With Ehrman's logic I guess we can't really know who won World War 2 or if Hitler committed suicide or maybe he died an old man at his summer home in Greece. Maybe Tupac is alive after all. Dr. Ehrman has given me hope.
ehrman forgots to mention the importance of the Spoken Word in Biblical Times, and that it was more trusted than the written word. And that it's unlikely that they would change the stories that much. I know this because I read it his book for a new testament course.
Ehrman's point still stands. 'You come up with major differences. Just take the death of Jesus. What day did Jesus die on and what time of day? Did he die on the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John explicitly says, or did he die after it was eaten, as Mark explicitly says? Did he die at noon, as in John, or at 9 a.m., as in Mark? Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself or did Simon of Cyrene carry his cross? It depends which Gospel you read.'
Wow Bart. You really are reaching with your points here. Maybe the different gospel accounts vary, because they were written individually from different Points of View, with some stories including some details and some stories excluding details. Its not very complicated and as it seems Bart is just throwing around his own subjective opinion, I think my statement above is just as valid. Its hard to believe a guy who said early Christians weren't persecuted like in his book "forged."
@MrSB1274 Try watching "The Historical Jesus" and then come back and say that differences between the gospels are merely authors including or not including certain details. No matter how "personal" those details are, they're never going to be able to make noon into 9.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Does anyone believe that some ppl can experience Near Death Experience. Meaning someone die and comes back alive after a few days later. Google "Near Death Experience" for testimonials. Thus, resurrection is not a miracle solely to Jesus. These ppl who experience NDE are not resurrected by God; it just mean that their time is not up yet.
@netelsg Near death experiences are just that: NEAR death. They are not actually cases of people coming back from the dead. There are no known cases where people who are actually, completely, 100% dead-as-a-door-knob coming back to life.
@TruthSurge The order given depends upon the assumptions that go into the dating. Some, but not all, scholars probably do agree with the order you give. I have seen Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well as Mark, Matthew/Luke, Luke/Matthew, and John as the possible orders. As to dating, I have seen dates as early as the 30s for the first book written, and as late as mid-Second Century for the last written. If prefer the range of the 40s or 50s to the 90s for the dates.
@MrRlowr I did a multi-part vid on the dating of Mark to about 72CE. You can find searching YT dating new testament truthsurge. You may find it interesting. I date Luke and Acts POST turn of the first century. They rely on Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, IMO, and also due to their late-sounding theology, they fit much better in the first part of the 2nd century. Just my take.
@TruthSurge There are many people who would agree with your dating of the Gospels and Acts. I'm not sure why you are claiming that James and John were twins. There was a twin among the Apostles, Thomas called "Didymus." James is also listed first because he is most likely the older of the brothers. John became much more important to the early Church, as James was martyred early. Acts most certainly does not contain late theology. Paul's teaching as represented in Acts is quite early.
@TruthSurge I have taken down the name of McDonald's book, and may look into it at some point. I will try to watch your video series. I won't make any promises, but I may try to watch them later today. It will depend on circumstances here.
William Lane Craig is an Evangelical Christian. Bart Ehrman is a former Christian. He is a person that went where the evidence led him. I've done the same thing, kicking and screaming of course because it's something that I didn't want to happen and I certainly didn't expect it to happen. It really started when I became an apologist and I spent a lot of time being critical of other denominations within Christianity.
Bart Ehrman is objective. He's not desperately attempting to defend a creed that makes no sense anyway. I guarantee anyone who studies historical critical analysis of the Bible will come to one conclusion, there's no way God would leave us with such a mess. There had to be another book, the Quran, and another messenger, Muhammad, peace be upon him. Otherwise, we are stuck seeking the truth elsewhere, because the Bible no longer contains the guidance humans need to live a God-pleasing life.
You gotta give credit where credit is due, Craig does a great job at presenting miraculous events as history. It just can't be done by a historian, that's a job for a theologian.
Wow Willy gets owned in this debate...i usually see W.L.Craig doing pretty well sometimes even better than the opponents in "Atheism vs Theism" debates...
I don't think Ehrman is being intellectually honest. To argue that gospels were written in Greek, and Jesus spoke in Aramaic, therefore the gospels couldn't have been written by his disciples, is merely an assumption. And I find it interesting that he could know enough about Jesus to imply that He only spoke in Aramaic. A lot of assumptions are being made here, and they are being presented as though they are factual.
The bible tells us that Jesus was a carpenter's son and his disciples are simple fishermen or other manual workers. Yes it is assumption that they did not speak the language of another country many miles away, but even today, with the relative ease of learning via the internet or schools & colleges, correspondence courses etc. How many manual workers in Palestine are fluent authors in Greek, Latin or even English?
It may be an assumption, but it is a far from an unreasonable one.
@SAHBfan You might also add that being "fluent" in a language does not imply you are able to write the language so well as to be indistinquishable from a native speakers. This is what is necessary in order for the gospel writers to be whose name appears on the respective gospels.
Ehrman wastes too much time talking about the technical details of historicity before getting to the Biblical aspects of it. Moreover, he doesn't address Craig's points adequately, which is a shame.
It's amazing how many people are ignorant of biblical criticism. Christians - get over it, the gospels are a poor man's Harry Potter with Jesus as Harry and Hogwarts as Galilee.
Ehrman's explanation of how we understand history works concerning human writings, but it is insufficient when applied to divine writings. Get the books called "Unholy hands on the Bible" edited by J.P. Green for a counter view. Ehrman is basically saying that the Holy Spirit was not able to inspire and preserve the Bible. As a young man, Ehrman may have made a profession of faith, but clearly God was not involved in the process. There was never an awakening of his spirit.
@blackplatypus I know...unbelievers who will die and spend eternity under the divine wrath of God, rather historians or not, will always take a secular approach to the Bible and never acknowledge the work of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration and divine preservation of scripture. Also, the Bible has more manuscript evidence supporting it than any other book in history, so if Bible has major problems then we cannot trust any book written in History, the Greek Philosophers included.
It appears you've taken a page out of Craig's debate handbook yourself.
"here's some guy with a doctorate who agrees with me"
How about you don't ignore my request for extrabiblical sources and actually SUPPORT your claim that "the Bible has more manuscript evidence supporting it than any other book in history"
@blackplatypus I just did. I present to you a two set volume of books called "Unholy hands on the Bible" that have all the documentation you are requesting. Your tactic is that if I can't present all of the evidence in this short space, then you dismiss it. Of course, it is impossible to do so in a short space like this. If you want to go only by Bart Erhman's research, then go ahead, however, in doing so you will be missing vital information. I will read Ehrman, you read Burgeon. .
"How do you convert somebody to stop worshiping their gods and start worshiping Jesus? you tell stories about Jesus..." Bart Erhman is willfully ignorant to the fact that the Resurection of Jesus was incredibly scandaleous for Jews (even until today) and a foulishness for the greeks. So the early disciples who never thought about Christ's Resurection themselves could not have started suddenly to persuade hostile crowds and die willfully for their own lies!!! doesn't make sense!
Right, since most NT scholars are christians, its safe to say that they fall in line with Craig. Does Craig give any evidence outside of the Bible? Because if your standard for believing something is this low, then you have to believe in pretty much every religion..they all have a book.
I wonder what Dr. Ehrman assumes were the stories these early Christian were telling. How and why did the first Christians in Palestine convert to Christianity and what were they proclaiming? From the earliest and best attested sources (Paul, Acts) the message they were preaching was that Jesus was crucified, buried, resurrected and that belief in Him as the risen Messiah brought about a right relationship to God. Just like Craig argues, the discrepancies are in the minor details.
I am always amazed and frustrated by how the discourse regarding the exsistance of Jesus Christ (Yahweh) turns into a question of a belief in God. I find this a common misdirection.....and as we all know misdirection is the craft of magicians, politicians and con men.
If you need someone to tell you what to believe about God then you are a slave to those who tell you what you should already know. You learn the truth of life by living and not by debating.
Bottom line NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE, Fact the four gospel's were written by anomyous scribe's even the top christian historian's confirmed that fact. Funny how christians blind follow that infidel paul of tarsus who gave conflicting accounts of his journey in damascus.Very interesting indeed. Make's me wonder the satan seem's to got his way with them. Even satan believe's in one LORD,he has misguided them 70%
@JoesRambles.Peace to you and family actually they do.if you dont know something it is pointless to argue something.If you were more learned in history of the bible you would know that throughout history that the book of hermes was in the bible up until the 13th century but was taken out later just like many other books.the book of revelations was added in and is a blasphemey.
@ryukenb2k Nice, someone disagrees with you and you insult them? Good job. Actually what I said was true. And no, the book you mentioned was never part of the official canon.
@JoesRambles, I will add you and elaborate further about the fictious book of revelations which isnt in the 2500 oldest manuscripts confirmed by all bible historian's. How can people be so ignorant and call themselves a title called christians. when jesus himself never called a single follower of his in his lifetime a christian.
I like the way Mr. Ehrman explains history. It also seems odd when I'm told by people "Since we know Caesar existed, we have to know that Jesus was resurrected". They seem to think I have some absolute faith that Caesar ever existed, and waged campaigns to take power from the triumvirate. Even if the historical evidence we had for Jesus' resurrection was absolutely flawless, it's still a "There's a chance...", not "This definitively happened this way!"
The video of this debate is unfair. When William Lane Craig made a point the words appeared on the screen, reinforcing the point. But when Bart Ehrman made a point nothing appeared on the screen.
in addition, William Lane Craig kept telling us what Bart Ehrman was going to say. I wondered why we even needed Bart Ehrman since WLC was arguing both sides. But when I heard Bart Ehrman he said something completely different from what WLC said he would say.
Craig also plastered the word "fact" all over his slides as if those assertions were not in dispute. They are, in "fact", part of what he needs to prove. He can't just call them "facts" right out of the gate. That's about as intellectually dishonest as you can get. I submit that pulling that bullshit destroys his credibility.
@fusedchromosome WLC is a very slick performer. He is working with no evidence and still seems to be able to convince the Christians. If he ever loses this job he can sell vegetable peelers on late night TV for $19.95.
You gotta admit one thing. Whether he's right or wrong, he's gonna be rich! I can just see it now, he's sitting on his yacht in the Greek Isles sipping martinis and telling stories about how he actually used to believe this stuff.
@fusedchromosome After Jesus died unexpectedly, the Apostles went fishing. [John21:3] but they caught nothing. IMO I think that when they returned to their former trade of fishing, and caught nothing, they realized that the good life of passing the basket as evangelists was over and now they would have to do manual labor. But someone must have said "If only Jesus was still alive we could continue the easy life" So the resurrection myth was hatched.
@fusedchromosome well said. Ive been watching a lot of Craigs debates recently and Ive come to realise that he uses 'most New testament scholars agree that...' all the time. this is misleading really, because i imagine most new testament scholars are believers, and presuppose what they are studying to be true before looking at it. when you go into something with a closed mind,it is easy to filter out everything that doesnt correlate with your view.
@woody198900 Hm, I sense a logical fallacy, here...
Let's try this: "Most biologists agree that evolution is true, but that's only because I imagine they'd be evolutionists anyways, since they're studying biology. So, they' OBVIOUSLY biased.
It's not an attitude. It's an opinion. He hasn't provided sufficient evidence to justify having his "assertion" graduate to a "fact." He's simply watered down the definition of the word fact. The way he's using it, that word doesn't really mean anything. As for your "shut up" comment....I'll pass on that one, but thanks for the suggestion.
BTW, an observation. When criticizing data that supports a theist's perspective, they have a really weak definition of the word "fact", but when evaluating data that runs counter to their preferred theology, all of the sudden the word "fact" becomes rigorous. All of the sudden the science can't leave any room for doubt. Why is that???
If it is true that WLC was arguing against something else. Then it doesn't mean the debate was unfair. It means WLC didn't do well in refuting Bart. Yet you think this makes it unfair to Bart. You are so silly.
i love how these debates always have the defending (which always is the religious side anyway) changing the basis of the argument just to have feet to stand on for an hour.
even a believer would learn something new AGAINST his religion. He think "Jesus rose, definitely!" and watches his champion say "well, it's the BEST explanation"...and then the believer has to merge them into "it's the best explanation so Jesus rose, (definitely?)"
This man lost his way in his thinking when he stopped looking at the Bible from God's perspective, but instead elevated his own intellect to being superior to God's. Effectively he has vilated the first commandment. Sadly, he has now lost his way.
One wonders how he would rate Paul's letters which talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus. (I Corinthians)...we know Paul talked with Peter himself...so, he did get the story from an eyewitness
Can a non- eye witness write history? Sure. But consider this: Only an eye witness can testify in a court of law. Everything else is dismissed as "hearsay" and not admissible. Why should less of a standard be applied to the dogma people base their lives around?
So can they write history without actually being there? Of course. But they will need to base it on CREDIBLE evidence given by someone who WAS there. The bible is not based on first-hand knowledge. It would not stand up in a court of law.
Well, a claim that it is the majority does not help me much. I was hoping to find such information myself. I have seen anywhere from 65 at the earliest, to 100 years after his death from seemingly credible sources, and only earlier dates typically from apologetic sites where the source of such information is not sighted. Either way, Ehrman's claim has me curious since he is an authority in the field.
The Gospels don't date to 100 years after. Pretty much all scholars accept their range of 35-65 years after Jesus' death (Jesus died in AD 33). You can easily look this up on wikipedia or other scholarly sites that discuss their dates. There's no need to go to apologetic sites.
@Christianjr4 I think that when Ehrman says 'date', he's talking about the earliest known manuscripts, and if so he would be correct: none of the Gospel manuscripts date earlier than the mid-second century. Of course, I think Ehrman is aware that most scholars date the actual writing of the Gospels the way you do.
@Christianjr4: Per wikipedia (your suggestion) the first written was Mark, dated to ca. AD 64. The last written was John dated to ca AD 90. Further, the claim of the earliest dating being 35 is no less than ludicrous. All scholars (Christian and non-Christian) agree the gospels were written after all of the Pauline epistles. The last being 2 Timothy which is dated to ca. AD 66. This is well after the date range you suggest.
The date range I gave was "35-65 years after Jesus' death". Again, Jesus died in AD 33 (a fact which is not commonly known by lay people). Thus, the conservative date of AD 64 you generously provided for Mark's Gospel fits quite nicely within that range. Indeed, it puts Mark's Gospel under 35 years from Jesus' death. The other Gospels also fit very comfortably within that range, regardless of whether you date them conservatively or liberally. Regards!
@Christianjr4 My apologies. You are absolutely correct. The "after Jesus' death" appears on the next line and I overlooked it. I should pay better attention.
@Christianjr4 I date Mark to about 72 CE. I did a couple of vids on dating Mark if you are interested. Also, Luke is probably early 2nd century, not prior to John. But still all other gospels rely on Mark so they cannot be used as separate independent witnesses and once Mark is considered on its own, it can be shown to be fictional. I love Ehrman's honesty. And to have his scholarly track record is just awesome.
@TruthSurge While Matthew and Luke contain large sections of the material from Mark, they contain much that is not included in Mark. This other material is independent from Mark, and must be considered separately. Showing Mark to be fictional is a historical claim, which is outside his area of expertise. John does not rely on Mark, only the other Synoptic Gospels do.
@MrRlowr "While Matthew and Luke contain large sections of the material from Mark, they contain much that is not included in Mark. "
Authors of fiction copying prior fiction are prone to write their own fiction into the prior fiction. It's how fiction writings wrote in those days. A good story comes along, they copy it with edits and pass their version on. Luckily for us, three versions survived (Mark and Matthew and Luke) and we can trace the edits through each one.
@TruthSurge The claim that the Gospels are fiction is a poor explanation of the evidence. This is not to say that it impossible for it to have been what happened. In light of many things, it is unlikely, though. You are quite right about authors borrowing readily from others without giving credit. It was very common in that time.
@MrRlowr The gospel of Mark is pure fiction as are the other 3 and acts. THis is a conclusion I hold based on all the evidence I can examine. Have you read Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms? He covers this idea quite well and shows that the authors were synthesizing details and for theological reasons, not recounting historical events. Another book that is a MUST read for you if you haven't already is Dennis R. McDonald's The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark.
@MrRlowr That book illuminates how Mark used the Odyssey and the ending of the Iliad to help create his gospel. It's mind-blowing. Best $35 I spent in a LOOOOOOOOOONG time. Not speculation. A solid and stunningly backed up theory or thesis that explains a lot of the oddities in Mark's acct. What's up with the naked youth? Why were there only MEN at the feeding of the 5000? Why did Jesus curse a fig tree for having no fruit out of season? mind-blowing, man.
@MrRlowr "John does not rely on Mark, only the other Synoptic Gospels do."
If I recall, John uses the exact chronology in a few of the scenes and there may be a couple other places that show reliance upon the synoptics but I'll have to try and dig up where these are as I don't recall WHICH of the scenes it was. Might have been the fig tree part but for now, I will say oh yes, it does and try to get back and post the evidence to support that.
@MrRlowr nope. You misunderstand. When two DISCONNECTED scenes are appearing in both mark and John, you cannot explain THAT with actual chronology. THAT is what I'm trying to remember but I can't at the moment. I wish I had a great memory but I don't do this stuff for a living either. I do other things and just dabble in this every so often. If a disjointed scene is appearing in john and mark, no way that cannot be literary reliance upon mark.
@MrRlowr One thought for now. The entire 21st chapter of John is a much later addition and IT relies on the synoptics for it tries to resolve the problems of Jesus' post ress appearances in Galilee and Jerusalem AND gives prominence to the sons of Zebedee, the Boanerges, the Twins, the Sons of Thunder (Zeus), the Dioscuri masked in Mark as... James and John. NOWHERE else in John are the twins mentioned by the name "sons of Zebedee" or the others. Chapter 21 relies upon the synoptics.
@TruthSurge The word "thunder" used here is "brontes," not "zeus." Also, "boanerges" is of Aramaic origin, and thus unlikely to be related to the Greek god Zeus.
@MrRlowr The twins James and John are called sons of zebedee. Jesus renames them to Boanerges.
Mark 3:17 And James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder
oops! :) So, we have two brothers who are always named "james and john" in that order. twins if you will. These are symbolic of the Dioscuri. Castor and Polydeuces. The sons of Zeus. The dioscuri were represented as being on....
They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
well, well. Two twins bookending a god. And Mark has given HIS readers (obviously not most of history) a FLAG or nod of the head toward Homer and Greek ideas familiar to his readers.
@MrRlowr The dioscuri were the sons of Zeus and we all know that Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning and for Jesus to rename them "sons of thunder" and for them to want to be at his right and left and that Mark treats them as inseparable twins, CANNOT be a mere coincidence. So says McDonald. :) Now, hope that stirs your interest enough to check out his book. I assume you have not read it by your comment so get it! You'll love it.
@MrRlowr You might say that since 21 is an obvious later insertion into the gospel, it doesn't count. The original John STILL doesn't rely on Mark or the other synoptics. It's there. It'll just take me some time to snoop around and find it. :) Maybe you can do a search and find some places where it relies upon the written gospels but I will keep looking. But overall, sure. John did not copy Mark like Matthew and Luke copied it. His reliance is also in the edits he made against them.
@TruthSurge I am in the process of examining many claims about the Bible and the Gospels in particular. I will keep what you have said in mind. However, as I understand things now, John is independent of the Synoptics. As you mention, John 21 could be a later addition, and also as you mention, later editing does not impose anything upon the original author.
@MrRlowr Glad you are open to ideas and theories and such. I am an ex-Christian so studying the actual origins of the religion is interesting and somewhat therapeutic for me.
Now, don't get me wrong. John is VERY different from the other 3. Never claim it is that close to them. I only believe that the work IS dependent upon Mark or some copy of Mark because for one, no way is someone going to write a detailed scene like walking on water that matches Mark 50 years after the events.
@MrRlowr BTW, I believe the order is Mark, Matthew, John and Luke. I could be wrong but I think I'm correct. I'll try to scrounge up a few supports soon for John's reliance upon Mark and Matthew.
Remember there's a difference between the actual text and manuscripts, and the dating of the source, known or unknown. Sometimes styles clearly represent writing from an earlier source older than the manuscript itself. So in this case, you would be correct that the individual Gospels have not been dated before 70 or 80 A.D. But the evidence points to within 35 or so years for some of the letters and Gospels.
The dating of the Gospels depends upon how several other questions are answered. If you believe that the events related in the Gospels are true, you are more likely to give an earlier date. If you believe that time had to pass for a mythology to arise, you will likely give a later date. Also, do you see indication that the Gospels were written before or after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70?
The dating of Mark is affected by the dating of Matthew and Luke. The dating of Luke is affected by the dating of Acts. Since Acts does not refer to the death of Paul, it was probably written before Paul's execution. Since Paul was executed during the reign of Nero, and if Acts was completed before Paul's death, then the latest date for its writing was ca AD 68, when Nero died.
If Acts was completed before AD 68, Luke necessarily was completed before AD 68 as well. And, if Mark was indeed used as a source for Luke, then it had to have been in circulation before AD 68 as well. Also, if as the book claims, Luke used eyewitness testimony to construct his account, then either eyewitnesses were still alive, or they had left written records behind. All of these things push the account further back in time, no matter when the Gospels themselves were written.
If these contentions are true, it would set the writing of at least two of the Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The dating of Matthew is less certain, but is likely before AD 100 because it was quoted by early Apostolic Fathers and would have needed time to circulate. John was probably the last Gospel written, and likely after AD 70, but before John's death in the late First Century.
It is oral tradition. DOnt try and pass off that bullshit on me as fact. These stories were being banted about dozens of cultures for hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) of years.
And the eye witnesses were NOT alive when the testaments were written. None of the people that wrote those novels met Christ. There is NO evidence supporting your contention....none. However there is TONS of evidence against it. You dont get to make that sort of stuff up.
actually documents written for say ceacer or alexander the great were written DECADES after the event. thats just the way the 1st century documented themselfs.
Both Craig and Ehrman use the same arguments we're use to. Regarding Ehrman in this clip. his points are challengable. He ignores the reliability of oral tradition; the fact that the names of the gospels are probably original (cf. Martin Hengel's 'The Four Gospels); Greek speakers existing in Israel at the time, etc. He also ignores the early traditions.
So I guess we should take literal the oral traditions of every other culture as well. Oral traditions are helpful in guiding us towards possible occurrences, but they aren't good historical sources.
it is EXTREMELY unreliable. line up 50 people, have the first person tell a short story to person #2.....have that person wait 10 mins then tell person #3 and so on.
By the time you hit person 50 that short story will be WACKED. Multiply that exponentially and you have oral tradition.
The moment i stop using it will be when it has been refuted. I am not like many christians, who keep using the same argument though it has been refuted time and time again. The fact is that the bible is unreliable, it was spread by the very people that "attempted" to KILL jesus, the jews and the romans. Now you tell me to believe in the message of the enemies of jesus? I don't think so! Some of it may be correct, i certainly believe that the Lord, our God is, One Lord. :)
You presented no argument other than to flaunt your complete and utter IGNORANCE.
You claim that the Bible was spread by the people who killed Jesus - what? Please, stop making up things. The Bible was spread by Jesus' followers and disciples.
Oh common, to say that is to deny an entire history!!!! What jesus and his diciples spread was limited.The majority was poluted by people unknown to jesus! Research please! You owe it to yourself Christianity so paganistic in its rituals! Bringing a tree from outside,into the house for christmas. Did jesus teach that or was that an invention? The religion was distorted and spread by his enemies! Your accusation of me lying hold no weight, a little research into history will prove what i said
Mr. Craigs ability to defend the Gospel or Mr Ehrmans ability to refute it has no thrust of influence over the unbeliever or the elect. Debate is merely for entertainment and secular involvement in things they know nothing about because it is the indwelling Spirit of God who dispels our unbelief and keeps others from belief
You use the word brainwashed as if the brain you have is sufficient. Yes, our brain needs to be brainwashed, cleansed, renewed, reworked, replenished, rejuvenated or however youd like to phrase it. We must put on the mind of Christ and this is called the rebirth. We are given the Spirit of God that we might then have the mind of God that we might know God and His will.
Where do people come from that even use silly words like "Satan?"/There's no such thing, and there's no need to bring up a concept so superstitious and foolish.What he's saying is making good sense; try listening, and reading up on it.
Later creeds being changed has to do with various councils, other contradictions seems to have more to do with times and who said what, rather than the actual sayings and events. Ehrman's arguements fall well short of refuting the historical Jesus. The contradictions he does get right are merely the beginning of an apostasy that was well predicted anyhow. Nothing new in terms theology, just man's inability at that time keep the church alive.
ummm, oral tradition, ever heard of it? That explains the 300 years away quite easily. For a scholar he seems to disregard Jewish tradition without skipping a beat.
God bless Bart Ehrman. He speaks logically and backs up all his arguments. The fact he is a bible scholar and knows the original languges of the Bible add strength to his case as well as the fact that he was a believer inchristianity before his deep studies of the Bible. If the Qur'an had this evidence against it I would lose my faith in a second!
MuslimDownunder. You're a hypocrite. And here's why. I could show you all the evidences in the world , could demonstrate all reasons why the qu'ran is just as worthless as the bible. And yet! You wouldn't actually listen. Better yet , you'd do everything in your power to counter valid , scientific facts. Muslims are amongst the most deluded ones of the bunch (religious bunch) as they even have the audacity to claim that the qu'ran predicted scientific facts.
A hypocrite is one who claims to believe something he isn't. I'm a Muslim and I believe only God will judge me and knows what is in my heart. Your first statement shows you that you are not using logic. The Qur'an first and foremost is a book of guidance both spiritually and in ones day to day life. There are mmany arguemnts for the Qur'an and using these forums is insufficent space to do so. Maybe you can watch some of the debates by Sabir Ally on youtube. God bless you.
You're a hypocrite. It's not your fault though. You may not feel like hypocrite , but your hypocrisy would suddenly resurface as soon as someone would attack your religion. You know it. You would never accept to admit that the qu'ran is just as worthless as the bible.Shabir Ally is a deluded muslim. I defy any muslims to bring legit proofs of god or any legit miracles from both the bible & the qu'ran.
maybe you can go to the videos you saw of Brother Shabir and use your logic to counter his arguments so we can start a discussion based on logical arguments rathar than you calling me a hypocrite. peace :)
Again , why bother with "Brother Shabir" ? Is he a scientific authority ? He isn't. In order to have a serious debate , you first need to avoid believers (that includes muslims) like the plague. Once you'll find a legit scientist who can prove that the qu'ran is the word of god. Give me a call.
Maurice Bucaille ? You mean the french hack who re-interpreted the qu'ran in order to find some correlations with the so called "scientific miracles" ?
Here's your reality check on Bucaille.
v=y8A9DEeglXI
and to think that this scum is probably responsible for milions of islamic conversions.
Very convenient. When a Muslim says the Quran is amazing, he is dismissed like the plague. When a nonMuslim says it, he is a hack. Silly ad Hominem attacks from you
The fact is the Quran does contain verses with an uncanny resemblance to modern discoveries, that cannot be explained away easily.
But if you are a committed atheist, and refuse to even consider the obvious self evident idea of God, then of course you will talk yourself out of it, and convince yourself you are right.
"The fact is the Quran does contain verses with an uncanny resemblance to modern discoveries, that cannot be explained away easily"
Pretty much the equivalent of nostradamus and his "prophecies"... Vague , passages which you can interpret anyway you want...
You people are reaching for straws.
That's precisely why modern "infidel" scientists are making the discoveries FIRST... not the other way around. The muslim can only wait and then find a passage which he will retrofit.
well of course that is what someone like you, who cannot for a moment accept the idea of God, would say.
If you actually get down to the details, granted often times there are exaggerations, but there are many verses that are just very difficult to explain away for skeptics.
One interesting fact, the plural for month occurs 12 times, the singular 30, and word for day occurs 365 times. (in Arabic of course) I actually checked all this using search software
coincidence? maybe. or maybe not. nobody noticed this till recently.
Once again, if you are an honest person, not blinded by materialism, and who is open to the idea of God, searching humbly for truth, these interesting facts about the Quran will point you in that direction.
But if you stubbornly refuse the core message of Islam which is staring you in the face, namely that about God, then of course you will explain away anything that doesn't fit with your atheism to feel good.
blinded by materialism ? what are you talking about ? Look who's talking...you're using the internet to communicate with me & you're trying to be the voice of reason ? ....It works one way but not the other uh ?.. & what facts are you talking about ? Can you even give me god's positive coherent ontology ? ... I'm not an atheist & you're paranoid... "to feel good" ? don't take your case for a generality.
apologies for assuming, but you sounded like an atheist. So do you believe in God or not?
Just look around you, sit on your own in place full of beautiful nature, and just think. Ask yourself, is this all some random coincidence that somehow emerged through blind forces?
Is your own body, your ability to think and reason, some accident? Is your sense of purpose, and morality, just a subjective by product of blind evolutionary forces?
'is this all some random coincidence that somehow emerged through blind forces?' Well not random or coincidence, but certainly through blind forces.
Is your own body, your ability to think and reason, some accident? Is your sense of purpose, and morality, just a subjective by product of blind evolutionary forces? Again, not an accident, but yes, a product of blind evolutionary forces. Can you give me any logical or scientific reason why this could not be the case?
noodles, yes it is an accident and evolution at its heart is purely random. Mutations give rise to every feature we have, and they are purely random. The only deterministic part is natural selection after the fact.
And to say that our minds, eyes, our wonderful bodies which we take for granted every day, are all at heart random, is to deny the sun at midday. Look at a video of how fetus develops from cell.
How this invisible mass became human, you're telling me this amazing process is blind?
I thought you gave a fairly good description of evolution in the first part of your comment. But then you blather on a 'oh, look at the wonder of the foetus' Of course you see design, of course you see order. You evolved that way, and before you could overcome it as an illusion, you were indoctrinated into one of the slavish religions that has plagued man for centuries. Yes, it is like denying the sun at midday. Look at the fucking eclipse. Open your eyes. Be free. And if you can't, fuck off.
again more assumption from you that somehow religious people are "indoctrinated", and "insecure". A myth you have created for yourself to feel good. Have you actually read the Quran? Have you compared it with the Bible? Did you do this with an open mind honestly seeking truth? Or is all based on hearsay for you
But again, I understand that this attitude prevails in the west as reaction to the irrational doctrines of Christianity (e.g. the trinity, tons of Biblical contradictions).
Not really. the growing tide of non-believers I are growing because of an increase in materialistic philosophy, I suspect. That, however, is irrelevent. Religion teaches submission, ignorance, to be satisfied with what one has got. I assume you didn't bother to read my comment from the other section. I have ordered a Quran. I suspect it will be as monty python-wierd as the bible is. But I'm an open minded person. Up to a point.
wow Ehrman completely destroyed Craig. Impressive
EisEisBaby 2 weeks ago
With Ehrman's logic I guess we can't really know who won World War 2 or if Hitler committed suicide or maybe he died an old man at his summer home in Greece. Maybe Tupac is alive after all. Dr. Ehrman has given me hope.
GrizzleBitBabyHead 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this really Bart Ehrman? or is it *Rafael Pull mask off* Deputy Barney Fife!
I rest my case.
Lacocacolaman 1 month ago
Wow. Craig destroys yet another atheist. Impressive.
tenbear5 2 months ago
@tenbear5 Wow, Ehman completely destroyed Craig. Impressive.
thesparitan 1 month ago
ehrman forgots to mention the importance of the Spoken Word in Biblical Times, and that it was more trusted than the written word. And that it's unlikely that they would change the stories that much. I know this because I read it his book for a new testament course.
stcolreplover 2 months ago
Wow. Ehrman completely destroyed Craig.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@666Infantryman Sorry, just trying to clarify what you wrote:
Do you think that there is enough evidence to support the contention that Jesus rose from the dead?
Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?
PascalsWager5 3 months ago
Ehrman's point still stands. 'You come up with major differences. Just take the death of Jesus. What day did Jesus die on and what time of day? Did he die on the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John explicitly says, or did he die after it was eaten, as Mark explicitly says? Did he die at noon, as in John, or at 9 a.m., as in Mark? Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself or did Simon of Cyrene carry his cross? It depends which Gospel you read.'
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
Wow Bart. You really are reaching with your points here. Maybe the different gospel accounts vary, because they were written individually from different Points of View, with some stories including some details and some stories excluding details. Its not very complicated and as it seems Bart is just throwing around his own subjective opinion, I think my statement above is just as valid. Its hard to believe a guy who said early Christians weren't persecuted like in his book "forged."
MrSB1274 5 months ago
@MrSB1274 Try watching "The Historical Jesus" and then come back and say that differences between the gospels are merely authors including or not including certain details. No matter how "personal" those details are, they're never going to be able to make noon into 9.
ShiftyWeasel 3 months ago
@666Infantryman Lol no.
matrixlone 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Does anyone believe that some ppl can experience Near Death Experience. Meaning someone die and comes back alive after a few days later. Google "Near Death Experience" for testimonials. Thus, resurrection is not a miracle solely to Jesus. These ppl who experience NDE are not resurrected by God; it just mean that their time is not up yet.
netelsg 7 months ago
@netelsg Near death experiences are just that: NEAR death. They are not actually cases of people coming back from the dead. There are no known cases where people who are actually, completely, 100% dead-as-a-door-knob coming back to life.
Hektor88 6 months ago
@Hektor88 Well perhaps the case is also the same for Jesus.
netelsg 6 months ago
What puzzles me is when apologetics upload these videos (such as W.L.Craig's arguments) you can usually read this following text instead of comments:
"Adding comments has been disabled for this video."
Dzonrid 7 months ago
@Dzonrid lol so true!!
lordrazr 5 months ago
@TruthSurge The order given depends upon the assumptions that go into the dating. Some, but not all, scholars probably do agree with the order you give. I have seen Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well as Mark, Matthew/Luke, Luke/Matthew, and John as the possible orders. As to dating, I have seen dates as early as the 30s for the first book written, and as late as mid-Second Century for the last written. If prefer the range of the 40s or 50s to the 90s for the dates.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
@MrRlowr I did a multi-part vid on the dating of Mark to about 72CE. You can find searching YT dating new testament truthsurge. You may find it interesting. I date Luke and Acts POST turn of the first century. They rely on Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, IMO, and also due to their late-sounding theology, they fit much better in the first part of the 2nd century. Just my take.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@TruthSurge There are many people who would agree with your dating of the Gospels and Acts. I'm not sure why you are claiming that James and John were twins. There was a twin among the Apostles, Thomas called "Didymus." James is also listed first because he is most likely the older of the brothers. John became much more important to the early Church, as James was martyred early. Acts most certainly does not contain late theology. Paul's teaching as represented in Acts is quite early.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
@TruthSurge I have taken down the name of McDonald's book, and may look into it at some point. I will try to watch your video series. I won't make any promises, but I may try to watch them later today. It will depend on circumstances here.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
William Lane Craig is an Evangelical Christian. Bart Ehrman is a former Christian. He is a person that went where the evidence led him. I've done the same thing, kicking and screaming of course because it's something that I didn't want to happen and I certainly didn't expect it to happen. It really started when I became an apologist and I spent a lot of time being critical of other denominations within Christianity.
Ricardius1710 8 months ago
Bart Ehrman is objective. He's not desperately attempting to defend a creed that makes no sense anyway. I guarantee anyone who studies historical critical analysis of the Bible will come to one conclusion, there's no way God would leave us with such a mess. There had to be another book, the Quran, and another messenger, Muhammad, peace be upon him. Otherwise, we are stuck seeking the truth elsewhere, because the Bible no longer contains the guidance humans need to live a God-pleasing life.
tadpoleposition 10 months ago
You gotta give credit where credit is due, Craig does a great job at presenting miraculous events as history. It just can't be done by a historian, that's a job for a theologian.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Wow Willy gets owned in this debate...i usually see W.L.Craig doing pretty well sometimes even better than the opponents in "Atheism vs Theism" debates...
MeetYourMeaker 1 year ago
I don't think Ehrman is being intellectually honest. To argue that gospels were written in Greek, and Jesus spoke in Aramaic, therefore the gospels couldn't have been written by his disciples, is merely an assumption. And I find it interesting that he could know enough about Jesus to imply that He only spoke in Aramaic. A lot of assumptions are being made here, and they are being presented as though they are factual.
BiblePost 1 year ago
@BiblePost
The bible tells us that Jesus was a carpenter's son and his disciples are simple fishermen or other manual workers. Yes it is assumption that they did not speak the language of another country many miles away, but even today, with the relative ease of learning via the internet or schools & colleges, correspondence courses etc. How many manual workers in Palestine are fluent authors in Greek, Latin or even English?
It may be an assumption, but it is a far from an unreasonable one.
SAHBfan 1 year ago
@SAHBfan You might also add that being "fluent" in a language does not imply you are able to write the language so well as to be indistinquishable from a native speakers. This is what is necessary in order for the gospel writers to be whose name appears on the respective gospels.
jimmo42 10 months ago
who's bill?
lianghaochen 1 year ago
Ehrman wastes too much time talking about the technical details of historicity before getting to the Biblical aspects of it. Moreover, he doesn't address Craig's points adequately, which is a shame.
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
It's amazing how many people are ignorant of biblical criticism. Christians - get over it, the gospels are a poor man's Harry Potter with Jesus as Harry and Hogwarts as Galilee.
bilal3700 1 year ago
@bilal3700
Hogwarts has nothing to do with this.
TheJamezMan 1 year ago
Bart crushed Craig.
wowamonn 1 year ago
@wowamonn
Hows that?
TheJamezMan 1 year ago
@TheJamezMan Craig argued from the un-verified view of creationists. Bart argued from facts thus crushing Craig.
wowamonn 1 year ago
@wowamonn
That still didn't answer my question.
TheJamezMan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJamezMan " Craig argued from the un-verified view of creationists. Bart argued from facts thus crushing Craig."
If this does not answer your question then please cite what answer will satisfy your statment.
wowamonn 1 year ago
How do we know? Dead Sea Scrolls much?
ThisIsMySockAccount 1 year ago
Ehrman's condescending tone is obnoxious.
52blades 1 year ago
Dr Ehrman, I am not interested in what historians do.
It's boring.
gunmogu 1 year ago
Theology vs history, well one of them is a serious academic enterprise. (It's not theology)
AR333 1 year ago
Ehrman's explanation of how we understand history works concerning human writings, but it is insufficient when applied to divine writings. Get the books called "Unholy hands on the Bible" edited by J.P. Green for a counter view. Ehrman is basically saying that the Holy Spirit was not able to inspire and preserve the Bible. As a young man, Ehrman may have made a profession of faith, but clearly God was not involved in the process. There was never an awakening of his spirit.
proginosko 1 year ago
@proginosko
I'm sorry, fallacies of special pleading aren't typically accepted by historians.
"my book is true because it's magic" will not fly.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus I know...unbelievers who will die and spend eternity under the divine wrath of God, rather historians or not, will always take a secular approach to the Bible and never acknowledge the work of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration and divine preservation of scripture. Also, the Bible has more manuscript evidence supporting it than any other book in history, so if Bible has major problems then we cannot trust any book written in History, the Greek Philosophers included.
proginosko 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@proginosko
"I know...unbelievers who will die and spend eternity under the divine wrath of God"
it's called a FALLACY of special pleading for a reason.
"never acknowledge the work of the Holy Spirit"
and you will never acknowledge the work of leprechauns. prove it exists first.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@proginosko
""Also, the Bible has more manuscript evidence supporting it than any other book in history"
HAHAHAHAHA
Provide ONE (1) extrabiblical source supporting an event from the gospels.
a single shred of physical evidence that the world was flooded.
archeological evidence for the exodus.
there are more discrepancies between the early new testament manuscripts that we have than there are WORDS in the new testament.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus Been listening to Bart Erhman haven't you? Maybe it is time you check out a real scholar, like Dean John Burgeon.
proginosko 1 year ago
@proginosko
It appears you've taken a page out of Craig's debate handbook yourself.
"here's some guy with a doctorate who agrees with me"
How about you don't ignore my request for extrabiblical sources and actually SUPPORT your claim that "the Bible has more manuscript evidence supporting it than any other book in history"
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus I just did. I present to you a two set volume of books called "Unholy hands on the Bible" that have all the documentation you are requesting. Your tactic is that if I can't present all of the evidence in this short space, then you dismiss it. Of course, it is impossible to do so in a short space like this. If you want to go only by Bart Erhman's research, then go ahead, however, in doing so you will be missing vital information. I will read Ehrman, you read Burgeon. .
proginosko 1 year ago
I am waitng for a single FACT that the stories are from 2nd and 3rd centuries???
gpt500 1 year ago
"How do you convert somebody to stop worshiping their gods and start worshiping Jesus? you tell stories about Jesus..." Bart Erhman is willfully ignorant to the fact that the Resurection of Jesus was incredibly scandaleous for Jews (even until today) and a foulishness for the greeks. So the early disciples who never thought about Christ's Resurection themselves could not have started suddenly to persuade hostile crowds and die willfully for their own lies!!! doesn't make sense!
flypejose 1 year ago
Right, since most NT scholars are christians, its safe to say that they fall in line with Craig. Does Craig give any evidence outside of the Bible? Because if your standard for believing something is this low, then you have to believe in pretty much every religion..they all have a book.
snaboofypopable 1 year ago
I wonder what Dr. Ehrman assumes were the stories these early Christian were telling. How and why did the first Christians in Palestine convert to Christianity and what were they proclaiming? From the earliest and best attested sources (Paul, Acts) the message they were preaching was that Jesus was crucified, buried, resurrected and that belief in Him as the risen Messiah brought about a right relationship to God. Just like Craig argues, the discrepancies are in the minor details.
dfelcman 1 year ago
i have a theory on the resurrection. how about someone just made it up. and then later someone thought it really happened.
styrofoamheart 1 year ago
I am always amazed and frustrated by how the discourse regarding the exsistance of Jesus Christ (Yahweh) turns into a question of a belief in God. I find this a common misdirection.....and as we all know misdirection is the craft of magicians, politicians and con men.
cantfind122 1 year ago
Frankly, it's all about George Campbell.
MrSporkster 1 year ago
3:40
"It may be somewhat less clear who won the election next time"
-------
that was a pretty good one. LOL
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
If you need someone to tell you what to believe about God then you are a slave to those who tell you what you should already know. You learn the truth of life by living and not by debating.
Entropy56 1 year ago
Bart D. Ehrman offers no arguments against Craig's. He is just ranting off from historian's view!!!
POC777 1 year ago
@POC777 It's called being an historian, basing assertions on evidence, as opposed to a shared delusion.
GowanBray 1 year ago
Bottom line NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE, Fact the four gospel's were written by anomyous scribe's even the top christian historian's confirmed that fact. Funny how christians blind follow that infidel paul of tarsus who gave conflicting accounts of his journey in damascus.Very interesting indeed. Make's me wonder the satan seem's to got his way with them. Even satan believe's in one LORD,he has misguided them 70%
ryukenb2k 1 year ago
@ryukenb2k No, top Christian historians do not claim the Gospels were written by "anonymous scribes." Far from it.
JoesRambles 1 year ago
@JoesRambles.Peace to you and family actually they do.if you dont know something it is pointless to argue something.If you were more learned in history of the bible you would know that throughout history that the book of hermes was in the bible up until the 13th century but was taken out later just like many other books.the book of revelations was added in and is a blasphemey.
ryukenb2k 1 year ago
@ryukenb2k Nice, someone disagrees with you and you insult them? Good job. Actually what I said was true. And no, the book you mentioned was never part of the official canon.
JoesRambles 1 year ago
@JoesRambles, I will add you and elaborate further about the fictious book of revelations which isnt in the 2500 oldest manuscripts confirmed by all bible historian's. How can people be so ignorant and call themselves a title called christians. when jesus himself never called a single follower of his in his lifetime a christian.
ryukenb2k 1 year ago
I like the way Mr. Ehrman explains history. It also seems odd when I'm told by people "Since we know Caesar existed, we have to know that Jesus was resurrected". They seem to think I have some absolute faith that Caesar ever existed, and waged campaigns to take power from the triumvirate. Even if the historical evidence we had for Jesus' resurrection was absolutely flawless, it's still a "There's a chance...", not "This definitively happened this way!"
Cyrathil 2 years ago
The video of this debate is unfair. When William Lane Craig made a point the words appeared on the screen, reinforcing the point. But when Bart Ehrman made a point nothing appeared on the screen.
in addition, William Lane Craig kept telling us what Bart Ehrman was going to say. I wondered why we even needed Bart Ehrman since WLC was arguing both sides. But when I heard Bart Ehrman he said something completely different from what WLC said he would say.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago 2
Craig also plastered the word "fact" all over his slides as if those assertions were not in dispute. They are, in "fact", part of what he needs to prove. He can't just call them "facts" right out of the gate. That's about as intellectually dishonest as you can get. I submit that pulling that bullshit destroys his credibility.
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
@fusedchromosome WLC is a very slick performer. He is working with no evidence and still seems to be able to convince the Christians. If he ever loses this job he can sell vegetable peelers on late night TV for $19.95.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago 2
Selling vegetable peelers on late night TV. Damn, I knew I'd seen him somewhere before! BTW Bill, I want my damn money back!
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
You gotta admit one thing. Whether he's right or wrong, he's gonna be rich! I can just see it now, he's sitting on his yacht in the Greek Isles sipping martinis and telling stories about how he actually used to believe this stuff.
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
@fusedchromosome After Jesus died unexpectedly, the Apostles went fishing. [John21:3] but they caught nothing. IMO I think that when they returned to their former trade of fishing, and caught nothing, they realized that the good life of passing the basket as evangelists was over and now they would have to do manual labor. But someone must have said "If only Jesus was still alive we could continue the easy life" So the resurrection myth was hatched.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@fusedchromosome well said. Ive been watching a lot of Craigs debates recently and Ive come to realise that he uses 'most New testament scholars agree that...' all the time. this is misleading really, because i imagine most new testament scholars are believers, and presuppose what they are studying to be true before looking at it. when you go into something with a closed mind,it is easy to filter out everything that doesnt correlate with your view.
woody198900 2 years ago 5
@woody198900 Hm, I sense a logical fallacy, here...
Let's try this: "Most biologists agree that evolution is true, but that's only because I imagine they'd be evolutionists anyways, since they're studying biology. So, they' OBVIOUSLY biased.
Yeah, makes perfect sense.
TeaPartier22 4 months ago
@fusedchromosome You're the one full of bullshit. If you don't think he has facts, that is an attitude not a counter argument; Shut up.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 years ago
It's not an attitude. It's an opinion. He hasn't provided sufficient evidence to justify having his "assertion" graduate to a "fact." He's simply watered down the definition of the word fact. The way he's using it, that word doesn't really mean anything. As for your "shut up" comment....I'll pass on that one, but thanks for the suggestion.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
BTW, an observation. When criticizing data that supports a theist's perspective, they have a really weak definition of the word "fact", but when evaluating data that runs counter to their preferred theology, all of the sudden the word "fact" becomes rigorous. All of the sudden the science can't leave any room for doubt. Why is that???
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
So what you're saying is, you don't think Craig has facts... because you don't THINK those are facts. That's an opinion, who gives what you think.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 year ago
@ebaltrace
What an incredibly stupid criticism.
If it is true that WLC was arguing against something else. Then it doesn't mean the debate was unfair. It means WLC didn't do well in refuting Bart. Yet you think this makes it unfair to Bart. You are so silly.
jameshanley40 2 years ago
@jameshanley40 Sticks and Stones may break my bones,.......
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Comment removed
matthewpng 2 years ago
i love how these debates always have the defending (which always is the religious side anyway) changing the basis of the argument just to have feet to stand on for an hour.
even a believer would learn something new AGAINST his religion. He think "Jesus rose, definitely!" and watches his champion say "well, it's the BEST explanation"...and then the believer has to merge them into "it's the best explanation so Jesus rose, (definitely?)"
more concessions and religion is gonna go poof.
matthewpng 2 years ago
This man lost his way in his thinking when he stopped looking at the Bible from God's perspective, but instead elevated his own intellect to being superior to God's. Effectively he has vilated the first commandment. Sadly, he has now lost his way.
hairychest45 2 years ago
To say that miricles are "highly improbable" is pretty much stating the obvious - hardly scholarly!
hairychest45 2 years ago
One wonders how he would rate Paul's letters which talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus. (I Corinthians)...we know Paul talked with Peter himself...so, he did get the story from an eyewitness
inetprez 2 years ago
Can a non- eye witness write history? Sure. But consider this: Only an eye witness can testify in a court of law. Everything else is dismissed as "hearsay" and not admissible. Why should less of a standard be applied to the dogma people base their lives around?
So can they write history without actually being there? Of course. But they will need to base it on CREDIBLE evidence given by someone who WAS there. The bible is not based on first-hand knowledge. It would not stand up in a court of law.
trevorsbass 2 years ago 2
I wonder exactly where he is getting the dates on the gospels.. I had read something quite different. Anyone know?
naejimba 2 years ago
Who, Ehrman? I think Ehrman's dates on the gospels are the majority view of most N.T. Scholars.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Well, a claim that it is the majority does not help me much. I was hoping to find such information myself. I have seen anywhere from 65 at the earliest, to 100 years after his death from seemingly credible sources, and only earlier dates typically from apologetic sites where the source of such information is not sighted. Either way, Ehrman's claim has me curious since he is an authority in the field.
naejimba 2 years ago
The Gospels don't date to 100 years after. Pretty much all scholars accept their range of 35-65 years after Jesus' death (Jesus died in AD 33). You can easily look this up on wikipedia or other scholarly sites that discuss their dates. There's no need to go to apologetic sites.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
@Christianjr4 I think that when Ehrman says 'date', he's talking about the earliest known manuscripts, and if so he would be correct: none of the Gospel manuscripts date earlier than the mid-second century. Of course, I think Ehrman is aware that most scholars date the actual writing of the Gospels the way you do.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@Christianjr4: Per wikipedia (your suggestion) the first written was Mark, dated to ca. AD 64. The last written was John dated to ca AD 90. Further, the claim of the earliest dating being 35 is no less than ludicrous. All scholars (Christian and non-Christian) agree the gospels were written after all of the Pauline epistles. The last being 2 Timothy which is dated to ca. AD 66. This is well after the date range you suggest.
jimmo42 10 months ago
@jimmo42
The date range I gave was "35-65 years after Jesus' death". Again, Jesus died in AD 33 (a fact which is not commonly known by lay people). Thus, the conservative date of AD 64 you generously provided for Mark's Gospel fits quite nicely within that range. Indeed, it puts Mark's Gospel under 35 years from Jesus' death. The other Gospels also fit very comfortably within that range, regardless of whether you date them conservatively or liberally. Regards!
Christianjr4 10 months ago
@Christianjr4 My apologies. You are absolutely correct. The "after Jesus' death" appears on the next line and I overlooked it. I should pay better attention.
jimmo42 10 months ago
@Christianjr4 I date Mark to about 72 CE. I did a couple of vids on dating Mark if you are interested. Also, Luke is probably early 2nd century, not prior to John. But still all other gospels rely on Mark so they cannot be used as separate independent witnesses and once Mark is considered on its own, it can be shown to be fictional. I love Ehrman's honesty. And to have his scholarly track record is just awesome.
TruthSurge 8 months ago
@TruthSurge While Matthew and Luke contain large sections of the material from Mark, they contain much that is not included in Mark. This other material is independent from Mark, and must be considered separately. Showing Mark to be fictional is a historical claim, which is outside his area of expertise. John does not rely on Mark, only the other Synoptic Gospels do.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
@MrRlowr "While Matthew and Luke contain large sections of the material from Mark, they contain much that is not included in Mark. "
Authors of fiction copying prior fiction are prone to write their own fiction into the prior fiction. It's how fiction writings wrote in those days. A good story comes along, they copy it with edits and pass their version on. Luckily for us, three versions survived (Mark and Matthew and Luke) and we can trace the edits through each one.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@TruthSurge The claim that the Gospels are fiction is a poor explanation of the evidence. This is not to say that it impossible for it to have been what happened. In light of many things, it is unlikely, though. You are quite right about authors borrowing readily from others without giving credit. It was very common in that time.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
@MrRlowr The gospel of Mark is pure fiction as are the other 3 and acts. THis is a conclusion I hold based on all the evidence I can examine. Have you read Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms? He covers this idea quite well and shows that the authors were synthesizing details and for theological reasons, not recounting historical events. Another book that is a MUST read for you if you haven't already is Dennis R. McDonald's The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@MrRlowr That book illuminates how Mark used the Odyssey and the ending of the Iliad to help create his gospel. It's mind-blowing. Best $35 I spent in a LOOOOOOOOOONG time. Not speculation. A solid and stunningly backed up theory or thesis that explains a lot of the oddities in Mark's acct. What's up with the naked youth? Why were there only MEN at the feeding of the 5000? Why did Jesus curse a fig tree for having no fruit out of season? mind-blowing, man.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@MrRlowr "John does not rely on Mark, only the other Synoptic Gospels do."
If I recall, John uses the exact chronology in a few of the scenes and there may be a couple other places that show reliance upon the synoptics but I'll have to try and dig up where these are as I don't recall WHICH of the scenes it was. Might have been the fig tree part but for now, I will say oh yes, it does and try to get back and post the evidence to support that.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@TruthSurge The same chronology could occur because it was the order of actual events. This is rather weak evidence of dependence.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
@MrRlowr nope. You misunderstand. When two DISCONNECTED scenes are appearing in both mark and John, you cannot explain THAT with actual chronology. THAT is what I'm trying to remember but I can't at the moment. I wish I had a great memory but I don't do this stuff for a living either. I do other things and just dabble in this every so often. If a disjointed scene is appearing in john and mark, no way that cannot be literary reliance upon mark.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@MrRlowr One thought for now. The entire 21st chapter of John is a much later addition and IT relies on the synoptics for it tries to resolve the problems of Jesus' post ress appearances in Galilee and Jerusalem AND gives prominence to the sons of Zebedee, the Boanerges, the Twins, the Sons of Thunder (Zeus), the Dioscuri masked in Mark as... James and John. NOWHERE else in John are the twins mentioned by the name "sons of Zebedee" or the others. Chapter 21 relies upon the synoptics.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@TruthSurge The word "thunder" used here is "brontes," not "zeus." Also, "boanerges" is of Aramaic origin, and thus unlikely to be related to the Greek god Zeus.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
@MrRlowr The twins James and John are called sons of zebedee. Jesus renames them to Boanerges.
Mark 3:17 And James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder
oops! :) So, we have two brothers who are always named "james and john" in that order. twins if you will. These are symbolic of the Dioscuri. Castor and Polydeuces. The sons of Zeus. The dioscuri were represented as being on....
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@MrRlowr ... as being on the left and right sides of a deity. You can find this using google. What does James and john ask Jesus?
Mark 10:37
They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
well, well. Two twins bookending a god. And Mark has given HIS readers (obviously not most of history) a FLAG or nod of the head toward Homer and Greek ideas familiar to his readers.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@MrRlowr The dioscuri were the sons of Zeus and we all know that Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning and for Jesus to rename them "sons of thunder" and for them to want to be at his right and left and that Mark treats them as inseparable twins, CANNOT be a mere coincidence. So says McDonald. :) Now, hope that stirs your interest enough to check out his book. I assume you have not read it by your comment so get it! You'll love it.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@MrRlowr You might say that since 21 is an obvious later insertion into the gospel, it doesn't count. The original John STILL doesn't rely on Mark or the other synoptics. It's there. It'll just take me some time to snoop around and find it. :) Maybe you can do a search and find some places where it relies upon the written gospels but I will keep looking. But overall, sure. John did not copy Mark like Matthew and Luke copied it. His reliance is also in the edits he made against them.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@TruthSurge I am in the process of examining many claims about the Bible and the Gospels in particular. I will keep what you have said in mind. However, as I understand things now, John is independent of the Synoptics. As you mention, John 21 could be a later addition, and also as you mention, later editing does not impose anything upon the original author.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
@MrRlowr Glad you are open to ideas and theories and such. I am an ex-Christian so studying the actual origins of the religion is interesting and somewhat therapeutic for me.
Now, don't get me wrong. John is VERY different from the other 3. Never claim it is that close to them. I only believe that the work IS dependent upon Mark or some copy of Mark because for one, no way is someone going to write a detailed scene like walking on water that matches Mark 50 years after the events.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@MrRlowr BTW, I believe the order is Mark, Matthew, John and Luke. I could be wrong but I think I'm correct. I'll try to scrounge up a few supports soon for John's reliance upon Mark and Matthew.
TruthSurge 7 months ago
@jimmo42
jimmo42 10 months ago
@naejimba
Remember there's a difference between the actual text and manuscripts, and the dating of the source, known or unknown. Sometimes styles clearly represent writing from an earlier source older than the manuscript itself. So in this case, you would be correct that the individual Gospels have not been dated before 70 or 80 A.D. But the evidence points to within 35 or so years for some of the letters and Gospels.
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
@naejimba
Ehrman is an agent of Satan full of lies.
isaiahact 1 year ago
The dating of the Gospels depends upon how several other questions are answered. If you believe that the events related in the Gospels are true, you are more likely to give an earlier date. If you believe that time had to pass for a mythology to arise, you will likely give a later date. Also, do you see indication that the Gospels were written before or after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70?
MrRlowr 7 months ago
The dating of Mark is affected by the dating of Matthew and Luke. The dating of Luke is affected by the dating of Acts. Since Acts does not refer to the death of Paul, it was probably written before Paul's execution. Since Paul was executed during the reign of Nero, and if Acts was completed before Paul's death, then the latest date for its writing was ca AD 68, when Nero died.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
If Acts was completed before AD 68, Luke necessarily was completed before AD 68 as well. And, if Mark was indeed used as a source for Luke, then it had to have been in circulation before AD 68 as well. Also, if as the book claims, Luke used eyewitness testimony to construct his account, then either eyewitnesses were still alive, or they had left written records behind. All of these things push the account further back in time, no matter when the Gospels themselves were written.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
If these contentions are true, it would set the writing of at least two of the Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The dating of Matthew is less certain, but is likely before AD 100 because it was quoted by early Apostolic Fathers and would have needed time to circulate. John was probably the last Gospel written, and likely after AD 70, but before John's death in the late First Century.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
These posts are appearing in reverse chronological order to me. If you find the posts confusing, you may need to read them in reverse order. Regards.
MrRlowr 7 months ago
Oh I read your post, and you are incorrect.
Your post contains a logical regression that you dont even seem to be able to locate. Go pray or something...you are a lost cause.
ThieleM 2 years ago
You should be pausing to hang you head in shame for being so ignorant.
ThieleM 2 years ago
It is oral tradition. DOnt try and pass off that bullshit on me as fact. These stories were being banted about dozens of cultures for hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) of years.
And the eye witnesses were NOT alive when the testaments were written. None of the people that wrote those novels met Christ. There is NO evidence supporting your contention....none. However there is TONS of evidence against it. You dont get to make that sort of stuff up.
ThieleM 2 years ago 4
I never knew before that only eyewitnesses can write history. Hmm.
Talk about trying to pass of bullshit as fact.
At least be less aggressive in your approach. This way you'll look just as ignorant, but somewhat more pleasant.
regelemihai 2 years ago
I never said only eye witnesses can write history.
And we are talking about the bible here, which is a 'holy book' not a piece of historical literature.
ThieleM 2 years ago
actually documents written for say ceacer or alexander the great were written DECADES after the event. thats just the way the 1st century documented themselfs.
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
Arrian, our chief ancient source for Alexander the Great, was written around 400 years after Alexander.
sexyarii 2 years ago 3
according to u wheres jesus now?? is he sitting with god maybe talking or what????
zbadguy 2 years ago
Both Craig and Ehrman use the same arguments we're use to. Regarding Ehrman in this clip. his points are challengable. He ignores the reliability of oral tradition; the fact that the names of the gospels are probably original (cf. Martin Hengel's 'The Four Gospels); Greek speakers existing in Israel at the time, etc. He also ignores the early traditions.
sexyarii 2 years ago
"He ignores the reliability of oral tradition"
So I guess we should take literal the oral traditions of every other culture as well. Oral traditions are helpful in guiding us towards possible occurrences, but they aren't good historical sources.
Joosybum 2 years ago
Actually, historically oral histories are very reliable.
sexyarii 2 years ago
only if you are deaf and dumb
ThieleM 2 years ago
Oral tradition is completely unreliable.
ThieleM 2 years ago
Not according to historians in the field of ancient oral history and testimony.
sexyarii 2 years ago
i agree that the oral tradition is highly unreliable
BreadWinner06 2 years ago 3
it is EXTREMELY unreliable. line up 50 people, have the first person tell a short story to person #2.....have that person wait 10 mins then tell person #3 and so on.
By the time you hit person 50 that short story will be WACKED. Multiply that exponentially and you have oral tradition.
ThieleM 2 years ago 3
What were the second names of matthew mark luke and john? oh and who were the authors of all those gospels who have "UNKNOWN" as their authors.
Oo786oO 2 years ago
Hahaha. Trying to copy a Khalid Yasin argument? Sad.
sexyarii 2 years ago
The moment i stop using it will be when it has been refuted. I am not like many christians, who keep using the same argument though it has been refuted time and time again. The fact is that the bible is unreliable, it was spread by the very people that "attempted" to KILL jesus, the jews and the romans. Now you tell me to believe in the message of the enemies of jesus? I don't think so! Some of it may be correct, i certainly believe that the Lord, our God is, One Lord. :)
Oo786oO 2 years ago
What is there to refute?
You presented no argument other than to flaunt your complete and utter IGNORANCE.
You claim that the Bible was spread by the people who killed Jesus - what? Please, stop making up things. The Bible was spread by Jesus' followers and disciples.
Really, try harder than just lying next time.
I hope y
sexyarii 2 years ago
Oh common, to say that is to deny an entire history!!!! What jesus and his diciples spread was limited.The majority was poluted by people unknown to jesus! Research please! You owe it to yourself Christianity so paganistic in its rituals! Bringing a tree from outside,into the house for christmas. Did jesus teach that or was that an invention? The religion was distorted and spread by his enemies! Your accusation of me lying hold no weight, a little research into history will prove what i said
Oo786oO 2 years ago
You're pretty boring - so far you have presented no facts. Sorry to cut you down like that.
You say you don't use bad arguments - so why are you using made up arguments? Everyone knows that a lie is one of the worst arguments out there.
sexyarii 2 years ago
Mr. Craigs ability to defend the Gospel or Mr Ehrmans ability to refute it has no thrust of influence over the unbeliever or the elect. Debate is merely for entertainment and secular involvement in things they know nothing about because it is the indwelling Spirit of God who dispels our unbelief and keeps others from belief
Spurgeon123 2 years ago
"because it is the indwelling Spirit of God who dispels our unbelief "
In other words, we must be brainwashed in order to believe, because no rational argument will do it.
harriskp 2 years ago 3
You use the word brainwashed as if the brain you have is sufficient. Yes, our brain needs to be brainwashed, cleansed, renewed, reworked, replenished, rejuvenated or however youd like to phrase it. We must put on the mind of Christ and this is called the rebirth. We are given the Spirit of God that we might then have the mind of God that we might know God and His will.
Spurgeon123 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
Where do people come from that even use silly words like "Satan?"/There's no such thing, and there's no need to bring up a concept so superstitious and foolish.What he's saying is making good sense; try listening, and reading up on it.
confluential 2 years ago 3
Go, Bart, go! You're a helluvan academic!
wlbarbo 2 years ago 5
Later creeds being changed has to do with various councils, other contradictions seems to have more to do with times and who said what, rather than the actual sayings and events. Ehrman's arguements fall well short of refuting the historical Jesus. The contradictions he does get right are merely the beginning of an apostasy that was well predicted anyhow. Nothing new in terms theology, just man's inability at that time keep the church alive.
canadianbacon007 3 years ago 3
ummm, oral tradition, ever heard of it? That explains the 300 years away quite easily. For a scholar he seems to disregard Jewish tradition without skipping a beat.
canadianbacon007 3 years ago
God bless Bart Ehrman. He speaks logically and backs up all his arguments. The fact he is a bible scholar and knows the original languges of the Bible add strength to his case as well as the fact that he was a believer inchristianity before his deep studies of the Bible. If the Qur'an had this evidence against it I would lose my faith in a second!
MuslimDownunder 3 years ago
MuslimDownunder. You're a hypocrite. And here's why. I could show you all the evidences in the world , could demonstrate all reasons why the qu'ran is just as worthless as the bible. And yet! You wouldn't actually listen. Better yet , you'd do everything in your power to counter valid , scientific facts. Muslims are amongst the most deluded ones of the bunch (religious bunch) as they even have the audacity to claim that the qu'ran predicted scientific facts.
ultraworshipp 3 years ago 6
A hypocrite is one who claims to believe something he isn't. I'm a Muslim and I believe only God will judge me and knows what is in my heart. Your first statement shows you that you are not using logic. The Qur'an first and foremost is a book of guidance both spiritually and in ones day to day life. There are mmany arguemnts for the Qur'an and using these forums is insufficent space to do so. Maybe you can watch some of the debates by Sabir Ally on youtube. God bless you.
MuslimDownunder 3 years ago
You're a hypocrite. It's not your fault though. You may not feel like hypocrite , but your hypocrisy would suddenly resurface as soon as someone would attack your religion. You know it. You would never accept to admit that the qu'ran is just as worthless as the bible.Shabir Ally is a deluded muslim. I defy any muslims to bring legit proofs of god or any legit miracles from both the bible & the qu'ran.
ultraworshipp 3 years ago
maybe you can go to the videos you saw of Brother Shabir and use your logic to counter his arguments so we can start a discussion based on logical arguments rathar than you calling me a hypocrite. peace :)
MuslimDownunder 3 years ago
Again , why bother with "Brother Shabir" ? Is he a scientific authority ? He isn't. In order to have a serious debate , you first need to avoid believers (that includes muslims) like the plague. Once you'll find a legit scientist who can prove that the qu'ran is the word of god. Give me a call.
ultraworshipp 3 years ago
hi i was thinking you should read up on maurice bucaille
mademan4life 2 years ago
Maurice Bucaille ? You mean the french hack who re-interpreted the qu'ran in order to find some correlations with the so called "scientific miracles" ?
Here's your reality check on Bucaille.
v=y8A9DEeglXI
and to think that this scum is probably responsible for milions of islamic conversions.
ultraworshipp 2 years ago 2
Very convenient. When a Muslim says the Quran is amazing, he is dismissed like the plague. When a nonMuslim says it, he is a hack. Silly ad Hominem attacks from you
The fact is the Quran does contain verses with an uncanny resemblance to modern discoveries, that cannot be explained away easily.
But if you are a committed atheist, and refuse to even consider the obvious self evident idea of God, then of course you will talk yourself out of it, and convince yourself you are right.
IslamicGoldenAge 2 years ago
"The fact is the Quran does contain verses with an uncanny resemblance to modern discoveries, that cannot be explained away easily"
Pretty much the equivalent of nostradamus and his "prophecies"... Vague , passages which you can interpret anyway you want...
You people are reaching for straws.
That's precisely why modern "infidel" scientists are making the discoveries FIRST... not the other way around. The muslim can only wait and then find a passage which he will retrofit.
ultraworshipp 2 years ago 4
well of course that is what someone like you, who cannot for a moment accept the idea of God, would say.
If you actually get down to the details, granted often times there are exaggerations, but there are many verses that are just very difficult to explain away for skeptics.
One interesting fact, the plural for month occurs 12 times, the singular 30, and word for day occurs 365 times. (in Arabic of course) I actually checked all this using search software
IslamicGoldenAge 2 years ago
coincidence? maybe. or maybe not. nobody noticed this till recently.
Once again, if you are an honest person, not blinded by materialism, and who is open to the idea of God, searching humbly for truth, these interesting facts about the Quran will point you in that direction.
But if you stubbornly refuse the core message of Islam which is staring you in the face, namely that about God, then of course you will explain away anything that doesn't fit with your atheism to feel good.
IslamicGoldenAge 2 years ago
blinded by materialism ? what are you talking about ? Look who's talking...you're using the internet to communicate with me & you're trying to be the voice of reason ? ....It works one way but not the other uh ?.. & what facts are you talking about ? Can you even give me god's positive coherent ontology ? ... I'm not an atheist & you're paranoid... "to feel good" ? don't take your case for a generality.
ultraworshipp 2 years ago
apologies for assuming, but you sounded like an atheist. So do you believe in God or not?
Just look around you, sit on your own in place full of beautiful nature, and just think. Ask yourself, is this all some random coincidence that somehow emerged through blind forces?
Is your own body, your ability to think and reason, some accident? Is your sense of purpose, and morality, just a subjective by product of blind evolutionary forces?
IslamicGoldenAge 2 years ago
'is this all some random coincidence that somehow emerged through blind forces?' Well not random or coincidence, but certainly through blind forces.
Is your own body, your ability to think and reason, some accident? Is your sense of purpose, and morality, just a subjective by product of blind evolutionary forces? Again, not an accident, but yes, a product of blind evolutionary forces. Can you give me any logical or scientific reason why this could not be the case?
noodles321321 2 years ago
noodles, yes it is an accident and evolution at its heart is purely random. Mutations give rise to every feature we have, and they are purely random. The only deterministic part is natural selection after the fact.
And to say that our minds, eyes, our wonderful bodies which we take for granted every day, are all at heart random, is to deny the sun at midday. Look at a video of how fetus develops from cell.
How this invisible mass became human, you're telling me this amazing process is blind?
IslamicGoldenAge 2 years ago
I thought you gave a fairly good description of evolution in the first part of your comment. But then you blather on a 'oh, look at the wonder of the foetus' Of course you see design, of course you see order. You evolved that way, and before you could overcome it as an illusion, you were indoctrinated into one of the slavish religions that has plagued man for centuries. Yes, it is like denying the sun at midday. Look at the fucking eclipse. Open your eyes. Be free. And if you can't, fuck off.
noodles321321 2 years ago
again more assumption from you that somehow religious people are "indoctrinated", and "insecure". A myth you have created for yourself to feel good. Have you actually read the Quran? Have you compared it with the Bible? Did you do this with an open mind honestly seeking truth? Or is all based on hearsay for you
But again, I understand that this attitude prevails in the west as reaction to the irrational doctrines of Christianity (e.g. the trinity, tons of Biblical contradictions).
IslamicGoldenAge 2 years ago
Not really. the growing tide of non-believers I are growing because of an increase in materialistic philosophy, I suspect. That, however, is irrelevent. Religion teaches submission, ignorance, to be satisfied with what one has got. I assume you didn't bother to read my comment from the other section. I have ordered a Quran. I suspect it will be as monty python-wierd as the bible is. But I'm an open minded person. Up to a point.
noodles321321 2 years ago