Reliability of the Gospels, Bart Erhman and the problem of evil with Mik...

Why Did Allah DECEIVE Bart Ehrman? (A Question for Muslims)

3 Ancient Questions About Jesus That You've Never Considered

Did Jesus Exist?

Debunking Christianity: Two New Books on the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier and Robert Price

John Loftus has recently posted an article discussing two books by Richard Carrier and Robert Price challenging the Historicity of  Jesus' existence. Carrier has finally decided to write a book trying to explain what he thinks about Jesus. Price has been up front and honest that he does not think that Jesus existed and that most historians and scholar (Christians or not) disagree with him. However up until now Carrier has not been as dogmatic about it, but just suggested that Jesus did not exist. Loftus posted the following video. Carrier does not make a point to allege that he can prove emphatically that Jesus did not exist, but now he has written a book. I won't try to say that he is now saying the he can prove that Jesus did not exist because I have not read the book. However, the video does seem to explain that Carrier thinks that it is reasonable to hold the idea that Jesus may not have existed. 




Richard Carrier's version


However Bart Ehrman says something qualitatively different

Bart Ehrman's Version


So which is it? Ehrman is an Agnostic. Carrier is an atheist. They both reject the Bible as being infallible. They both reject Christianity. They both reject Jesus' Resurrection. They disagree about Jesus' existence as a living person. They both can't be right.  How do you know? The preponderance of evidence is on Ehrman's side. What about other professional historian?

Various other Historians




Debunking Christianity: Two New Books on the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier and Robert Price

Debunking Christianity: The Christian Reaction to Jesus Mythicism

John Loftus has posted another blog post on the duel between Dr Bart Ehrman and Dr Richard Carrier over whether Jesus was a real person or not. Loftus takes issue with what David Marshall wrote regarding Carrier and that Marshall disagrees with Carrier's conclusion.  Loftus writes:

For the record, Carrier is no fool. He's brilliant and a much better informed scholar than Marshall is, or ever will be. 

It's amazing that Loftus would write such a thing because there are many, many more scholars with better credentials than Loftus' who disagree with Loftus. Is Loftus saying that the man/woman's conclusions and scholarship with the better credentials should be accepted and anyone else with less degrees and books and journal articles should be rejected? If so, then why should anyone listen to Loftus at all? And how do you judge credentials? Brilliance? How does he know that Marshall is less informed? He doesn't. As for whether or not Carrier is a fool or not, the Bible says:

¹ The fool^[a] says in his heart,

    “There is no God.”

They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;

    there is no one who does good.

² The Lord looks down from heaven

    on all mankind

to see if there are any who understand,

    any who seek God.

³ All have turned away, all have become corrupt;

    there is no one who does good,

    not even one. 



Psalm 14:1-3

Debunking Christianity: The Christian Reaction to Jesus Mythicism

Debate: Daniel Wallace & Bart Ehrman 2012 Audio/Video - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted links to a discussion between Dr Daniel Wallace and Dr Bart Ehrman regarding the Bible and whether or not the original New Testament is lost to us and unavailable. follow the link at the end of the video to get the audio and other links to resources!





Debate: Daniel Wallace & Bart Ehrman 2012 Audio/Video - Apologetics 315

Dr Wallace also wrote a blog post about the debate. You can read that here Ehrman vs Wallace: Round Three

Was the New Testament Forged? Bart Ehrman vs Darrell Bock - YouTube

I've posted a link to the audio of this discussion in the past, but since I just saw that there was a YouTube version, I'd embed it in a post also. I really like to hear Dr Bock speak and it is very useful to hear how he discusses these issues with a scholar like Dr Bart Ehrman.




Was the New Testament Forged? Bart Ehrman vs Darrell Bock - YouTube

Related articles

• Forged: Writing In The Name Of God (kcbrownstone.wordpress.com)
• RPP's further challenge to Darrell Bock (roshpinaproject.com)
• "Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus?": Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Craig Evans Debate (compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com)

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus - Mormon Version

I shouldn't be surprised, but now there is a Mormon version of Jeffersons Bethke's poem that I've posted several blog posts about. Today on the Dividing Line, Dr James White made a response to the following video, discussed Dr Dan Wallace's announcement of newly found Biblical manuscripts, the Wallace/Ehrman debate, and also continued his response to Wajdi Akkari. Follow the link to get the webcast.




Radio Free Damascus and More on a Special DL Today

Debate: Craig Evans & Bart Ehrman 2012 - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted links to the 2-night debate between Dr Craig Evans and Dr Bart Ehrman.  The Debate topic was: Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the Historical Jesus? You can use the following link to Apologetics 315 to get links to both video and audio.

Debate: Craig Evans & Bart Ehrman 2012 - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• Brian Auten interviews Peter J. Williams about New Testament reliability (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
• Good News Now - Year in Review (goodnewsnow.wordpress.com)
• Ehrman writing a book on Jesus Mythicism (diglotting.com)
• In Explosive New Book FORGED, Bible Scholar Bart Ehrman Exposes Deceptive and Misleading Forgeries in the New Testament (prweb.com)
• Apologetics Debates: A List (faithbyhearing.wordpress.com)

Fistbump of the Day: Dr Norman Geisler Quotes Mariano In His Rebutal of Dr Bart Ehrman

In the second video of the four-part series of a video lecture of Dr Norman Geisler giving arguments refuting Dr Bart Ehrman, Dr Geisler used an argument Mariano Grinbank used in a blog entry applying Ehrman's own arguments regarding Biblical reliability to the printing and writing of his own book Misquoting Jesus. I think the argument is brilliant and undeniable. Dr Geisler even gave Mariano's blog credit for the argument. I know I already gushed over the blog post when I originally saw it but it bears repeating. You can see Dr. Geisler's whole lecture at the following link.

What had happen' was.....: Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Norman Geisler - YouTube

I've got to point out that during the whole Ergun Caner scandal last year, Geisler and others denied that bloggers contributed worthwhile information, but here is Geisler quoting a blog and effectively using Mariano's work. Indeed perfect. You can read Mariano's article that Dr Geisler used right here:

Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants, part 1 of 2

Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants, part 2 of 2

Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Norman Geisler - YouTube

Thanks to Mariano Grinbank for pointing out this video where Dr Norman Geisler answers the objections and arguments raised by Dr Bart Ehrman. You can see the for yourself how Dr Geisler would answer him.







Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Normon Geisler - YouTube

Geisler's Christmas Carol - YouTube

I don't know if you have been following the fiasco brought about Dr Norman Geisler's attack on Dr. Michael Licona revolving on Biblical inerrancy and what it means. The following video explains the situation very clearly and I would also direct you to read the video's description.






I want to clearly say that, I disagree with the way the video predicts the future of Christianity should people listen to Norman Geisler's saber rattling against Michael Licona. I too disagree with his saying that Matthew did not intend the raised-from-the-dead saints in Matthew chapter 27 to be understood historically. I think it is meant to be historical. But arguing that it's not does not equate to saying the Bible is errant. I think one thing missing from the discussion that the people who were raised, were known around Jerusalem. That means that they had not long been dead and I would take their raising to be like the ones who had been raised to life and then later died - like Lazarus. Dr James White takes this position and I think he makes a good point. I also don't think that Geisler's behavior (as bad as it is) will lead to apostasy and cause people to loose their faith and be swayed by Bart Ehrman and people like him. God is in control. It is God who saves us and keeps us saved. Don't  people credit. The credit is God's imputed to us through faith because of God's mercy.

Paul Wrote:

⁷ Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong—not so that people will see that we have stood the test but so that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. ⁸ For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. ⁹ We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is that you may be fully restored.- 2 Corinthians 13:7-9

And even better, Jesus said.

¹⁷ Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ¹⁸ And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. ¹⁹ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” - Matthew 16:17-19

Given that the gates of Hades don't stand a chance, I doubt we have to worry about Bart Ehrman, or Norman Geisler for that matter.

Geisler's Christmas Carol - YouTube

Related articles

• An Opportunity Lost: Why Geisler's Critique Missed the Mark (westernthm.wordpress.com)
• Can Christian Scholars Be Objective? (crossexaminedblog.com)
• Michael Licona Responds to the Accusations of Norman Geisler (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• Can Christian Scholars Be Objective? (galileounchained.com)
• michael licona, norm geisler and biblical inerrancy (daytonhartman.com)

Michael Voris, Diaa Mohamed, and Bart Ehrman on Thursday's DL

Since some readers of this blog seem to be clueless about what scholarly critiques look like, take a lesson from Dr James White and notice how an expert deftly handles not just the Word of God but also a variety of different subjects.




Michael Voris, Diaa Mohamed, and Bart Ehrman on Thursday's DL

OK, How Many Lies Can You Pack into One Video? Ask Michael Voris!

Dr. James White posted the following video and comments today on his blog.




You can read his comments on the video at the following link

OK, How Many Lies Can You Pack into One Video? Ask Michael Voris!

He responded to this video on today's Dividing Line. You can hear that at the following link.

Today on the Dividing Line: Michael Voris and 40,000 Denominations, Ehrman, Diaa Mohamed

Related articles

• Michael Voris: Obama explained in 5:39 (mundabor.wordpress.com)
• Voris responds: "There are many people in the Church who have it out for us..." (patheos.com)
• World: WHERE RUSSIA AND CHINA COLLIDE (time.com)
• Counterpoints to Ehrman (liturgical.wordpress.com)

SMU Debate: Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament? Daniel B. Wallace & Bart D. Ehrman

I just watched the October 1st debate between Dr Daniel Wallace and Dr Bart Ehrman. If you haven't seen it use the link below to order it on DVD. It's well worth it. Ehrman has changed his tune. He used to say that we know what the autographs say due to the work critical criticism but when Wallace quoted him saying that he said that he no longer believes that (link). I've got to give him more credit than Dan "Don't quote me, Bro!" Barker (look at this link if you didn't get the reference). At least Ehrman says he changed his mind instead of trying to pretend he never said it. Here is a trailer for the October 1st Debate.




SMU Debate: Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament? Daniel B. Wallace & Bart D. Ehrman

Truthbomb Apologetics: One Minute Apologist Interviews with Mike Licona

Here is a list summarizing a list of one-minute interviews of Dr Mike Licona. Thanks, Chad

Truthbomb Apologetics: One Minute Apologist Interviews with Mike Licona

Related articles

• Free Book on the Church History Blog (lexloiz.wordpress.com)
• Evidence for God (str.typepad.com)

Answering Muslims: Bart Ehrman Explains Why He Doesn't Criticize the Qur'an

Image via WikipediaOh, so Dr Bart Ehrman doesn't criticize the Qur'an because he agrees with it, he won't discuss Islam because...




Looks like James White was right!


Answering Muslims: Bart Ehrman Explains Why He Doesn't Criticize the Qur'an

Related articles

• Challenged by the reliability of the Bible??? (livingjourney.wordpress.com)
• Counterpoints to Ehrman (liturgical.wordpress.com)
• Is the New Testament reliable? (christopherlazo.com)
• Bart Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist? Is there evidence for a historical Jesus? (holyblasphemy.net)

Greek Language Knowledge in the Holy Land | Bible.org Blogs

Dr. Darrel Bock has posted a follow up to the discussion he had with Bart Ehrman about the knowledge Jews of the Holy Land had of Greek. Was it enough to write the New Testament? Read his short article at the following link.

Greek Language Knowledge in the Holy Land | Bible.org Blogs

FacePalm of the Day #118 - Bart Ehrman and the Epistle to the Laodiceans

Last Saturday, Dr Darrell Bock  faced off with Dr Bart Ehrman on the Unbelievable? radio broadcast. They discussed Ehrman's latest book Forged in which Dr Ehrman contends that the majority of the writers of the New Testament were liars because they claimed to be people that they weren't. During the course of the discussion Ehrman said that this was a wide-spread practice by Christians and offered up the Epistle to the Laodiceans as an example of a letter that could not have been written by Paul even though it claims to be, has nothing that can be consider heretical, and was considered to be canon by many Christians over many centuries. This intrigued me. And like Dr Ehrman often does, he says some true things but neglects to tell everything that would be relevant to know.

1. There are no copies or definitive mention of the letter before the 4th century
2. There are no Greek copies of the letter - they are all Latin.
3. It doesn't contain heresy because it also contains nothing that you cannot get the canonical epistles.
4. The Wikipedia article states: " Jerome wrote in the 4th century, "it is rejected by everyone."^[12]"
5. Some people think that this may be the letter referred to Colosians 4:16. I don't think so because we should be able to trace it back to the first century if it were authentic.
Here is the problem. There is no possible way knowing what we know can we say that Paul wrote this. As for the other Epistles like Ephesians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and the other canonical books, it's not nearly as slam dunk as Ehrman makes it sound. The Epistle of Laodiceans is no where in their league. I mean just look at this thing and see if it's "God-breathed" or merely copied. 

Translation from the Vulgate

Latin	English
1. Paulus apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per Iesum Christum, fratribus qui sunt Laodiciae.	1. Paul, an apostle, not of men or because of men, but because of Jesus Christ, to the brothers at Laodicea.
2. gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre et Domino Iesu Christo.	2. Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. gratias ago Christo per omnem orationem meam, quod permanentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum expectantes in diem iudicii.	3. I thank Christ in my every prayer, that you are enduring in Him and persevering in His good works, looking ahead to the promise of the Day of Judgment
4. neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut vos evertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur.	4. Don't let the vain speech of anyone trouble you—speech that tries to lead you away from the truth of the gospel I have preached.
5. et nunc faciet Deus, ut qui sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis evangelii deservientes et facientes benignitatem operum quae salutis vitae aeternae	5. And now may God allow my people to (continue to increase in?) the truth of the Gospel and do good (for greeting?) eternal life.
6. et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae patior in Christo; quibus laetor et gaudeo.	6. And now my bonds are seen, which I suffer in Christ, and so I rejoice and I am glad.
7. et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam; quod ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrantem Spiritum Sanctum, sive per vitam sive per mortem.	7. And this is for my eternal salvation, which comes through your prayers and the help of the Holy Spirit, by life or by death.
8. est enim mihi vere vita in Christo et mori gaudium.	8. Truly to me, to live is in Christ, and to die is a joy.
9. et in ipsum in vobis faciet misericordiam suam, ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes.	9. And he will work his mercy in you, so that you will have the same love and be of one mind.
10. ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et facite in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in aeternum;	10. So, beloved, as you have heard in my presence, so hold fast and work in the fear of God, and eternal life will be yours.
11. est enim Deus qui operatur in vos.	11. Since it is God that works in you,
12. et facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis.	12. do whatever you do without inhibition.
13. et quod est, dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo. et praecavete sordidos in lucro.	13. and (as it is?), beloved, rejoice in Christ, and avoid those dirtied with wealth.
14. omnes sint petitiones vestrae palam apud Deum. et estote firmi in sensu Christi.	14. Let all your petitions be (made?) before God, and be steadfast in the (way?) of Christ.
15. et quae integra et vera et pudica et iusta et amabilia facite.	15. And what is sound and true and sensible and just and lovable, do these things.
16. et quae audistis et accepistis, in corde retinete, et erit vobis pax.	16. And what you have heard and accepted, hold it in your heart, peace will be yours.
17. salutate omnes fratres in osculo sancto.	17. Salute all the brothers with a holy kiss.
18. salutant vos sancti.	18. The saints salute you.
19. gratia Domini Iesu cum spiritu vestro.	19. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with your spirit.
20. et facite legi Colosensium vobis.	20. And let this be read to the Colossians.

Epistle to the Laodiceans (Wikisource translation) - Wikisource

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans

Wikipedia - Epistle to the Laodiceans

Related articles

• The Laodicean Paradigm (manacled.wordpress.com)
• Who were the authors of the New Testament (wiki.answers.com)