How We Got the Books of the New Testament - Bart Erhman Refuted

calvinsx76 · Nov 10, 2016

I have recently put together a couple of short 3-5 minute cool videos on How We Got the books of the New Testament

Currently Modern Scholars Like Bart Erhman calls into question the reliability of the Text of the New Testament Books, and I am building a series to help educate Christians on how the ancient church received the scriptures and how they were preserved the books of the New Testament up to our time.

The debate is set in the 2nd Century - The Gnostics claimed to have received scriptures that were not received by the Apostolic churches, and two Christian witnesses from that period came out to defend the authentic scriptures against the claims of the gnostics.

Please let me know your thoughts and Questions. Videos can be seen blow. Total length of both videos are 9 minutes. The videos totally rock.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg

wolfwint · Nov 10, 2016

Hi Calvinsx76, nobody of us join the concils in Karthago, Nicea, Calcedon ore any of those meetings were they determined the books of New and Old Testament. So I doubt that it is possible to say today how it went.

But what is known is, that all 27 Books of the NT were acceptet from the churchfathers in the time from 70-170 a.d. (not all accepptet all 27 books, so Marcion (140aD) only accepptet the books from Luke and 10 Epistels from Paul.
In the time from 170 till 350 there are 3 resources for the kanon 1. Muratorian Fragment (170) in which the Epistet to the hebrews, James and the epistels from Peter are not mentioned.
2. the oldsyrian translation (end of 2nd century) in which 2. Peter, Revealation, 2nd and 3rd John and Jude are missing.
3. the oldlatin translation (200 aD) in which 2. Peter, James and Hebrews are not mentioned.
Every book had to be accepptet from the whole church. And finally we have to see that this books were inspired when they was written and then from the churches confirmed. And only these 27 books which we have today are confirmed from the church.

I doubt that a man like Bart Ehrman will be the rigth man for to bring light into this question, if he is no christian. I found an article about him in Religion and Ethics.

"The opening salvo this year comes courtesy of the indefatigable Bart Ehrman. For those who don't know, Ehrman is something of a celebrity sceptic in the United States. A professor of religion at the University of North Carolina, he was formerly a fundamentalist Christian who de-converted to agnosticism, and now writes books exposing the apparently fallacious claims of traditional Christianity"

"According to Ehrman, the notion of "divinity" in the ancient world was plastic rather than absolute. Greco-Roman gods like Zeus became human, and humans like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were venerated as gods after their deaths. Jesus could then be placed on a spectrum of divinity, and could be regarded as "divine" either in the sense of a heavenly figure who became human (incarnation) or a human who was exalted to heavenly status (exaltation). Ehrman regards this as far more probable, since he contends that Jesus did not think he was God, but was simply an apocalyptic prophet earnestly awaiting the end of the world. Jesus died - without burial, Ehrman adds - and it was belief in Jesus's resurrection that led his followers to think of him as divine - but, again, not divine in an absolute sense. It was only later, with writings like the Gospel of John and the incrementally increasing veneration of Jesus in subsequent centuries, that Jesus came to be thought of as equal to God." Quote from Michael Bird in Religion and Ethics 16.4.2014

calvinsx76 · Nov 10, 2016

Well let's clear up a couple of misconceptions.

Since we have the historical records from that time period, we know the leaders of those periods, we have in depth writings on the councils, the debates the churches had, and have the testimony /writings that specifically outlines how the new testament came down through the churches, we can say we do know. We have Eusebius history of the churches who wrote in that period, tertullian and Irenaeus in the second century who wrote specifically against the gnostics on how a new testament book was counted as canonical.

It's that very misconception why bart erhman has been successful attacking the new testament books as authentic. It's not only him, but christian authors like james white and Daniel support these very misconceptions which lead them to cast doubt on texts of the new testament and passages of scriptures.

An no council ever decided what books were to be decreed for the new testament until the couch of trent in the 1500s. The councils only she'd light on what books the apostolic churches recieved.

Even the council of carthage showed that in the 27 books were the books that were recieved from their fathers, not that they decided what the 27 books were going to be.

Bladerunner · Nov 10, 2016

calvinsx76 said:

do not have to check out the video!..Know it is right!...DO you or anybody else who believes in Jesus Christ, really believe that He is going to let HIS WORD to be in any way falsified or removed from the people eyes of the world. If you do, then

1. you are trying to prove God! Bad Idea!
2. your faith is slipping or non-existant Potentially dangerous

NOTE: The Book (Holy Bible) is an inerrant designed, written and inspired by God himself. If you do not believe that then you have a big problem you had better fix. In a hurry!

Just look at it. Jesus tells us that Daniel is a prophet! OK so unbelievers say this is simply because that Jesus read the OT Daniel and knew enough to know that he could was a prophet.

.OK.... but the OT Daniel tells us the Messiah (Jesus Christ) would arrive in Jerusalem on April 6, 32 AD exactly to the day that he did arrive. Now tell me the NT is false and is not divinely written? No, how did Daniel know about Jesus,,,read the NT that was not written until some 400 years later.

Come on people...You are putting yourself at peril if you continue have not enough faith in Jesus Christ to believe that the Bible is actually the "WORD of GOD". Be very careful here, you stepping on sacred ground.

calvinsx76 · Nov 10, 2016

I hear what your saying, but the scriptures are under constant attack...not just from non-believers but from believers as well who promote these views.

Are you saying we sit idly by and not defend the faith...that's not a scriptural position at all.

These views are causing people to doubt their faith. We don't have blind faith, God provides means...this is why many scholars view the bible as a book of fairy tales.

nowyouseem033 · Nov 10, 2016

Bladerunner said:

There is nothing wrong in researching where the scriptures come from, because if i were a non-christian and wanted to know where it would be helpful. Even to a christian its helpful. DONT ignore history especially church history and dont think your answer GOD is going to resonate with nonbelievers who are actually searching for some validity, clarity and authenticity.

calvinsx76 · Nov 10, 2016

Excellent response.

wolfwint · Nov 10, 2016

calvinsx76 said:

Well let's clear up a couple of misconceptions.

Since we have the historical records from that time period, we know the leaders of those periods, we have in depth writings on the councils, the debates the churches had, and have the testimony /writings that specifically outlines how the new testament came down through the churches, we can say we do know. We have Eusebius history of the churches who wrote in that period, tertullian and Irenaeus in the second century who wrote specifically against the gnostics on how a new testament book was counted as canonical.

It's that very misconception why bart erhman has been successful attacking the new testament books as authentic. It's not only him, but christian authors like james white and Daniel support these very misconceptions which lead them to cast doubt on texts of the new testament and passages of scriptures.

An no council ever decided what books were to be decreed for the new testament until the couch of trent in the 1500s. The councils only she'd light on what books the apostolic churches recieved.

Even the council of carthage showed that in the 27 books were the books that were recieved from their fathers, not that they decided what the 27 books were going to be.

I doubt, that we should believe somebody who denys that Jesus Christ is God, so as Ehrman is telling. Read in 1.John about somebody who denyes that Jesus is the Son of God.It is the spirit of the Antichrist!

calvinsx76 · Nov 10, 2016

I really don't pay too much attention to Bart Erhman, but interesting enough, bart was once a Christian, and it wasn't until his studies in these modern theories that led to his disbelief. It's this modern view that the new testament is a book of fairy tales, which I'm comming out to defend.

Hawkins · Nov 10, 2016

calvinsx76 said:

The Bible is an example of how God made things perfect through the hands of the imperfect men.

God made the Bible the only human book which is reconciliation as a witness for humans (perhaps angels as well) to tell that the same message of salvation humans read today remains the same message of salvation humans read 2000 years ago, in terms of a whole theology being conveyed.

The first handed ancient scrolls were supposed to be in the hands of the early church fathers of the apostolic church. False scrolls kept popping to an extent (that's why God allowed them to pop up) that it became a necessity for the apostolic church to canonize the Holy Scripture (it's NT).

The Great Persecution occurred in 303 which destroyed most of the Christianity documents, possibly including the scrolls used as the Canon. Still some survived including the one preserved by a church in Greece, which became the KJV stream of today's Bibles. We can't do further examination to determine whether it's as original as the scrolls used in early church as the Canon. However God left something else to testify its truth.

it seems that Egypt is a region survived the Great Persecution that the Scripture still flowed freely in Christian churches located in Egypt. Again, we can't do further investigation on identifying how close the bibles published in Egypt to the original copy used as our Canon. Yet we have 2 artifacts of bibles found in Egypt, which can be dated back to 4th century. They became the NIV stream of today's bibles.

The 2 independent streams of the Bible, namely KJV and NIV, are identical theologically speaking. They are identical to the extent for us to tell that the theology we read today remains the same theology humans read 2000 years. The Bible thus remains the only human book which can be reconciled this way, that is, we can tell with evidence that what being conveyed today the same was conveyed yesterday and the same will be conveyed the ages to go.

As for OT, we have a whole library of scrolls (the Dead Sea Scrolls) for us to tell the same. That is, the OT we read today remains the same OT humans read 2000 years ago.

Hawkins · Nov 10, 2016

In a nutshell, the Bible was crafted perfectly as a true account of human testimony in terms of how it was written, how it was preserved, how it is delivered generation by generation through the hands of the imperfect humans who failed to preserve even a single book (other than the Holy Bible) to be reconcilable with its original. Through this book, God left a theology as the message of His salvation, which remains intact yesterday, today and tomorrow.

biblelearner123 · Nov 10, 2016

calvinsx76 said:

The weird fact is that it's not only them but there christians who perceive the same.

On the contrary it is clearly said here on the Bible

2 Peter 1:19-21
for prophecy never came by the will of man , but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

calvinsx76 · Nov 10, 2016

Hawkins said:

Once again it is so important to offer evidence before making an assertion.

1st: Please provide a citation to which church father after the Diocletian persecution said most of the church documents were destroyed. We have the church history records of Eusebius, which records in great detail of the persecution of that time, but never states that most of the church documents during that time were destroyed. Diocletian did burn a number of bibles, yet the Donatists never turned over their scriptures, and one church father who did turn over scriptures, informed the donatists that they were a corrupt copy. Remember Eusebius lived and wrote in the 4th century.

2. The apostolic churches after the persecution never lost the scriptures. Eusebius records that 50 copies were made for the churches in Jerusalem, we have the Church of Antioch with its famous bishop John Chrysostom that records him lecturing from the scriptures. Not to mention Jerome putting together the latin vulgate from Greek and Latin Manuscripts from his day. What about the scriptures that Augustine is using in Hippo North Africa and Carthage. They had copies all over the eastern and western parts of the empire.

3. Those documents you reference from Egypt..Those of documents of unknown origin, unknown authors and we have no idea if they were ever used in Apostolic Churches, or read in apostolic churches. Those documents have no chain of custody to any apostolic church. Remember the Gnostics in the second century were publishing a number of edited versions of scriptures..There has to be a distinction between versions that have a chain of custody to the apostolic churches and documents with unknown authors. Its funny, those documents from Egypt would never get past pre-trial hearings in any court of law, but you want to give them the value of best and earliest texts?

calvinsx76 · Nov 10, 2016

Also please tell me which council and by what ancient father decided what books were going to be in the bible?
There is no reference until the Council of Trent by rome.

At Nicea, they only reported what scriptures were received by the independant churches, and at the Council of Carthage in 419 they answered rome to what documents they received from the fathers.

If you want the texts of Egypt, go to the Alexandrian Churches which still exist, the copic and the greek churches still survice. The churches which were established by St. Mark, the diciple of Peter.

I make these points in my short videos

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqj...BWXDB-DYVLt-Zg

Hawkins · Nov 10, 2016

calvinsx76 said:

You need to first understand the nature of history. Do you have to church record of Eusebius' first handed hand writing before your 'assertion'?

You can actually google Wikipedia about Great Persecution to see how the books were burned and how some may have survived.

The end result is, today we don't have the originals as they are lost.

Again, this is the nature of what human history is. Name us a book which is not so! Since when you have a human book which allowing you to trace back who actually wrote it first handedly?

Hawkins · Nov 10, 2016

The whole point is, we have 2 independent sources about a book with contents theologically identical. Either it is a fluke, or it's intended. The good is that it's up to your faith to judge which shall be the truth.

calvinsx76 · Nov 10, 2016

Google and Wikipedia is not a church father in the fourth century, but Eusebius is.

You are making an assumption that most of the church documents were destroyed. Dicoletion did go after the scriptures, and did burn a number of scriptures. Eusebius details in great detail the persecution, but doesnt record your assertion.

Dispite Dicoletion best attempts, there were churches throughout the eastern and western part that had the scriptures.

Once again, you provide no reference to an author from that period.

And History is the study of the documents from the period. So show me documents from that period that support your position. I have shown you mine.

Plus we are not talking about the originals.

Hawkins · Nov 10, 2016

calvinsx76 said:

If what you said is true. Why can't you just present the original ancient scrolls the church has kept?

Moreover, why do you have to side track the issue. Face this directly!

The whole point is, we have 2 independent sources about a book with contents theologically identical. Either it is a fluke, or it's intended. The good is that it's up to your faith to judge which shall be the truth.

calvinsx76 · Nov 10, 2016

Hawkins said:

Your two Witnesses which I am assuming are Sinacticus and Vacticanus, would never be entered into a court of law. Can you tell me who wrote them, which apostolic churches they were read in. The answer is we can't. Now these documents can be gnostic editions, monitist editions, or who knows, but the apostolic churches have thousands of copies that have a chain of custody, whereas those documents you reference don't.

In a court of law you could not bring in documents with no chain of custody.

In addition, those documents disagree greatly with the received texts of the apostolic churches. Remember, there were many edited texts that the gnostics in the second century corrupted based on the Testimony of Ireneus Bishop of Lyon, Tertullian in Carthage Africa and Caius in Rome.

How do you know those documents aren't from the gnostics?

Hawkins · Nov 10, 2016

calvinsx76 said:

Your two Witnesses which I am assuming are Sinacticus and Vacticanus, would never be entered into a court of law. Can you tell me who wrote them, which apostolic churches they were read in. The answer is we can't. Now these documents can be gnostic editions, monitist editions, or who knows, but the apostolic churches have thousands of copies that have a chain of custody, whereas those documents you reference don't.

In a court of law you could not bring in documents with no chain of custody.

In addition, those documents disagree greatly with the received texts of the apostolic churches. Remember, there were many edited texts that the gnostics in the second century corrupted based on the Testimony of Ireneus Bishop of Lyon, Tertullian in Carthage Africa and Caius in Rome.

How do you know those documents aren't from the gnostics?

You miss the point. I am asking you to provide an explanation on why a book from 2 independent sources are theologically identical.

How We Got the Books of the New Testament - Bart Erhman Refuted

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Hawkins

Guest

Hawkins

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Hawkins

Guest

Hawkins

Guest

Senior Member

Hawkins

Guest

Senior Member

Hawkins

Guest