Have you even heard of the Q hypothesis, and the fact that Matthew and Luke and John are simply pseudepagriphic writings that derive from Q and Mark? That is the leading view of new testament scholars all across the world.

And Bart Ehrman is a solid scholar. I don't see why you deny his scholarly standing when he supposedly didn't win a debate with someone that is not even in his field, New Testament studies, not Theology.

This post was edited by AEtheric on May 14 2013 04:14pm

he was a numismatist (and a good one as such) but as historian he was an amateur/dilettante
qualified enough to be the author of some books like 'ancient history for dummies' but not more

have you ever heard of (government) archives being cleansed from unwanted details?
if not, check on the history of echnaton and what happened after his death to all the monuments/documents/inscriptions referring to him
not claiming that it was done that way, but how can you prove that such a 'cleansing' act wasn't done by the church of that day?

Roman doesn't not mean Latin. As I said earlier in the thread, it was likely written by Egyptian or Greek Roman citizens, because Christianity was not strong in the Latin speaking areas for a long time.

God played the largest role in his death.

Yes I have heard the Q hypothesis and the fact that the synoptic gospels are pseudepigraphic writings, however its final form in which all the texts were brought together is the most important and relevant part of the transmission of the bible.

The multiple sources gathered for the make-up of one book is not merely the words of one person, say if you take Luke for example, it is through thorough investigation that forms Scripture. In the end, there is a person who validates the material and solidifies it as history. The 1st century people knew that, the scribes knew that, and to keep its tradition, they hand copied it over thousands of years. What I think you are positing to be a flaw in the Bible is actually something many Christian apologetics have accepted already and deemed it not a problem. For example, many have dissected the torah and see the works of possible 4 sources, but at the end of the day, the 4 sources have no implication the to transmission of the torah.

Bart Ehrman is a misguided theologian and his emotions get the better of him. If he didn't want to talk about theodicy then he shouldn't have accepted that debate. Why go around debating theology if you can't walk the walk?

This post was edited by dajusta on May 14 2013 06:07pm

I will say it again. Bart is not a theologian. Anyways, yes, it does have an effect on apologetics. How do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that all 3 synoptic gospels are not saying the same thing and are from three different authors who are not the true apostles or descendants of the apostles?

And so far from what I can see, I could demolish this d'souza faggot in that debate, as Bart already did in his opening statement. Bart calls natural occurrences that kill human beings, 'natural evils', while D'souza says they are 'natural suffering' while also stating that it is not 'moral evil' since it does not come from humans or moral agents. If that's true, which it is, he is using his spin power as a politician to double-talk out of both sides of his mouth. It's obvious that God created the universe. And even if we cannot understand why suffering occurs, like D'souza says that we are like ants compared to humans as humans are compared to God, we can still read the bible and see that there is a heaven free of suffering that would allow us to have free will without suffering, although d'souza cannot touch on that point but simply dodge it because he cannot answer it, and that single point alone demolishes all of his argument.

D'souza is a lying dumb ass politician who wrote a few apologetics books. He is not a theologian, and Bart destroys him.

This post was edited by AEtheric on May 14 2013 06:53pm

First of all, if Bart is a scholar on Biblical scripture, then he is indeed a theologian whether you like to say or not. I am a theologian too, though I am not as credentialed as they are. The issue on suffering is a theological issue and if Bart has a position on it, he's definitely labelled himself as a theologian. Why go into a debate, lose, and then say "i'm not a theologian!"

You think D'souza was destroyed in that debate? Bart couldn't even keep up in terms of dissecting what was wrong with Christianity in the first place. D'souza thoroughly expressed in the end that "God made a place where suffering does not exist" which is heaven. If Bart would want to continue his attack on God with a problem of suffering, Bart would have to contend with the fact that God has indeed created a place that Bart wishes. So either Bart believes God doesn't exist because of emotional problems, or he could not intellectually understand that Christianity HAS the solution he is looking for. The guy was speechless.

The 3 synoptic gospels share the same theological view, but in different means. Would you like to go through how the intended audience and authorship affects written testimony? The information is indeed from eyewitness testimony, yet I am completely unfazed if an outside source was attributed to piecing the material together. It's absolutely logical. Do you stop reading the news paper just because the EDITOR had finishing touches on the entire issue? I'l give it to you, your logic is there, but incomplete. The New Testament source material has been deemed authentic for its time and reliable for its intended meaning.

I always thought that Pontius Pilate killed Jesus.

Nope, his slaves made him do it against his will. He was as much of a victim as Jesus.

/s

He put it to a vote, populism killed Jesus.

Democracy!