Bidam:
Amen my bro...better don't waste time arguing here. It is a well known fact that demons tremble and get upset say Jesus na God.Lol

See mumu o! Your guy has yet to produce a single argument and you're telling him to not wast time arguing here. That is the time honour get-out clause of deluded religious fantasists. At least you're admitting your demonic origins with all your trembling and getting upset.

Next time you see me, 'visibly' in your hallucinations go up and introduce yourself and then tell us what the PastorAio that you hallucinated said to you.

How do you know that the apostles or Mary mother of Jesus or magdalene all died? Did they really die seeing NOWHERE have we record of their deaths?

PastorAIO:


I don't.

Do you see it is how unintelligent it is to dismiss a portion of Matthew recording the resurrection simply because you have no death records of the resurrected saints?

PastorAIO:


How do you know that they died later on? Please provide sources. Unless you are guessing or presuming based on your preconception.

I can assure you EVERYONE alive in the first century is long dead and this does not take a special revelation. I know it for a fact because human beings raised from the dead or not don't live beyond 150 years.

You are looking for the dumbest excuse to assault the integrity of the scriptures

vooks:
How do you know that the apostles or Mary mother of Jesus or magdalene all died? Did they really die seeing NOWHERE have we record of their deaths?

I don't, although I'm aware that Catholic's claim that the vatican is built around his tomb. I can't remember the name of the cathedral built on it.
I'm also aware of a tradition that says that Mary was assumed into heaven. There are many such traditions both within orthodox christianity and outside of it.

But I don't get what you are trying to get at. Is there a point to any of this?

Do you see it is how unintelligent it is to dismiss a portion of Matthew recording the resurrection simply because you have no death records of the resurrected saints?

PastorAIO:


How do you know that they died later on? Please provide sources. Unless you are guessing or presuming based on your preconception.

I can assure you EVERYONE alive in the first century is long dead and this does not take a special revelation. I know it for a fact because human beings raised from the dead or not don't live beyond 150 years.

You are looking for the dumbest excuse to assault the integrity of the scriptures

PastorAIO:


I don't, although I'm aware that Catholic's claim that the vatican is built around his tomb. I can't remember the name of the cathedral built on it.
I'm also aware of a tradition that says that Mary was assumed into heaven. There are many such traditions both within orthodox christianity and outside of it.

But I don't get what you are trying to get at. Is there a point to any of this?

vooks:
Do you see it is how unintelligent it is to dismiss a portion of Matthew recording the resurrection simply because you have no death records of the resurrected saints?

What's going on here? What did I dismiss on the basis of having no death records? Where did I do this? Sebi you asked me whether certain people died and I answer to the best of my ability. I didn't know. Furthermore there are accounts claiming that they didn't die. The bible itself is full of stories of people who didn't die. Enoch and Elijah spring foremost to mind. There is also this passage in the 21st chapter of John.

…21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" 23Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"…

So obviously the notion of never dying was not that strange to early christians.
I'm still at a loss as why you feel anxious that this undermines the bible.

vooks:

I can assure you EVERYONE alive in the first century is long dead and this does not take a special revelation. I know it for a fact because human beings raised from the dead or not don't live beyond 150 years.
You are looking for the dumbest excuse to assault the integrity of the scriptures

I am not assured. Although I'm sure that you've assured yourself. Catholics would disagree with you and tell you that Mary, Jesus' mother, is still alive. Elijah was alive in the 1st century and is still alive today, according to most christian and judaic beliefs.

Please read the following:

Li Ching-Yuen or Li Ching-Yun (simplified Chinese: 李清云; traditional Chinese: 李清雲; pinyin: Lǐ Qīngyún; died May 6, 1933) was a Chinese herbalist who supposedly lived to be over 256 years old.[1][2] He claimed to be born in 1736, while disputed records suggest 1677. Both alleged lifespans of 197 and 256 years far exceed the longest confirmed lifespan of 122 years and 164 days of the French woman Jeanne Calment. His true date of birth was never determined. He was reported to be a martial artist, herbalist and tactical advisor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_of_life

vooks:
Does it bother you that lazarus and the Jairus daughter all resurrected BEFORE Christ yet Christ is regarded as Firstborn? What about Elijah/Elisha miracles hundreds of years before?

This means Firstbegotten from among the dead means something else other than a dead man coming back to life
Study 1 Corinthians 15 to find out

Let me try to answer you at a kindergarten level since that is within the realm in which you operate.

Jesus is first born from the dead because he is alive forver more, i.e death has no longer any hold on him, whereas the others were liable to die at a later date.

frosbel:


Let me try to answer you at a kindergarten level since that is within the realm in which you operate.

Jesus is first born from the dead because he is alive forver more, i.e death has no longer any hold on him, whereas the others were liable to die at a later date.

First born in the context used means pre-eminence/superior. It means He surpasses all other as regards importance and excellence.

shdemidemi:


First born in the context used means pre-eminence/superior. It means He surpasses all other as regards importance and excellence.

so 'firstborn' from the dead means ;

a) pre-eminence/superior from the dead

or

b) first born from the dead ?




4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).

frosbel:



so 'firstborn' from the dead means ;

a) pre-eminence/superior from the dead

or

b) first born from the dead ?




4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5).[size=32pt] For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent"[/size] (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).

Do you even read to understand things before you go ahead to argue?

Check the definition you gave up there, read it repeatedly then go ahead to compare it to what you thought 'firstborn' means.

PastorAIO:

The following is a debate between Ehrmann and another bible scholar called Daniel Wallace who is one of those you call 'brilliant men of honour'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA

i said to get back to you the next day on this. Sorry i wasn't able to do that. So, here we are. Now, you said,

I have only encouraged you and others to do research. Present their research.

To this, i replied,
"Please i beg you, present your view's research first." It is to this that you presented the debate video. On your definition of research, the video you gave presents the 'research' of the two sides of the argument. Obviously, Both Wallace and Ehrman came to the debate discussing their researches. They are both professors as well. It's not like one is talking from thin air and one is pulling out facts. They both had their 'facts'.

The first video that frosb presented on the thread, that sort of brought us to this point of the discussion implied that the Bible is not reliable, and that this view is the consensus view among critical scholars. Now, he subtly adds that the new testament contains errors and discrepancies and variants and uses that to arrive at the implication that the Bible is unreliable. This is dishonesty subtly used on the undiscerning. THE FACT is that the majority of what he calls errors, discrepancies and variants are insignificant and trivial stuff. They are things like punctuation marks and spelling errors. Every one knows this, every scholar consents to this. It is almost common sense implied, because we have so many Bible versions and the majority of christians refer to them all as the Bible. Of course different versions have different wordings, spellings, sentences , punctuations etc. Cunningly implying that the Bible is not reliable as a consensus is the issue here. He says every new testament agree with him and teaches it in every Ivy league school. What are the teaching and agreeing with him? That the Bible is not reliable? Of course not. What they teach and which is truth is that the manuscripts contain variants. The Bible is both theologically and historically reliable. He claimed to be searching for the truth and not afraid to go wherever the truth seems to lead. For me, i cannot follow such blind search. i already found the truth, and it is in God's Word. Of course, you know God's Word. i'm not going to leave it because there is a comma here that is not there. Only someone who has not found Jesus would be so foolish.

Professor Bruce Metzger is an authority, he has done research. Actually, he taught your lord Bart in Princeton where Bart received his PhD and M.Div. Though he is late now, but if we are talking about scholar or research or critical or whatever other high sounding title you hope to bamboozle us with. Bruce Metzger is Ehrman's daddy, lord, oga and master. Professor Metzger says it is safe for any scholar to say at least 99% of the New testament Bible is reliable. He said the New Testament Bible is more than 99% accurate. no ancient document or literature has the kind of documentary support that the New testament Bible has. This is fact. It follows that whatever conclusions we make on the New Testament Bible, we should be prepared to make same on ALL ancient literature.

Ehrman and his minions make all the fuss and noise and ado about the New Testament manuscripts having textual variations. What he should emphasize more is the fact that more than 75% of these textual variations are irrelevant spelling differences and punctuation.
8 minutes into your video in quote, Bart Ehrman states that the debate is not about the validity or importance of the Bible. An extremely confused man if i may so point out. Anyways, aio, frosb and other minions should carefully note that. The validity of the Bible is not in question by scholars. The Bible is valid and more than 99% reliable. The importance of the Bible is not a debate. It is not time to throw away the Bible and go on some wild goose chase looking for what is not missing.
Again, i'm assuming that the evil spirit that lives inside Bart came late for this debate. In the beginning of the presentation around the 11:20 mark, Ehrman says again that "Whoever Mark was, he wrote the gospel". This is before he started ranting and blustering about original manuscripts being copied, and that he somehow knows that mistakes are being made everywhere along the line. Well, we should apply that line of reasoning on every ancient literature possible. Socrates, Herodotus, Shakespeare, Caesar, Homer and other important and unimportant historians. Also, the early christian fathers like Augustine, Ignatius, Iraneus, Jerome etc. All their works are copied, we do not have their original manuscripts. So what? We cannot conclude what their original text is. So there is nothing like Shakespeare. Forget all those Macbeth and whatever books you have read. Shakespeare didn't write them, because we cannot conclude what his original text might be, as we do not have his original manuscript. Let us conclude that it has all being doctored and twisted. That is a most insane thing to embark on, that is not critical thinking but a manipulation by the devil on poor human souls who are taken captive by him at his will.

Bart claims that 2Corinthians is made up of five separate letters, that somebody copied and pasted from each five and made one. i say that is an assumption at best. There is no proof to that super story and its similar ones which i am aware of that some 'scholars' bandy around. What i know and do not just assume is that the Scriptures cannot be broken, and that the Word of God cannot pass away. You can take that to the bank with Bart and others. The Bible will continue to outlive its pallbearers. Voltaire was more vociferous, i can tell you what happened to him if you do not know.

Also, when Bart and his wannabes talk about earliest manuscripts, they should learn to add "that I can find". It is earliest manuscripts that I can find. Earliest is not more authoritative. Earliest is most likely more destroyed, distorted and fragmented due to the nature of the material used in writing. There is a continuous wild assumption of gross unfaithfulness and trite behaviour on the part of the scribes. This assumption is unfounded and unscholarly.

Also, when Bart asks where are the original manuscripts, i take that as a senseless question. Because he knows about papyrus and scrolls and how they cannot survive for long. This is without mentioning the gruel history of persecution and wars particularly against the Bible, and major efforts to obliterate it. Is he unaware of these or has he forgotten? Should we take it from him that all books rewritten, reprinted, or having editions are problems? This is his conclusion on the New testament Bible for not seeing the original manuscript.

When he(Bart) says 4th century manuscripts differ significantly from 9th century manuscripts, he forgets to highlight his context of significance. Textual variations of spelling differences or synonyms or punctuations are not christian significant.None of these significant differences changes any cardinal truth of the christian faith. There are no blatant contradictions that we would lose sleep over.

In the 35th minute, Ehrman finally confesses like a possessed man by saying "Most of these 400,000 mistakes IN FACT are not important AT ALL. The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing." What then on earth are we arguing about? What is all the ado about it being unreliable?

In the 38th minute, Ehrman asks another contradictory question "Why can't scholars agree?" Why then does he give the impression that the whole world agrees with him, apart from ignorant people and fundamentalists?

PastorAIO:


Please do the same for your side thanks. I've already put up a video.

Oh, and something else. When Bart Ehrmann goes on about all the bible scholars that claim bible authorship is unknown it is not because he just likes dropping names or appealing to authority. It is because his authority was first being attacked. And in defence he is saying that it is not just him that has come to that conclusion but very many eminent scholars. So what we have is not just an appeal to Authorities but also an appeal to Consensus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftHecLxquCg
Here is your video, short, concise. These are also scholars that have researched. Of course you've met Daniel B. Wallace, the other man is Darrell Bock. For the benefits of those who cannot watch, my highlights from the video are;
- There are textual variations, but they are irrelevant, 'typographic' errors, spelling differences. These make up 75% of the 'much adoed' 400,000 errors.
- The second largest group of errors/variants are still insignificant, transpositions, word order changes, synonyms. These make up the remaining 25%.
-No major doctrine is impacted by these variants.(It's variants like one manuscript saying "Lord" and the other manuscript saying "Jesus". These are mainly the errors and variations that Ehrman and his minions are having fits about).
- They don't change the historical view of Jesus or of christian doctrine.
- Cardinal truths like the resurrection, virgin birth, deity, heaven are untouched.

Dr Wallace makes an important point in the other debate, a point which was played down. Wallace said that the variants are actually a plus. The conclusion, the venue where these skeptics are taking us is that there is some sort of conspiracy, that the Bible has being doctored, twisted, deliberately changed by the pastors, bishops and clergy to a particular end. If this is so and true, then the manuscripts would agree totally, no variations. Our conspiring manuscripts would be saying the same thing in unity. But this is not the case. It is simply a case of human frailty in copying, typing, printing. Who does not make typos? Of course we know and it is common sense that humans, scribes manually wrote and print the Bible. It doesn't fall down from the sky a la ten commandments. We buy the Bible in bookshops and we know some of their printing houses. However, it is the Word of God, all God breathed. It contains life and is light, making wise the simple and converting the soul till tomorrow. It's like saying Solomon built a temple, or GEJ is constructing a road/bridge. We do not mean or think that he was the bricklayer or mason, yet he is in charge, responsible and takes credit for it. We would not watch wannabes play on our intelligence while they discover their new toys. We've being there, done that, read this and studied those. We can confidently say, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts."

Bidam:
Amen my bro...better don't waste time arguing here. It is a well known fact that demons tremble and get upset say Jesus na God.Lol

No problem, i'm doing it in spare time, for the records.

The reason I asked you this question is because you together with pastorAIO dismiss the resurrection account of the saints in Matthew as a fable and your basis for this was they could not have resurrected BEFORE Jesus seeing He is the firstborn from among the dead.

frosbel:


Show us your evidence.

And ;

If these people did indeed rise from their tombs it means that Jesus was not the firstborn from the dead or the first to resurrect fully , since at the time these people resurrected , Jesus was dead.

Also there are no historical facts to backup this event, not even by a historian who was also a contemporary of Jesus by the name of Josephus Flavius , he did not mention this event and neither did any of the Roman historians of that age.

We need raw facts not assumptions and hearsay .

But this argument is only valid if you believe their resurrection is different from Lazarus and jairus' daughter and they came back with glorified bodies spoken of in 1 Cor 15 and the same as Jesus.

Could you kindly demonstrate your reasons for this belief that the saints resurrected in glorified bodies and not natural bodies like Lazarus

frosbel:


Let me try to answer you at a kindergarten level since that is within the realm in which you operate.

Jesus is first born from the dead because he is alive forver more, i.e death has no longer any hold on him, whereas the others were liable to die at a later date.

shdemidemi:



Do you even read to understand things before you go ahead to argue?

Check the definition you gave up there, read it repeatedly then go ahead to compare it to what you thought 'firstborn' means.

Did you also skip the following ;

4416 /prōtótokos [size=14pt]("firstly"[/size] specifically refers to Christ as the [size=14pt]first to experience glorification[/size], i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).

Context is the key word by friend, NO MAN has resurrected like Christ today , NONE, ZILCH , ZERO. He is the FIRST BORN, THE FIRSTLY , THE FIRST to experience glorification from the dead.

PastorAIO:
[/color]

please explain the logic of this to me, it makes no sense to me. If I call it erroneous with unknown authorship that means that you cannot appeal to it as an authority? You are free to appeal to anything as an authority. that's your business. The bone of contention is your claim that it's authorship is from God. You say God used the people who are traditionally supposed to have written it to write it, but you cannot prove any of this.

That is straight forward enough. When you call an authority erroneous with whose authorship is unknown to us, you have technically stopped us from appealing to it. We are appealing to it for you, remember? We are saying look at this, or listen to this, SO THAT you can believe our point.

There you go, you're doing it again. Even after showing all the areas where your claims for it fail with a capital F you still insist on calling it infallible. Again that's your own private business.

Where did you or anyone show all the areas where my claims for it fails with a capital F? When we say INFALLIBLE, we are not talkng about commas, paragraphs and typos. We are talking about the truthfulness of the Bible and its assertions.

I never said that I'm the only one in the world who has done research you are getting emotional and desperate in your anxiety. I have only asked you to present your research. While I posted a video of a debate where Bart Ehrmann discusses his research in arguments to prove his point, you have presented nothing. Your latest claim now is that God himself wrote the bible. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Can you present any argument to support this assertion? Anyway I'll come back to this spurious claim with some scriptures.

While there is nothing wrong with being emotional as you are trying to imply, i am not being emotional. i am simply reading you and your conclusions and positions that others should go and read and research like you have done. This of course connotes that they have not read or researched, but need to wake up and find guidance.

Hah! 'Dumb' donkey. see desperation. I quoted a common saying that you can't make a donkey drink even if you took it to the water. You've added 'dumb' to my words. Please o! unless the shoe fits you leave the shoe alone. However if it fits then feel free to wear it anyhow you like.

You have to be ignorant not to know that it is a common saying too that donkeys are dumb. It is an insult to compare people to donkeys, stop pretending not to know about dumb donkeys, that is like their most common adjective.

Since it is known to you because you have so much inside information that scholars studying ancient documents don't have then you should tell us and provide the evidences to back it up.

Other scholars studying ancient documents know the authorship of the Bible.

You are soooo desperate. If you watch the video you will see therein where Ehrman is talking he is presenting various evidences and arguments in favour of his viewpoint. The strongest point that the opposing scholar made is that he was a private witness of some manuscripts that are not yet in public circulation. And Ehrmann says until such a time that he himself can see the evidence he'll have to suspend judgment on that (or words to that effect).

Did Wallace also present various evidences and arguments in favour of his viewpoint? Who determines the strongest point? Should i also determine Bart's strongest point?

Have you heard of Parody? maybe you haven't. I was parodying your comment about your Gods and heroes having studied the bible for 'decades'.

Then stop foolish and dishonest parodies here, this is not the jokes section. You said by the way, Bart Ehrman also[b] Studied, Preached and Practiced[/b] the Bible for decades. Perhaps, all your posts have been parodies all along.

[size=15pt]so let us get back to you God authored the bible claim.

Who was 'God' referring to when he wrote the following:
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away 1Cor chapt. 7

or this in the same chapter:
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

When your God was writing this what was going on in his head? Is he a split personality mentally deranged God? He says: "I, not the Lord". So is he God or is he not God, or is there a different lord? If your God has such schizoid tendencies then your behaviour makes perfect sense. You need deliverance, my guy. But first let me wait for you to come and explain why your Author would refer to himself as not being the author of his judgment even as he is giving the judgment.
[/size]

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

vooks:
The reason I asked you this question is because you together with pastorAIO dismiss the resurrection account of the saints in Matthew as a fable and your basis for this was they could not have resurrected BEFORE Jesus seeing He is the firstborn from among the dead.

Can you help me then with the following questions, and please don't start with rigmarole, stick to the point ;

1. When did these people resurrect, v52, or v53
2. Who did they appear to and how could these people even have recognised them seeing that their lives were over hundreds of years apart ?
3. Where are they today ?
4. How come this news was not even mentioned as a rumour in Any historical document to date and not even by any of the Apostles including Paul.

Thanks.

But this argument is only valid if you believe their resurrection is different from Lazarus and jairus' daughter and they came back with glorified bodies spoken of in 1 Cor 15 and the same as Jesus.

Lazarus was dead for 3 days, Jairus's daughter was dead for a few hours, all in all they were within the limits of their life span. On the contrary those who were supposedly raised to life in Matthew 27:50-53 were dead for hundreds of years , how the hell could they have died again when many of them had already died of old age etc. Please make some SENSE here.

frosbel:


Did you also skip the following ;

4416 /prōtótokos [size=14pt]("firstly"[/size] specifically refers to Christ as the [size=14pt]first to experience glorification[/size], i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).

Context is the key word by friend, NO MAN has resurrected like Christ today , NONE, ZILCH , ZERO. He is the FIRST BORN, THE FIRSTLY , THE FIRST to experience glorification from the dead.

[size=14pt]first to experience glorification[/size]

What is glorification?

How does the sentence in itself corroborate your definition of 'first born' or 'first begotten'?

I greet the house.

frosbel:


Can you help me then with the following questions, and please don't start with rigmarole, stick to the point ;

1. When did these people resurrect, v52, or v53

BOTH

2. Who did they appear to and how could these people even have recognised them seeing that their lives were over hundreds of years apart ?

They appeared to those in Jerusalem. This tells me they MUST have been known to them. If you died in Lagos and resurrected in Budapest, how would you convince those believers you was dead? They'd properly discern that you have been smoking weed
People who had been dead hundreds of years before could not be recognized by those alive. But did anybody say they had been dead 'hundreds of years before' or is this one of your peabrained strawman argument?

3. Where are they today ?

Same place where Lazarus and Jairus daughter are; dead

4. How come this news was not even mentioned as a rumour in Any historical document to date and not even by any of the Apostles including Paul.

Thanks.

I don't have ANY reason for their not being mentioned. Should we dismiss any account not mentioned elsewhere even as a rumor by apostles or any 'historical document'? Is this the standard for scriptures? Anything mentioned ONCE is of dubious and questionable origin? How many times are we told in the OT that Elijah is to come? Just one in Malachi 4:5. Did this fact prevent the Jews from looking forward to Elijah coming?

BTW, Ignatius in his Epistle to Magnasians mentions this very thing so it is your brains that should engage in decent scholarship instead of spewing garbage here all day.
The Epistle. Go to chapter 9
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-lightfoot.html
Dated 98-117AD
http://www.academia.edu/5122399/Ignatius_of_Antiochs_Letter_to_the_Magnesians

Lazarus was dead for 3 days, Jairus's daughter was dead for a few hours, all in all they were within the limits of their life span. On the contrary those who were supposedly raised to life in Matthew 27:50-53 were dead for hundreds of years , how the hell could they have died again when many of them had already died of old age etc. Please make some SENSE here.

Who told you they were dead hundreds of years before? Is this found in the text? Go slow on psychedelic mushrooms

And what makes you mistake your puny brains for God's? Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead? If God will clothe the dead with immortal bodies, why doth it appear farfetched that he can clothe a skeleton with new mortal flesh?
See the problem with amateur skepticism?

Joshthefirst:


And the bible has the historical data we need. We do not need it to be confirmed, . . .

Damn!

Image123:


i said to get back to you the next day on this. Sorry i wasn't able to do that.

No wahala, we are here now.

To this, i replied,
"Please i beg you, present your view's research first." It is to this that you presented the debate video. On your definition of research, the video you gave presents the 'research' of the two sides of the argument. Obviously, Both Wallace and Ehrman came to the debate discussing their researches. They are both professors as well. It's not like one is talking from thin air and one is pulling out facts. They both had their 'facts'.

I hope you are not suggesting by putting research in open/close inverted commas that Ehrmanns views are not backed by research, or that his research had no part to play in his argument. Yes, I agree that they both brought their facts. So it is those facts that we now have to turn too.

The first video that frosb presented on the thread, that sort of brought us to this point of the discussion implied that the Bible is not reliable, and that this view is the consensus view among critical scholars. Now, he subtly adds that the new testament contains errors and discrepancies and variants and uses that to arrive at the implication that the Bible is unreliable. This is dishonesty subtly used on the undiscerning. THE FACT is that the majority of what he calls errors, discrepancies and variants are insignificant and trivial stuff. They are things like punctuation marks and spelling errors. Every one knows this, every scholar consents to this. It is almost common sense implied, because we have so many Bible versions and the majority of christians refer to them all as the Bible. Of course different versions have different wordings, spellings, sentences , punctuations etc. Cunningly implying that the Bible is not reliable as a consensus is the issue here.

First let's know what we are talking about.

The topic of this thread is 'Who wrote the New Testament'?. The discussion have ranged in and out of the confines of this but that was the initial gist.

My contribution to this thread really got involved when the issue of inerrancy came up. This is different from knowing who wrote the bible. People are claiming, and I believe that you don't disagree with them, that the bible is inerrant in matters of history and in matters of science.
This is my bone of contention. I say that the bible is not an historical document and it is not a scientific document either.
Ehrmann and I are in agreement on that. in fact in the second link that frosbel posted Ehrman started off like this:
Our ultimate question comes down to whether the gospels are reliable or not. My view is that the gospels have mistakes, discrepancies, contradictions, factual errors, textual alterations, additions, omissions and corruptions in them.

Now I have noticed from the responses of people like yourself, and the scholars opposed to Ehrman that they constantly and continuously fixate on the fact that the discrepancies are things like commas etc. But you all seem so terrified to address any of the other points that makes which he himself says are the more crucial points. Ehrmann agrees that the minor details are not that important. I noticed that you are trying to make him sound dishonest by saying : In the 35th minute, Ehrman finally confesses like a possessed man by saying "Most of these 400,000 mistakes IN FACT are not important AT ALL. The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing."

So you mean to tell me that in the entire video and with all that he said it is only the minor discrepancies part that he himself says is 'completely insignificant', that is the only part that you can make any comment on. Who is being possessed with dishonesty? Who needs to make confessions?

He says every new testament agree with him and teaches it in every Ivy league school. What are the teaching and agreeing with him? That the Bible is not reliable? Of course not. What they teach and which is truth is that the manuscripts contain variants. The Bible is both theologically and historically reliable. He claimed to be searching for the truth and not afraid to go wherever the truth seems to lead. For me, i cannot follow such blind search. i already found the truth, and it is in God's Word. Of course, you know God's Word. i'm not going to leave it because there is a comma here that is not there. Only someone who has not found Jesus would be so foolish.

You see where you said historically reliable there, together with theologically reliable. That is where God has caught you.

Professor Bruce Metzger is an authority, he has done research. Actually, he taught your lord Bart in Princeton where Bart received his PhD and M.Div. Though he is late now, but if we are talking about scholar or research or critical or whatever other high sounding title you hope to bamboozle us with. Bruce Metzger is Ehrman's daddy, lord, oga and master. Professor Metzger says it is safe for any scholar to say at least 99% of the New testament Bible is reliable. He said the New Testament Bible is more than 99% accurate. no ancient document or literature has the kind of documentary support that the New testament Bible has. This is fact. It follows that whatever conclusions we make on the New Testament Bible, we should be prepared to make same on ALL ancient literature.

Ol boi, even Einstein had a teacher. Einstein's teacher cannot claim to be his daddy, lord, oga and master when it comes to modern physics. what you've said up there is so inane... At the end of the day I will be more likely to give a theory consideration if it is put forward by a scholar than by you. Now that doesn't mean that it should be swallowed hook line and sinker, but it makes it worthy of consideration. At the end of the day you have your own brain to think with. I can understand Ehrmann referring to a lot of authorities in bible scholarship in a debate because he wants to demonstrate that he is not a crank acting on his own. That is his purpose for making references to other authorities. If you doctor tells you that you have to undergo a very expensive operation and then noticing your consternation he refers you to another doctor for a second opinion, it is to help you confirm what he is saying has merit. If you like claim that the dead doctor that taught your own doctor medicine said otherwise so you'll dismiss your doctor's advise, especially when you know that medicine advances everyday and there are always new discoveries.

Oh.. and before I forget. 99% reliable or accurate is NOT inerrant. We haven't even gone into reliable as what. Does he mean reliable as an historical document?

That part in brown is a very correct fact but what those of you that keep going on about that fail to get is that No one is making those claims for any other ancient literature that are being made for the bible. Yes, we all know that there are mistakes in copying Homer and Plato etc and that their student added to their works. We all accept that as a fact. We can not fully know what Socrates' philosophy was. But why is it so hard for you to accept the same for the bible? Why this supernatural claims when we know how distorted all books from antiquity are?

Ehrman and his minions make all the fuss and noise and ado about the New Testament manuscripts having textual variations. What he should emphasize more is the fact that more than 75% of these textual variations are irrelevant spelling differences and punctuation.

He, after making note of the variations, emphasizes over and over again how irrelevant they are. He then goes on to make some very salient points. Why do you tremble when it comes to considering those points for discussion? I actually think Ehrmann is gentle. Me, I would construct more devastating arguments, personally.

8 minutes into your video in quote, Bart Ehrman states that the debate is not about the validity or importance of the Bible. An extremely confused man if i may so point out. Anyways, aio, frosb and other minions should carefully note that. The validity of the Bible is not in question by scholars. The Bible is valid and more than 99% reliable. The importance of the Bible is not a debate. It is not time to throw away the Bible and go on some wild goose chase looking for what is not missing.

No, the debate is NOT about the validity and importance of the bible. There is nothing confused or confusing about that. The debate is about whether or not we have the Original New testament. It is the very title of the video, how can you miss that?
I never said that the bible was not valid (ie to have value). And please note that by stating that the bible is 99% reliable you have already admitted that it is not inerrant. even if you think that the error is only 1%. It's game over, but I'm having such fun so I'll continue.
Bingo!! The importance of the bible is not a debate, or even The debate. Please acquaint yourself with the title of the video one more time. and furthermore no one has told you to throw away your bible.

Again, i'm assuming that the evil spirit that lives inside Bart came late for this debate. In the beginning of the presentation around the 11:20 mark, Ehrman says again that "Whoever Mark was, he wrote the gospel".

What is your point? Nobody is saying that the gospel wasn't written by someone. Those that are claiming that God wrote it have ducked.

This is before he started ranting and blustering about original manuscripts being copied, and that he somehow knows that mistakes are being made everywhere along the line. Well, we should apply that line of reasoning on every ancient literature possible. Socrates, Herodotus, Shakespeare, Caesar, Homer and other important and unimportant historians. Also, the early christian fathers like Augustine, Ignatius, Iraneus, Jerome etc. All their works are copied, we do not have their original manuscripts.

Such line of reason is applied to every ancient literature possible. But it is only raises anxiety amongst people such as yourself when it is applied to the bible.

So what? We cannot conclude what their original text is. So there is nothing like Shakespeare. Forget all those Macbeth and whatever books you have read. Shakespeare didn't write them, because we cannot conclude what his original text might be, as we do not have his original manuscript. Let us conclude that it has all being doctored and twisted. That is a most insane thing to embark on, that is not critical thinking but a manipulation by the devil on poor human souls who are taken captive by him at his will.

Now you are just being f oolish. Why should I forget Macbeth even if it were discovered that Shakespeare didn't write it? This has been suggested so many time already in fact and nobody threw Macbeth away. It has been suggested that his actors improvised and devised some of his lines and he just polished them up. You can acquaint yourself with some of those arguments here:
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Oxfordian2010_top_ten.pdf

Yet no one is throwing macbeth away and nobody is crying and pulling their hair out over whether or not shakespeare actually existed. The difference is that you have a vested interest in a certain narrative of how the bible came to be and your psychological well being rests on that narrative. To suggest anything other than the narrative is nothing short of an attack on your sanity.

Bart claims that 2Corinthians is made up of five separate letters, that somebody copied and pasted from each five and made one. i say that is an assumption at best. There is no proof to that super story and its similar ones which i am aware of that some 'scholars' bandy around. What i know and do not just assume is that the Scriptures cannot be broken, and that the Word of God cannot pass away. You can take that to the bank with Bart and others. The Bible will continue to outlive its pallbearers. Voltaire was more vociferous, i can tell you what happened to him if you do not know.

Also, when Bart and his wannabes talk about earliest manuscripts, they should learn to add "that I can find". It is earliest manuscripts that I can find. Earliest is not more authoritative. Earliest is most likely more destroyed, distorted and fragmented due to the nature of the material used in writing. There is a continuous wild assumption of gross unfaithfulness and trite behaviour on the part of the scribes. This assumption is unfounded and unscholarly.

Leave the 5 letters becoming corinthians part because he makes reference to the research of other scholars but does not lay out the arguments, most likely because of lack of time, so we cannot peruse and examine them. Even to call them an 'assumption at best' is an assumption on your part.

I'm sure Ehrmann doesn't go hunting for manuscripts himself, so I doubt he can ever say 'that I can find'. It is the academic community as a whole that discovers texts from various sources and they then present it to the community as a whole. Peer review is very important.
Earliest may not be more authoritative but it is definitely more likely to be closer to the original. That is a desperate point you are making there.

Papyrus was in use through all of the first millenium and so was parchment which was more durable (I think). The dead sea scrolls which were written in the first century before CE survived and they were written on paper. Another of your desperate arguments.

Also, when Bart asks where are the original manuscripts, i take that as a senseless question. Because he knows about papyrus and scrolls and how they cannot survive for long. This is without mentioning the gruel history of persecution and wars particularly against the Bible, and major efforts to obliterate it. Is he unaware of these or has he forgotten? Should we take it from him that all books rewritten, reprinted, or having editions are problems? This is his conclusion on the New testament Bible for not seeing the original manuscript.

Ehrmann asks a very sensible question consider the title of the debate. If you are looking for the Original New Testament what questions would you ask?

The Dead sea scrolls survived, so what are you talking about? Desperation.

But you are actually starting to get interesting when you talk about wars and persecution against the bible, and efforts to obliterate it. Me o, I'm not aware of this. Pray tell. I cannot speak for Ehrmann but I don't know about any war fought against the bible or attempt to obliterate it. If it is not your imagination going kookoo please give us the historical facts on this new story.

The problem of not finding the original manuscript is very very problematic when you are trying to ascertain whether the New Testament we have today is the Original one. It makes sense to me.

When he(Bart) says 4th century manuscripts differ significantly from 9th century manuscripts, he forgets to highlight his context of significance. Textual variations of spelling differences or synonyms or punctuations are not christian significant.None of these significant differences changes any cardinal truth of the christian faith. There are no blatant contradictions that we would lose sleep over.

In the 35th minute, Ehrman finally confesses like a possessed man by saying "Most of these 400,000 mistakes IN FACT are not important AT ALL. The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing." What then on earth are we arguing about? What is all the ado about it being unreliable?

In the 38th minute, Ehrman asks another contradictory question "Why can't scholars agree?" Why then does he give the impression that the whole world agrees with him, apart from ignorant people and fundamentalists?

The issue is not of the cardinal truth of the christian faith. The issue is whether the bible has preserved it's form over the centuries. I've pointed this out about 3 times now so I hope it has sunk in.

at the 35th minute, he didn't finally confess like he was under duress or something. He stated quite clearly in his opening talk that they were not significant to the christian doctrines.
you ask, what on earth are we arguing about? I'll repeat it one more time. The issue is whether or not the bible has changed from it's original form or not and whether we can say that we have the Original bible. Not it's reliability as a source of doctrines but whether what we have is reliably true to the original.

You really gave me an assignment here with this your long post that only shows that you're not even on the topic of discussion. Like I said before Ehrmann doesn't go into more devastating points on the bible probably because he was sticking to the topic of the discussion but if it is about reliability in matters of science and history that you want to talk about then I have some points that I'd happily share with you and I'm an anonymous guy so I can afford to be more devastating than Ehrmann.

Was minor Textual variations like commas etc the main thrust of Ehrmann's work. The answer is No. Why is it the only thing that these guys can address? Even Ehrman himself said they were not that important. It smacks of dishonesty.

Image123:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftHecLxquCg
Here is your video, short, concise. These are also scholars that have researched. Of course you've met Daniel B. Wallace, the other man is Darrell Bock. For the benefits of those who cannot watch, my highlights from the video are;
- There are textual variations, but they are irrelevant, 'typographic' errors, spelling differences. These make up 75% of the 'much adoed' 400,000 errors.
- The second largest group of errors/variants are still insignificant, transpositions, word order changes, synonyms. These make up the remaining 25%.
-No major doctrine is impacted by these variants.(It's variants like one manuscript saying "Lord" and the other manuscript saying "Jesus". These are mainly the errors and variations that Ehrman and his minions are having fits about).
- They don't change the historical view of Jesus or of christian doctrine.
- Cardinal truths like the resurrection, virgin birth, deity, heaven are untouched.

Dr Wallace makes an important point in the other debate, a point which was played down. Wallace said that the variants are actually a plus. The conclusion, the venue where these skeptics are taking us is that there is some sort of conspiracy, that the Bible has being doctored, twisted, deliberately changed by the pastors, bishops and clergy to a particular end. If this is so and true, then the manuscripts would agree totally, no variations. Our conspiring manuscripts would be saying the same thing in unity. But this is not the case. It is simply a case of human frailty in copying, typing, printing. Who does not make typos? Of course we know and it is common sense that humans, scribes manually wrote and print the Bible. It doesn't fall down from the sky a la ten commandments. We buy the Bible in bookshops and we know some of their printing houses. However, it is the Word of God, all God breathed. It contains life and is light, making wise the simple and converting the soul till tomorrow. It's like saying Solomon built a temple, or GEJ is constructing a road/bridge. We do not mean or think that he was the bricklayer or mason, yet he is in charge, responsible and takes credit for it. We would not watch wannabes play on our intelligence while they discover their new toys. We've being there, done that, read this and studied those. We can confidently say, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts."

I'll come back to deal with this post tomorrow. I don tire.

Image123:


That is straight forward enough. When you call an authority erroneous with whose authorship is unknown to us, you have technically stopped us from appealing to it. We are appealing to it for you, remember? We are saying look at this, or listen to this, SO THAT you can believe our point.


Where did you or anyone show all the areas where my claims for it fails with a capital F? When we say INFALLIBLE, we are not talkng about commas, paragraphs and typos. We are talking about the truthfulness of the Bible and its assertions.


While there is nothing wrong with being emotional as you are trying to imply, i am not being emotional. i am simply reading you and your conclusions and positions that others should go and read and research like you have done. This of course connotes that they have not read or researched, but need to wake up and find guidance.


You have to be ignorant not to know that it is a common saying too that donkeys are dumb. It is an insult to compare people to donkeys, stop pretending not to know about dumb donkeys, that is like their most common adjective.


Other scholars studying ancient documents know the authorship of the Bible.


Did Wallace also present various evidences and arguments in favour of his viewpoint? Who determines the strongest point? Should i also determine Bart's strongest point?


Then stop foolish and dishonest parodies here, this is not the jokes section. You said by the way, Bart Ehrman also[b] Studied, Preached and Practiced[/b] the Bible for decades. Perhaps, all your posts have been parodies all along.


2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

PastorAIO:
I'll come back to deal with this post tomorrow. I don tire.

You suppose tire na, who no go tire for needless rigmarole and much ado about nothing. I'll address your post later.

RikoduoSennin:

When you have understood this very FACT: DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ FROM THE INTERNET, mostly that from Dubious sites, then we can talk calmly.

Yeah, not all of them are reliable but some are. Even, some Christian websites are dubious too, so as atheist websites. But whatever has a general conclusion, with slight changes, is very well reliable.

Research books written by bible Scholars for a change. Compare various various books written bey these scholars.

Research if Paul's letters pre-date the Gospel of Mark.

geeez. Are you still arguing that Paul's letters didn't pre-date the Gospels?

Are you implying that THE ORIGINAL LETTERS STILL EXIST TODAY, because these writers wrote in biodegradable materials which won't last long. HENCE EVERY PARCHMENT/SCROLLS your suppose researchers use was nothing COPY OF A COPY.

Copy of a copy still written in biodegradable materials, which exist. Even, the original copies of some of the OT books exist. Have you heard about the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Many of these dates are based on SPECULATIONS, So if You are saying they are not accurate and the Apostles were not the writers of the bible THEN WE CAN'T TRUST EVERY SUPPOSE WRITERS OF CONTEMPORARY CLASSICAL LITERATURE FOR THE SAME REASONS TOO.

Sure. So why do we bother about those books?

Image123:

You suppose tire na, who no go tire for needless rigmarole and much ado about nothing. I'll address your post later.

Actually I was tired because it was late and I spent a lot of time on a post that did nothing but demonstrate the ignorance of the poster. I'd rather have been dealing with pertinent points than with 'needless rigmarole and much ado about nothing'.

Image123:

You suppose tire na, who no go tire for needless rigmarole and much ado about nothing. I'll address your post later.

Actually I was tired because it was late and I spent a lot of time on a post that did nothing but demonstrate the ignorance of the poster. I'd rather have been dealing with pertinent points than with 'needless rigmarole and much ado about nothing'.

Most of your garbage here is not even pertinent but let me just pick those parts that I think are more pertinent to the discussion.

Where did you or anyone show all the areas where my claims for it fails with a capital F? When we say INFALLIBLE, we are not talkng about commas, paragraphs and typos. We are talking about the truthfulness of the Bible and its assertions.

When a NT writer explicitly states that an instruction from him is NOT from God but from himself, and yet you claim that the NT was written by God then You have Failed with a capital F. Twist it anyhow you like. The writer himself very clearly and explicitly said: This is not from God. so unless your god is confused (which would make sense) you have Failed.

While there is nothing wrong with being emotional as you are trying to imply, i am not being emotional. i am simply reading you and your conclusions and positions that others should go and read and research like you have done. This of course connotes that they have not read or researched, but need to wake up and find guidance

Okay this is not pertinent but heck. Emotionality is alright. But it is a problem when it interferes with rational thinking. That's all.

You have to be ignorant not to know that it is a common saying too that donkeys are dumb. It is an insult to compare people to donkeys, stop pretending not to know about dumb donkeys, that is like their most common adjective.

More nonpertinent stuff. However... If I call you a Greedy pig on account of your eating habits, would you also say I called you Happy because we also have a saying, 'As happy as a pig in mud' ?

Did Wallace also present various evidences and arguments in favour of his viewpoint? Who determines the strongest point? Should i also determine Bart's strongest point?

Please what did Wallace say apart from that the discrepancies are minor as Bart said earlier, and that they have an embarrassment of riches in terms of manuscripts? What other point did he make?

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What is scripture and what isn't scripture? Is Macbeth scripture given by God? What about the Book of Enoch? What about the text that explicitly states that it is NOT from God.

Image123:


That is straight forward enough. When you call an authority erroneous with whose authorship is unknown to us, you have technically stopped us from appealing to it. We are appealing to it for you, remember? We are saying look at this, or listen to this, SO THAT you can believe our point.


Where did you or anyone show all the areas where my claims for it fails with a capital F? When we say INFALLIBLE, we are not talkng about commas, paragraphs and typos. We are talking about the truthfulness of the Bible and its assertions.


While there is nothing wrong with being emotional as you are trying to imply, i am not being emotional. i am simply reading you and your conclusions and positions that others should go and read and research like you have done. This of course connotes that they have not read or researched, but need to wake up and find guidance.


You have to be ignorant not to know that it is a common saying too that donkeys are dumb. It is an insult to compare people to donkeys, stop pretending not to know about dumb donkeys, that is like their most common adjective.


Other scholars studying ancient documents know the authorship of the Bible.


Did Wallace also present various evidences and arguments in favour of his viewpoint? Who determines the strongest point? Should i also determine Bart's strongest point?


Then stop foolish and dishonest parodies here, this is not the jokes section. You said by the way, Bart Ehrman also[b] Studied, Preached and Practiced[/b] the Bible for decades. Perhaps, all your posts have been parodies all along.


2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

vooks:



I can assure you EVERYONE alive in the first century is long dead and this does not take a special revelation. I know it for a fact because human beings raised from the dead or not don't live beyond 150 years.

Maybe not now, but there is a book which claims that human beings used to live for roughly a thousand years on average. They were mostly white people, but no matter. Have you read that book?

frosbel:


Let me try to answer you at a kindergarten level since that is within the realm in which you operate.

Jesus is first born from the dead because he is alive forver more, i.e death has no longer any hold on him, whereas the others were liable to die at a later date.

Correct !

Its true some parts of the new testament have been tampered with . # dont be a religious fanatic# ! God wants us to be wise !

EXAMPLE !

The most original gospel of mark ends at Mark 16:8 ( Canon BSy Arm) !!

Certain manuscript such as ( ACD) includes verse 9 - 20 and some latest manuscripts even add more .

Lets take a look at this additions.

Mark 16:14 ... " He ( Jesus) appeared to the eleven and REPROACHED thier lack of faith and hardheartedness" !!! Imagine d same Jesus thats compasionate in Gethsemane now rebuking the apostles and accusin them of hardheartedness ! ... This is suprising . Once again those verses ar not verified !

Mark 16:17,18 " These signs shall accompany those that bliv ... With their hands They will pick up serpents, AND IF they drink anythin deadly it wont hurt them at all " !! Did Jesus say this ? Why are so called christians not picking up serpent since its a sign of blivers ?? Why do they run when they see snakes ?? Una no dey drink Poison?

CAPTIVATOR:
Its true some parts of the new testament have been tampered with . # dont be a religious fanatic# ! God wants us to be wise !

EXAMPLE !

The most original gospel of mark ends at Mark 16:8 ( Canon BSy Arm) !!

Certain manuscript such as ( ACD) includes verse 9 - 20 and some latest manuscripts even add more .

Lets take a look at this additions.

Mark 16:14 ... " He ( Jesus) appeared to the eleven and REPROACHED thier lack of faith and hardheartedness" !!! Imagine d same Jesus thats compasionate in Gethsemane now rebuking the apostles and accusin them of hardheartedness ! ... This is suprising . Once again those verses ar not verified !

Mark 16:17,18 " These signs shall accompany those that bliv ... With their hands They will pick up serpents, AND IF they drink anythin deadly it wont hurt them at all " !! Did Jesus say this ? Why are so called christians not picking up serpent since its a sign of blivers ?? Why do they run when they see snakes ?? Una no dey drink Poison?

Really?!!! I thought that the signs of those who believe is that they shall speak in tongues. Bobobobobobababshamkomashkatopiramomomomomorimiso.