Erhman ignores the scholars who answered the non-historicity of Jesus question long ago (ff bruce/o. betz). Lewis' argument is sound given that the NT documents are reliable something Bruce demonstrated.
The New Testament documents are not reliable to the level required for Lewis' argument to hold. Look at the three different accounts of Peter denying Jesus, the two different accounts of Judas' death or the different accounts of who discovered Jesus' tomb was empty and tell me that we can put weight on every nuanced word. To bring these accounts into accord we must use the most contrived apologetics, so the inconsistant message of Christ's divinity holds little value without faith.
What is your source? I gave you three that support my point: the NT is a reliable document (FF Bruce/Otto Betz and try AT Robertson who didn't even believe the Resurrection story yet was objective enought to write a book showing the nt as reliable!
Oh for goodneass sake, that is just silly. I could give dozens of sources that say that the NT is unreliable (you even mentioned Ehrman yourself). What I am doing is trying to get you to do your own reading so that you can understand to what level you can trust the Bible, otherwise you run the risk of using a conclusion out of context. You can't take conclusions like "the NT is reliable" dogmatically otherwise you end up looking like an idiot (see my earlier cited examples).
Sorry but I cite those scholars so you can study their evidence.. So we have scholars on both sides great. Fredrick Bruce was a world class scholar at Manchester U and Robertson was perhaps the foremost Greek scholar of the NT from th 50's to his death who cannot be accused of christian bias. Further Erhman's mentor at Princeton Bruce Meztger held to the NT reliabilty. I have done the research I humbly suggest you read these sources.
Further, in the 19th century German critics like FC Baur argued that the nt was written 100 years after the events it purports to relate. However AT Robertson turned that theory upside down showing that the NT was written between 30 and 75 AD! William Foxwell Albright also came to the same conclusion. Thus there was not enought time for the writers to compile legends about Jesus!
Last thing, for different writers to have "slightly" different details does not imply inaccuracy in the essential idea under discussion i.e. Jesus arose from death! Since you cited those examples it seems you are implying contradiction. This shows that you do not know what an actual contradiction is.
So do you think that the Bible is accurate enough to establish that the tomb was empty and people saw Jesus afterwards, but not accurate enough to establish exactly who was there?
My contention is that even if we do grant the Bible such accuracy then that it is not a high enough degree to establish reasonably that Jesus claimed that he was the son of God.
Erhman ignores the scholars who answered the non-historicity of Jesus question long ago (ff bruce/o. betz). Lewis' argument is sound given that the NT documents are reliable something Bruce demonstrated.
MrHunterdion 2 years ago
The New Testament documents are not reliable to the level required for Lewis' argument to hold. Look at the three different accounts of Peter denying Jesus, the two different accounts of Judas' death or the different accounts of who discovered Jesus' tomb was empty and tell me that we can put weight on every nuanced word. To bring these accounts into accord we must use the most contrived apologetics, so the inconsistant message of Christ's divinity holds little value without faith.
conradleviston 2 years ago
What is your source? I gave you three that support my point: the NT is a reliable document (FF Bruce/Otto Betz and try AT Robertson who didn't even believe the Resurrection story yet was objective enought to write a book showing the nt as reliable!
MrHunterdion 2 years ago
Oh for goodneass sake, that is just silly. I could give dozens of sources that say that the NT is unreliable (you even mentioned Ehrman yourself). What I am doing is trying to get you to do your own reading so that you can understand to what level you can trust the Bible, otherwise you run the risk of using a conclusion out of context. You can't take conclusions like "the NT is reliable" dogmatically otherwise you end up looking like an idiot (see my earlier cited examples).
conradleviston 2 years ago
Sorry but I cite those scholars so you can study their evidence.. So we have scholars on both sides great. Fredrick Bruce was a world class scholar at Manchester U and Robertson was perhaps the foremost Greek scholar of the NT from th 50's to his death who cannot be accused of christian bias. Further Erhman's mentor at Princeton Bruce Meztger held to the NT reliabilty. I have done the research I humbly suggest you read these sources.
MrHunterdion 2 years ago
Further, in the 19th century German critics like FC Baur argued that the nt was written 100 years after the events it purports to relate. However AT Robertson turned that theory upside down showing that the NT was written between 30 and 75 AD! William Foxwell Albright also came to the same conclusion. Thus there was not enought time for the writers to compile legends about Jesus!
MrHunterdion 2 years ago
Last thing, for different writers to have "slightly" different details does not imply inaccuracy in the essential idea under discussion i.e. Jesus arose from death! Since you cited those examples it seems you are implying contradiction. This shows that you do not know what an actual contradiction is.
MrHunterdion 2 years ago
So do you think that the Bible is accurate enough to establish that the tomb was empty and people saw Jesus afterwards, but not accurate enough to establish exactly who was there?
My contention is that even if we do grant the Bible such accuracy then that it is not a high enough degree to establish reasonably that Jesus claimed that he was the son of God.
conradleviston 2 years ago
check out
wikipedia
Greco-Buddhism
Buddhism and Christianity
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago
Care to elaborate?
conradleviston 2 years ago
Ditto Gnug215
Great video, and BTW I sent my reply to you before I saw this.
Convergence of thought, not parroting your ideas.
mafarmerga 2 years ago
Sub'd
Thanks
niiidar 2 years ago
I think you are probably the most undersubscribed person here on YouTube.
Great video!
Gnug215 2 years ago 3
As always, an excellent video contribution.
Keep it up!
namnack 2 years ago
Thank you for illuminating this.
KasparHauser4 2 years ago
Great video... favorited.
jussts 2 years ago