded them.
Onetruthrgv 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaVldmr 1.
" texts that heavily contradicted the doctrine just were not included in the bible" - I agree.
.
".. there are contradictions between the texts themselves, that didn't stop church fathers from including them in one book. Because they were to be considered in light of apostolic teaching" - I think they included them because they had to. Established Christian communities were already using one or other of the gospels and the Church couldn't just decree that they had been ...
TheSmithDorian 1 month ago
@MegaVldmr 2
.. wrong all along. So they accepted the most widely used 4 gospels to ensure that as many Christian communities were on board as possible, and had to live with the differences between them. That said though, there certainly were attempts to 'harmonize' the gospels in the early days of the church.
It can't be anything to do with apostolic teachings being used in conjunction with gospels because we don't have any such teachings - other than those that are actually in the Bible.
TheSmithDorian 1 month ago
@TheSmithDorian In Orthodox Christian tradition there are teachings clamed to apostolic . Some of the teachings are clearly not-authentic, however others seem to retain pre-bible practices early Christians had. Like a Christian liturgy, for example.
MegaVldmr 1 month ago
/user/AhmadDeedat786
MuslimsVsJews 8 months ago
apologist= spin doctor
thedankinfidel 1 year ago
@thedankinfidel skeptic = mocker
Jesrael1986M 10 months ago
Another example of "faith" forcing triangles through circled holes. Faith, is the most overrated of the virtues
studman165 1 year ago
Ever notice how much emotion there is when discussing this portion of history. No one gets upset about what Davy Crockett said or didn't say at the Alamo..or what really happened at the Boston Massacre. Because it makes no difference what so ever in how we view life. If the truth about Jesus is in the affirmitive or the negative..that changes everything..however you believe.
ixthustruth 1 year ago
@ixthustruth both sides are emotional... i can understand why Xians are... can you understand why non-Xians are?
lucasdasilvamaria 1 year ago
@lucasdasilvamaria In my opinion I think they get emotional about the way those who call themselves Christians have treated others. I'll be honest..if all of us who claim Christ lived out his two simple commands I don't think the emotion would run as high..at least here in the west. For Christians who display negative emotion (talking trash) its un-called for. We are only to respond with an answer for the our hope. Good question.
ixthustruth 1 year ago
LOL!
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@TruthSurge Super LOL! none of this is "reliable".
aguteempasil 1 year ago
@aguteempasil Why not? Give an argument rather than assertion.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun It's actually based on things like the cultural, geographical, and historical errors in the scripture.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
@davidpwithun This is incredibly dishonest, it is by far the scholarly opinion we have no clue who actually wrote the gospels, and it isn't just based on them being formally anonymous.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
@adrenacrumb I'm very familiar with what it's based on; and I think an evenhanded and levelheaded evaluation of the evidence gives us no reason to believe that they were not written by the individuals whose names they bear.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun Well the vast majority of critical scholars disagree and have for quite some time.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
davidpwithun I can believe that the gospel of Mark was written by someone who was close to Christ. It was written "only" 20 years after crucifixion. The Greek is very poor - exactly what you would expect from man who came from Judea in the 1-st century AD and has found someone barely literate to write a text. Matthew, Luke just wrote from oral tradition, Mark and the Q. Probably were not close to Chriust. I don't trust John at all.
MegaVldmr 6 months ago