Saints meet your opposition

[kaylagrl]

Thought it be intresting to direct you scripture scholars on the answers this man poses instead of tearing each other apart by personal opinions.
I look for things like this to see what the enemy has been up to. Reading the comments on this post many agree with his observations.
Can anyone here set him straight on his false findings? Or is he right.
The resurrection is the core of our belief. How would you respond? Or do we live by blind faith?

I've read a little on these type of subjects. I use to be able to rhyme off facts, not sure he has his dates correct. Whether he does or doesn't it makes no different when speaking about history. If you're not in that work, he sounds intelligent. But when dealing with history he's wrong. 20 years is incredibly early when speaking of historical fact. There is 100 - 400 yrs between some of the things we consider as historical fact today. Like Alexander the Great. I believe it was 100 yrs. before anything was written about him. There are others but it slips my mind at the moment. 100 yrs. is the grounds that are used as something being historical fact. So 20 yrs would be like it happened yesterday.

Secondly, we do know who wrote the books. Scholars now have a fairly good hold on who wrote the books. A person doesn't need to be an eyewitness for something to be a fact of history. You can speak to eyewitness, which the Gospel writers did, and still find out facts. My niece is too young to remember 911, she wasn't an eyewitness but there are enough people alive that if she wanted to write a book she could talk to eyewitnesses herself and still come up with the facts of what really happened.


I'm simply following his points here. To assume that they were illiterate because they were fisherman is arrogant to say the least. We know that Jewish young men memorized the Torah. They went to the temple and discussed with the priests there. Also, they could have used scribes, and we know that they were used at times. The church fathers certainly didn't see them as uneducated fisherman. His second point as to oral stories is untrue because we have creeds that talk about the death and resurrection of Christ very near to when it happened. Historians say that it takes 100 yrs for myths to set in about a persons life. Creeds, songs and writings about Jesus date long before 100 yrs where myths set in.

His boast about differences is old and debunked a long time ago. If you are a cop and you come upon a robbery in progress. The boys run in all directions but you catch three of them. You take them to the station and interview each one separately and the all tell the exact same story, word for word, do you believe them? Of course you don't. He has no evidence that stories were invented or changed. Again, we hold the story of Alexander the Great as true historical fact even though no one wrote about him until 100 yrs after his death.


Guessing this is his last point. No obviously historians aren't scientists, but there is evidence to back the things the Bible said happened. We have evidence outside the Bible of people saying Jesus performed magic. So obviously they saw or heard of things that he could do that others couldn't. There are all kinds of things that science can't explain. How can a mother lift a car off of her child? If you asked her to do it 40 times more she couldn't. From evidence we can infer something happened. If you don't believe miracles can happen, then you have to come up with your own explanation. I don't he has one, and just saying miracles don't happen, that's not an answer and he wouldn't accept it as one in debate.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Or do we live by blind faith?

IF our "faith" is BLIND - then it's NOT FAITH AT ALL!!!!!

What is FAITH answer: Heb 11:1. it possesses TWO attributes: SUBSTANCE, and EVIDENCE.

Biblical FAITH is ALWAYS "revelatory" - i.e. GOD'S WORD TO US. Like Abram - God comes to a flea-bitten heathen in the desert and says "Abram - get all your stuff and move away from there, leave your family, friends, and everything, and get moving, I'll tell you where you're going later". direct revelation FROM GOD to ABRAM. the SUBSTANCE of the word came from the one speaking - God's WORD to Abram (Rom 10:17).

WHO GIVES a rosy rodent's posterior what "Ehrman" thinks about anything???? he's obviously "just another" educated fool.

 

[maxwel]

My guess is he's probably saved by grace now with all the Christians on this thread praying for him.

Bart Ehrman has terrible views, but he isn't someone to take lightly.

Bart Ehrman isn't just an unbeliever, he's an unbeliever that teaches New Testament at the university level, and he gets up daily, and actively attacks the Christian faith.
That is literally his full time job.

He participates in formal public debates AGAINST Christian scholars.
He isn't just some average guy, he is a famous, unbelieving academic, who actively attacks the Christian faith.

Although some of his arguments are "typical" atheist fare, and easy to refute; he has other arguments which are much more sophisticated, and much more difficult. Although he has terrible views, and he's wrong about most things, he's not some idiot to be trifled with. He has a PhD, graduated magnum cum laude, has written 3 college textbooks, and currently teaches textual criticism at the University of North Carolina, where he serves as a "distinguished professor."

He is a giant in the field of New Testament Textual Criticism... and he's a lost man, who actively attacks the faith on a daily basis.
Quite the conundrum.

I'll repeat, some of his philosophical views and assertions are easy to refute.
But some of his view are much more sophisticated.
People with no training in debate, logic, philosophy, or textual criticism, are NOT up to the task of debating a Bart Ehrman, except on some of his broader philosophical views. And btw, I didn't mention theological training because that's a given... and most Christians don't even have any serious theological training.

CONCLUSION:
In a nutshell, Ehrman has some broader views which are easy to refute, and many intricate views which are much harder to deal with.
- If you feel he's wrong about everything, and he's a total apostate... I'd agree.
- But if you think you could just debate him like he's a child, and wipe the floor with him like he's a fool, and you don't have the training in the requisite fields... you are probably overestimating your abilities.

.

 

[Cameron143]

Bart Ehrman has terrible views, but he isn't someone to take lightly.

Bart Ehrman isn't just an unbeliever, he's an unbeliever that teaches New Testament at the university level, and he gets up daily, and actively attacks the Christian faith.
That is literally his full time job.

He participates in formal public debates AGAINST Christian scholars.
He isn't just some average guy, he is a famous, unbelieving academic, who actively attacks the Christian faith.

Although some of his arguments are "typical" atheist fare, and easy to refute; he has other arguments which are much more sophisticated, and much more difficult. Although he has terrible views, and he's wrong about most things, he's not some idiot to be trifled with. He has a PhD, graduated magnum cum laude, has written 3 college textbooks, and currently teaches textual criticism at the University of North Carolina, where he serves as a "distinguished professor."

He is a giant in the field of New Testament Textual Criticism... and he's a lost man, who actively attacks the faith on a daily basis.
Quite the conundrum.

I'll repeat, some of his philosophical views and assertions are easy to refute.
But some of his view are much more sophisticated.
People with no training in debate, logic, philosophy, or textual criticism, are NOT up to the task of debating a Bart Ehrman, except on some of his broader philosophical views. And btw, I didn't mention theological training because that's a given... and most Christians don't even have any serious theological training.

CONCLUSION:
In a nutshell, Ehrman has some broader views which are easy to refute, and many intricate views which are much harder to deal with.
- If you feel he's wrong about everything, and he's a total apostate... I'd agree.
- But if you think you could just debate him like he's a child, and wipe the floor with him like he's a fool, and you don't have the training in the requisite fields... you are probably overestimating your abilities.

.

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I would never debate a fool in his folly. What will become of him is what becomes of all those brazen enough to go against God. He will either be converted and used mightily for God or fill up his allotted measure and suffer greatly.
My only point is that Christians are quick to point out and make spectacle those who oppose God, but are slow to see their end and are largely unmoved by their sure destruction.

 

[maxwel]

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I would never debate a fool in his folly. What will become of him is what becomes of all those brazen enough to go against God. He will either be converted and used mightily for God or fill up his allotted measure and suffer greatly.
My only point is that Christians are quick to point out and make spectacle those who oppose God, but are slow to see their end and are largely unmoved by their sure destruction.

It's a strange and serious thing when a person knows the truth, knows it perfectly, then turns against it.

We cannot compare Ehrman to someone like Paul... although both were persecutors.
Paul was a persecutor who was genuinely blind, and genuinely deceived, who turned to God when his eyes were opened. Ehrman was a professing Christian who knew the gospel, knew it perfectly, and studied the New Testament. Then he willfully turned from it, became an apostate, and began attacking the faith.

Knowing the truth, and then turning against it, is a pretty serious thing. I don't think we have many examples of people coming back from that.


It is proper, of course, to pray, and be concerned, for everyone who is lost.
But regarding Ehrman, most of my compassion is spent on his victims...


Have a great week.
.

 

[Cameron143]

It's a strange and serious thing when a person knows the truth, knows it perfectly, then turns against it.

We cannot compare Ehrman to someone like Paul... although both were persecutors.
Paul was a persecutor who was genuinely blind, and genuinely deceived, who turned to God when his eyes were opened. Ehrman was a professing Christian who knew the gospel, knew it perfectly, and studied the New Testament. Then he willfully turned from it, became an apostate, and began attacking the faith.

Knowing the truth, and then turning against it, is a pretty serious thing. I don't think we have many examples of people coming back from that.


It is proper, of course, to pray, and be concerned, for everyone who is lost.
But regarding Ehrman, most of my compassion is spent on his victims...


Have a great week.
.

I like you believe he's probably not coming back. But Jesus continues to build His church and Ehrman and the gates of hell are not prevailing against it. I do appreciate your perspective and insight and appreciate you taking the time to share.

 

[SonLight_Wolf]

You would be wrong about that.....

Exo 31:18
When the LORD finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two stone tablets inscribed with the terms of the covenant, written by the finger of God.

Exodus 25 thru 30 were literally dictated to Moses, who consequently wrote these instructions down (same goes for many of the prophets). Along with much much more. In fact, these 6 chapters should be enough to make a believer out of anybody.

Understanding the Seven Feasts of Israel and their prophetic implications ALONE made a believer out of me. A long long time ago.

The manifold and staggering truths of the Bible has that effect. On some. On the called, the elect, those who are bequeathed with eyes to see, ears to hear, faith to believe.

Mat 13:16
But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

I appreciate your faith in that text. However the numerous councils that concerned to give us the bible canon.
If God's finger wrote the bible what right do natural minded men have to intervene over and over again?

 

[SonLight_Wolf]

You should know better than to be defending a false teacher -- a wolf in sheep's clothing -- a minion of Satan. Unless you yourself love false doctrine.

Bart Ehrman’s Latest Attack on Christianity
Whenever I read an Ehrman book, déjà vu kicks in. His core message is always: “Christians are dead wrong; I know because I used to be one before I became enlightened.”
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/bart-ehrman-christianity-heaven-hell/

I've read Bart Ehrman, unlike those who claim to have and demonstrate they actually have not by their telling comments.

''The ancient triumph of Christianity proved to be the single greatest cultural transformation our world has ever seen.

Without it the entire history of Late Antiquity would not have happened as it did.

We would never have had the Middle Ages, the Reformation, the Renaissance, or modernity as we know it.

There could never have been a Matthew Arnold. Or any of the Victorian poets. Or any of the other authors of our canon: no Milton, no Shakespeare, no Chaucer.

We would have had none of our revered artists: Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, or Rembrandt. And none of our brilliant composers: Mozart, Handel, or Bach.

To be sure, we would have had other Miltons, Michelangelos, and Mozarts in their places, and it is impossible to know whether these would have been better or worse.

But they would have been incalculably different.''
Bart D. Ehrman, The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World

Textual criticism isn't a dedicated commitment to disqualifying the scriptures.
In point of fact it was one of the disciplines involved in the canonization of the bible.

Professor Ehrman doesn't call bible believers fools.

He informs bible readers how the bible came to exist. And points out salient facts about the text so to outline the fact the bible is a product of men,councils, and hearsay. It is not inerrant. It is to be read as literature. Not worshipped as an idol. And ignoring the facts isn't righteousness. It's wilful ignorance. Calling people names to avoid facing facts doesn't change its history.

God said he wrote his laws on our hearts so we are not far from them. That's the finger of God at work within and where no council can vote to exclude .

 

[cv5]

I appreciate your faith in that text. However the numerous councils that concerned to give us the bible canon.
If God's finger wrote the bible what right do natural minded men have to intervene over and over again?

Do men have the responsibility to rightly deal with words dictated by God to Moses 3500 years ago?

Not only do they, God expressly tells them that they do. Over and over and over again.

That was easy. Any other questions?

 

[SonLight_Wolf]

Do men have the responsibility to rightly deal with words dictated by God to Moses 3500 years ago?

Not only do they, God expressly tells them that they do. Over and over and over again.

That was easy. Any other questions?

An odd sarcasm coming from someone who believes God's finger wrote the bible.

 

[cv5]

I appreciate your faith in that text.

I think your are missing something in your line of thinking here bro. Or Someone.

More properly, I have faith in the Person who dictated/wrote/inspired the text.

 

[SonLight_Wolf]

I think your are missing something in your line of thinking here bro. Or Someone.

More properly, I have faith in the Person who dictated/wrote/inspired the text.

It would be you who is missing a lot. When you contradict yourself in your zeal to argue it ceases to be a conversation and becomes your monologue.

And, '' bro?''
No one speaks like that today. It's not endearing. It's silly.

 

[cv5]

It would be you who is missing a lot. When you contradict yourself in your zeal to argue it ceases to be a conversation and becomes your monologue.

And, '' bro?''
No one speaks like that today. It's not endearing. It's silly.

I never said I was a logician or philosopher bro. Or well spoken either.

Hope you have something other than your stacks of manuscripts to get you thru the 70th week of Daniel tribulation. Looks like perhaps a couple decades to go. Maybe less.

 

[Melach]

Bart Ehrman has terrible views, but he isn't someone to take lightly.

Bart Ehrman isn't just an unbeliever, he's an unbeliever that teaches New Testament at the university level, and he gets up daily, and actively attacks the Christian faith.
That is literally his full time job.

He participates in formal public debates AGAINST Christian scholars.
He isn't just some average guy, he is a famous, unbelieving academic, who actively attacks the Christian faith.

Although some of his arguments are "typical" atheist fare, and easy to refute; he has other arguments which are much more sophisticated, and much more difficult. Although he has terrible views, and he's wrong about most things, he's not some idiot to be trifled with. He has a PhD, graduated magnum cum laude, has written 3 college textbooks, and currently teaches textual criticism at the University of North Carolina, where he serves as a "distinguished professor."

He is a giant in the field of New Testament Textual Criticism... and he's a lost man, who actively attacks the faith on a daily basis.
Quite the conundrum.

I'll repeat, some of his philosophical views and assertions are easy to refute.
But some of his view are much more sophisticated.
People with no training in debate, logic, philosophy, or textual criticism, are NOT up to the task of debating a Bart Ehrman, except on some of his broader philosophical views. And btw, I didn't mention theological training because that's a given... and most Christians don't even have any serious theological training.

CONCLUSION:
In a nutshell, Ehrman has some broader views which are easy to refute, and many intricate views which are much harder to deal with.
- If you feel he's wrong about everything, and he's a total apostate... I'd agree.
- But if you think you could just debate him like he's a child, and wipe the floor with him like he's a fool, and you don't have the training in the requisite fields... you are probably overestimating your abilities.

.

that guy is evil to the core and antichrist.

i dont believe islam to be true yet you dont see me spend all my time looking into quran textual criticism and teaching islam or its weaknesses to others.
this loser spends his time being a "giant in the field of nt textual criticism" and teaches it at some university, getting paid to sow unbelief in people. what a devil

 

[Melach]

It would be you who is missing a lot. When you contradict yourself in your zeal to argue it ceases to be a conversation and becomes your monologue.

And, '' bro?''
No one speaks like that today. It's not endearing. It's silly.

i speak like that. bro is a regular phrase used by people all the time. whats wrong with you? my bro vince russo says bro and hes in his 60s!

 

[cv5]

It is not inerrant.

Well then I suppose it is safe to say that neither is he.....

But really I think of this fellow's problem is that he has a low view of Scripture. Tragic given his Sisyphean efforts.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Bart Ehrman has terrible views, but he isn't someone to take lightly.

But in the final instance, "Debates" lead nobody to salvation. When the Holy Spirit hits a person with CONVICTION OF SIN and of Judgement, then all of your "rationalities" get flushed, and it's just you and God's WORD to you - one on one - and you don't HAVE any "Sophisticated Arguments" - only the option to REPENT, and cry out to Him for salvation.

 

[SonLight_Wolf]

Here is something else to consider. If the Bible was inspired by God, ''written by the finger of God'', why didn't God preserve his words in the original form for all eternity?

And long before professor Ehrman there was the work of John Mill and his extensive undertaking in creating a critical text of the New Testament.

The Bible is God's word to the world. However, we are remiss to ignore man's part in its creation.

Paul said proof, evidence, of God exists in all of creation so that we are without excuse for not believing in God.

Professor Ehrman isn't an enemy of Christians, nor of God, or the bible.
What he is about is being a purveyor of the truth as to how the bible came to be.

No one here has read Dr. Ehrmans work. This is obvious by the scathing uninformed criticisms of him personally.

If someone considers the title of this lecture, book, they may realize he isn't casting aspersions upon Jesus. He's bringing to light the history of the written record as relates to the ministry of Jesus. When the truth is, the ministry and relating his teachings after Jesus departed this world was first spread by word of mouth. His Apostles charged with his great commission.

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.


Illiterate first century peasants walked with God. And delivered his message to those meant by God to understand. Not in writing but verbally.

Printing press or no, that fact of God's will imbuing understanding to this day remains.

The Word surpasses words long fragmented, disappeared, on papyrus or animal skins.

If we think the only place to find God is in a book that has never bore the boast, GOD'S WORD, we're, as Paul's wisdom said, not paying attention to creation that speaks of him eternally.
And within us if we but pay, pray, attention.

 

[maxwel]

But in the final instance, "Debates" lead nobody to salvation. When the Holy Spirit hits a person with CONVICTION OF SIN and of Judgement, then all of your "rationalities" get flushed, and it's just you and God's WORD to you - one on one - and you don't HAVE any "Sophisticated Arguments" - only the option to REPENT, and cry out to Him for salvation.

Hey Bob,
I wasn't defending Ehrman, I was just giving people some background on him.

And you are absolutely right that debate isn't going to help anyone at the final judgement.

But I would like to clarify a small point, one that is often a bit murky.
Lost men talk about logic and rationality, and use that to ridicule us, and scoff at God.
However, just because a lost man CLAIMS to be logical and rational... does that mean he really is?
No.
The truth is, when lost men claim to be using logic and rationality, they really are not... they aren't logical at all.
Rationality means to be logical, and logic, if we really study it out, comes from the mind and nature of God.
So it isn't that logic and rationality are bad, but rather, the lost men who claim to be logical and rational simply are not.
Rationality is really the DOMAIN OF GOD... and to be "logically coherent" is essentially what it means to be TRUE.
When God says over and over he IS truth, and his word IS truth... that is a claim of rationality and logical coherence... it is a claim that God has no errors in logic, no contradictions, no departure from reality.
God is perfect in truth, and being perfect in logic is a necessary component of being perfect in truth.


Everything in scripture is logical and rational.
All of our beliefs, which come from scripture, are logical and rational.
Atheist beliefs, about God and spiritual things, are NOT logical and rational.
That's why I'm fine having a logical debate with an atheist, at any time that becomes necessary.



Hope you have a great week.
.

 

[kaylagrl]

If the Bible was inspired by God, '

" If " ?! Why if? The Bible IS the inspired Word of God. Period. You don't believe that, you aren't a Christian. Done, over, fat lady has sung.