Bart Ehrman?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

A) One person says jesus was crucified on the day before Passover, another says it was the day after Passover.. Both can’t be right.. so one or both are obviously wrong..

The Passover feast was on Thursday that week. Jesus was crucified the day before on Wednesday when the passover Lamb was commanded to be killed before the feast day. There never was a error. The error is only in the minds of the bible doubters.

B) there was no Roman Empire wide census, where everyone was required to go back to their ancestral home of 1000 years ago.. it is just ridiculous. .

Agreed, there was never a world wide Roman empire census...but there was a Roman empire world wide TAX that was issued:
Luke 2:1-3 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
God even made sure the word TAX was used 3 times so future doubters wouldn't get it wrong...well, they still did/do.

C) there are 2 different genealogies for Joseph.. I don’t see why joseph’s Genealogy should matter, but it is there and wrong..

Not two different ones for Joseph. One was for Joseph, the other was Mary's genealogy. And the genealogy is not wrong, it is more right than you can comprehend at the moment. It the supposed "errors" in the genealogy show the importance of why the virgin birth was needed and also proves God keeps His curses He puts on people.

D) in one account of the crucifixion jesus knows what’s going on and is telling everyone else to calm down and in another he is clueless..

Nope, no such event. Unless you are talking about His cry from the cross of why God had forsaken Him, but I explained that earlier to EasternShadow in this same thread.

E) half the Pauline letters are known forgeries where “his” cristology changes.. the real Paul was appently pretty pro women in the church.. the forgeries are very anti woman.

No "known forgeries" at all. Pure hearsay and slander of the Holy Bible on your part. Paul dictated many of his letters, that is certain, but that is not a forgery. Not sure your source on this one....and secular sources are of course not relevant to sacred discussion.

F) in one an angel tells the deciples not to leave the city And in another they instantly leave the city..

Post the verse for this please, never heard of it.

Now that doesn’t mean there is not still truth there...it just makes all the line by line analysis ridiculous.. If people really wanna know what jesus was like and what he wanted. You go as close to the source and work your way forward..

The closest to the source we have is the text that the KJV Bible was translated from. There is nothing better. The oldest and "best" manuscripts were used for the KJV translation. The worst and most corrupt manuscripts were used for all other english translations (including the NKJV, regardless of what the marketing on the box it's sold in will tell you).

I have no idea why anyone listens to Paul.. he never even met the guy.. he is the earliest thing we have, but he makes no claims about the life of jesus.. all his info comes from revelations (visions) we don’t believe people who say they have visions today.. why would we believe Paul??

Peter, who walked everyday with Jesus Christ, tells you to listen to Paul, and even calls Paul's writing SCRIPTURE:

2 Peter 3:14-16 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paulalso according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So...you're wrong. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Peter, James and John...they all endorsed him. Also, take up your argument with Jesus Christ too...He choose him to be your apostle.

Mark is the earliest accountant of jesus in life. So I think you start there and exclude any later material that disagrees with him, and keep all the material that doesn’t disagree with him.

Wrong again. Mark is not the oldest. It is purely assumed he wrote the oldest account....do you know why the scholars assume his is oldest..? I do...

a reply to: EasternShadow

So you disagree that Erasmus used Latin Vulgate by St.Jerome. Perhaps you could explain this?

The ending of the book of Revelation cannot be completed in the first place with critical texts that Westtcot and Hort put together because Vaticanius, the main source document they used, did not even have the book of Revelation in it at ALL.
And Erasmus used every evidence he had at his grasp in order to create his text (it was the whole reason he remained a catholic…to have access to their libraries, and was a supporter of Luther)
`I am assuming the quote about Erasmus was from Thayer’s Lexicon, who was one of the first to introduce such as slander against God’s preserved words. Thayer (who of course is a deity of Christ denying scholar, and a Vatican critical text lover of Vaticanus) has since been proven wrong by this assertion on his part, and F.H.A Scrivener must have continued on where he left off. The Textus Receptus is grammatically correct in the use of Erasmus’s "created” word, and the critical texts of Westtcot and Hort (from which all new bible translation filth flows) is grammatically incorrect.
Erasmus’s “created” word is nothing more than a synonym to fit the text better. Other examples would be words like grey-gray or defence-defense. There is no error, it was simply a synonym for an existing greek word, but Scrivener would never tell you that .

Do you mean Vetus Latina or Textus Receptus? Vetus Latina was replaced by standardised Jerome's vulgate after the Council of Trent. Textus Receptus didn't exist until first publication in 1516.

I mean the cursives, the vellum, the scraps of parchments that the church had used and believed which WAS the Textus receptus but just not in coined name yet. The evidences from which the “TR” text comes from is older than the complied completed TR manuscripts you know…..and the “old Latin” is part of the Textus receptus. Jeromes’s Vulgate is most certainly not.

Do you claim LXX ( Septuagint ) wasn't the first translation from Hebrew Tanakh? Could you provide evidence that Vetus Latina or "Old Latin" was not sourced on LXX?

Old Latin did not come from the Septuagint, ever. The only evidence at all of the Septuagint is from 200AD, that’s over 200 years AFTER Christ was born. There is no evidences that the Old Latin came from Septuagint, matter of fact, the Septuagint probably came from the Old Latin, the exact other way around. Both statements have the same amount of proof.

Who else did the translations beside the Church Fathers? Do you think the apostles would translated Classical Archaic Hebrew ( The language of Canaanites ) or Aramaic in the Old Testament?

The apostles all used Greek, not Aramaic, nor did Jesus speak Aramaic in the gospels. This is ALL hearsay and traditions of (catholic) men. Earlier I stated the catholic church needs the gospels in Aramaic in order to prove Peter is the “ROCK”, because the word Peter in Aramaic is ROCK, but in greek Peter's name is STONE. Rock is the word used for the coming Messiah in the Old Testament. (Deau 32:31 Ps 62:7 Ps 18:2 1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. etc...)

Do you admit there're differences in Textus Receptus?

100% And I have a book that shows all of them. There are over 1000+ Doesn’t bother me in the least, because I am not a “TR” man. Or my trust in which God provided me was not in the TR, its in the Authorized King James Bible, because of MAINLY the way god USED the KJV. The fruit is in the pudding guys..
Now there is/was a perfect set of scriptures that past down from the apostles that the compilers of the TR texts put together, but as to which ones were perfect, no one knows. (I guess we can know now though, all we have to do is compare the KJV to the scraps and see which match perfectly the KJV...) and yes, I am claiming the KJV is BETTER than the original manuscripts and autographs. We can get into that later.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Do you agree, God did not dictate what form and language should he preserved his word? Do you agree, verbal transmission was god's other mean to preserve his messages?

God has not. But He does seem to keep His words in the most used trade language of the ages: i.e. Hebrew (yes Hebrew, Israel was THE world empire under Solomon and all nations flowed to it for trade, and it was perfectly located in between 3 continents.) Greek, under Alexander the greats massive empire, Latin (all educated people), German, English (Which is the prominent language of the whole world today)

All absolutes are ENGLISH absolutes: All time is based on ENGLISH time, Greenwich means time. All weights are based on English weight, all LOCATION is based off English prime Meridian, and latitudes, and God's absolute perfect words are in English today since 1611.

Do you agree what are we doing right now is another form of god preserving his word? Do you agree the Bible was meant to be corrupted so that we could discuss, share, debate, justify and come to conclusion for more than 2000 years?

Nah, its already preserved. The Bible was not meant to be corrupted, but God allows mankind and angel kind to have free-will and make their own decisions, even if those decisions cut our own throats.
Verbal transmission was the METHOD in which scripture was given to us from God, but it was not the means in which it was preserved. Writing preserved it. Thus God WROTE with His finger in the first divine act and EXAMPLE of Him given us His words with the ten commandments. They are to be wrote down and KEPT. (Rev 3:8)

Do you agree, if the Bible is perfect, neither you and Raggedyman, would be stepping in Theology Forum today?

I'm commanded to, one verse:
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

God warned us through Jeremiah 23:16 and Matthew 16:11-12, but He ask us to trust without the autograph? Don't you think it is a contradiction?

Not really. He told us to believe in the incarnate Word Jesus Christ too....but do you see Jesus here? nor do you see the original autographs here. Faith is needed for both the written words of God and for the incarnate Word of God. (which is my WHOLE argument here in all these posts...I simply have FAITH God preserved His words Perfect, just like I have faith the Word of God, Jesus, lived a perfect life for me, sinless. If the written words have errors in them (sin) then Jesus had errors in Him (sins).

You didn't answer my question. So I re-ask again. If you believe God allowed almost all Bible to be corrupted, then why can't you believe God may preserved his words in different way?

I would believe that, but I don't need too, I can see He already preserved them perfectly in the KJV, I literally can read it and see it is perfect. There are no errors in it. Only mis-interpretations on the part of the readers.

My questions was about the contradiction between the number of days and evenings. So which one is true, god created days and evenings in the first day or in the fourth days? Only one statement can be true. Not both of them.
My other question was about the contradiction in chronical order. You have not answer anything.
Which one come first, the man, the tree, the animal or the bird?
Same here. Only one statement can be true.

I finally understand the question!!! You are saying there can not be "evenings" and "mornings" without there first being a "SUN"...right? And for that matter I guess how can there be TIME without a Sun to turn "our" back too (planetary speaking)
The answer? I dunno. I'll look into it though! Its an honest question.

a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611



Every single bible college and university with a course on the New Testament disagrees with you..

You didn’t debunk anything..

You just said “nah uh”.


There are ZERO people who are actually employed as scholars who think there is anything like a word for word correct account of even the original books.. let almond actual history..

a reply to: EasternShadow

Do you mean thisἸησοῦς, οῦ,? It's Iésous in Greek.

Yes but Iésous in English is “Jesus”. That was what I was trying to say in my post, it came out a little backwards though. I’m concerned with the ENGLISH, not the Greek. (for a number of reasons)

Do you ignore Exodus 3:14?

Do you agree, the word LORD in capital English letters refer to Hebrew text, יהוה(YHWH) and Greek text κύριος, ( kýrios )? Do you aware none of ancient texts identified and associated Greek ησοῦς, ( Iésous, Jesus ) as יהוה in Hebrew or κύριος ( Lord ) in Greek text?

Well, I mean….Ex 3:14 is STILL a wild card and not many people know what to do with it. Because God’s name is not “I AM”, nor is it all the many pro-nouns that are used to describe Him like those listed in Isa 9:6. From what I can tell from reading various sources, we do not know the name of God, nor how to pronounce His abbreviated Hebrew consonant only initials He goes by (YHWH) Thus the KJV translators made the only HONEST translational attempt at it by just calling Him LORD.
This is the correct method. And yes, I am aware of there being no correlation between Jesus’s name and the old testament name for Lord other than the prefix of His name “JE” denoting “Jehovah”. (Which of course is nothing more than English attempt of adding vowels to the Hebrew consonants of YHWH in order for us to pronounce it as we read the text. The Jews would simply SKIP the word as they read for fear of taking God’s name in vain (it was and still is an irrational fear as God DESIRES fellowship and communication with His creations, like that with Adam in the garden).

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
When the time comes in your life when you really need to hear from God of really need His help, God does not care what you call Him.
you----Do you have any Bible verse to prove it? This is Hebrew OT WLC Isaiah 42:8
אני יהוה הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא־אתן ותהלתי לפסילים׃
It means god does not share his glory.

Luke 23:42 may prove it.
As for Isa 42:8, that verse is talking about His glory, not His name. Look at the colon after the word “name” , the glory He was talking about was the glory from the events that took place in the preceding verse “7” which Jesus carried out in the New Testament……Showing and proving Jesus was/IS the God of the Old Testament. (Compare with Matt 11:5)

If Semantics were wrongly interpreted to fabricate false claim, do you honestly believe God would not be that petty?
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

Moaning a bloody prayer to God without saying His name correct is not “vain” to God. Taking His name in vain is swearing falsely by God’s name. But any kind of praying to God in honest prayer is never taking God’s name in vain, even if you say His name wrong (Which we ALL do, since we don’t know His name, only His name taken for mankind to know, which is Jesus).
This is why converts are baptized in the name of “the Lord Jesus” because He is God:
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Look up in a concordance the many different times the phrase “in the name of” appears in the New Testament….Jesus is almost always the name it is referring too. Jesus is GOD. What God? The YHWH God.

If god cannot die, then crucifixion and ressurection were lies or pointless. Don't you think so?
But you claim god cannot die. By becoming flesh, god is feigning death or deceiving. Do you claim dead human god is deceiving us into believing salvation?

God cannot die, but His body can, and His body laid in the tomb for 3 days and nights. But His Spirit went to Hell (paradise) and laid our sins there and then His Spirit came back up and went into His body and He arose. His body died, but a Spirit cannot die. He then went to Heaven and presented His body a living sacrifice for the redemption of all the world’s sins. God accepted it, thank God.
As we all know, “you” are not your body. “You” or your essence, your thoughts, your inner man, is not flesh, but is spirit and soul. And spirit cannot die. When we die, our bodies die, but our essence/soul never dies, just goes to a holding place (Heaven for saved, Hell((jail cell)) for the lost) until God returns and gives us new bodies that will never die, thus “eternal” life.

Jesus made a lot of parables and allegories, did he not? There are a lot of bible verses but none has sufficient evidences to support the believe that Jesus is god. Do you agree, the doctrine of Jesus as God is not universally agreed even among the various christian denominations? Do you agree Jesus did not come to teach us? Do you believe this;?

There are MANY verses that show Jesus is God. Another topic perhaps? And I disagree about Jesus being God is not universally accepted. I contend it most certainly is accepted amoung the VAST majority that Jesus is God. But this matter is not in debate, this can easily be shown with any type of internet search. Almost all Christians sects believe Jesus to be God. Only devils and wicked spirits believe Jesus is not God:
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Also….being the “Christ” or Messiah, meant you were “Jehovah God” by the way. They are one in the same.:
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Do you agree "godhead" did not exist in "Old Latin", Masoretic, Textus Receptus as well in Hebrew Tanakh? Do you agree the term "godhere" was coined by John Wycliffe to translate three different Koine Greek words?
en.m.wikipedia.org...

I’ll look into it, sounds fun.

You claim Jesus is God. Please explain what do you mean by "SEPARATION from God". How can God "could no longer look on Jesus" when God is Jesus?

God separated His being. God and Man are both composed of BODY, SOUL, and SPIRIT. Animals only have spirits and body. Devils only have spirit, and souls which is why the yare always trying to take over another body to dwell in (demon possession). But man has all three, like GOD, after His “IMAGE”. The spirit powers and gives life to the soul, the soul dwells in the body like a garment or clothing. God simply separated these three aspects.
This is the doctrine of the Trinity. When Jesus took the sins of the world unto His body, His flesh, then God the Father (the Soul) turned away from Him because of Habakkuk 1:13. Believe this if you want, it’s a little much to take in, I know!
LORD = Father
JESUS = SON
CHRIST = Holy Spirit
thus…………………thus the LORD JESUS CHRIST; the full Godhead.

a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

But you claim god cannot dies. Therefore, all this suffering was orchestrated hoax to deceit us into believing salvation. The sacrificial lamb was not sacrificed as intended. The sin had not been paid by blood. There was no ressurection because God never die. Do you aware such implication if God did not sacrificing himself as he promised? Surely you can't expect Christian to trust in salvation when God did not deliver his promise, because he is still alive and well in heaven?

I explained this earlier in this post. NO ONE truly dies…..only our flesh dies from the effect and consequences of sin. For the wages of sin is death you know….So when Jesus took all our sin, He had to pay the price for the sin, His body had to take the beatings, the spear, the whips, the thorns, the fists, the thirst, all the terrible aspect of the crucifixion.
But since He took that pain and suffering for us, we can now trust in His death, (consequences for sins), His burial (payment for sins) and His resurrection (promise of receipt for our sins). Do you understand this? This is the “Gospel” of the grace of God, the Good news that God has paid your debt and offers you a clear pardon. We just have to accept it.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Every single bible college and university with a course on the New Testament disagrees with you.. You didn’t debunk anything.. You just said “nah uh”. There are ZERO people who are actually employed as scholars who think there is anything like a word for word correct account of even the original books.. let almond actual history..

1 Kings 18:19 Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel's table.

All the "prophets" against one man and his "crazy" position and faith in God

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

the "many" are the ones that corrupt God's words, not the "few".

God always uses the small crowd, not the large doubters.

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
The Textus Receptus is grammatically correct in the use of Erasmus’s "created” word, and the critical texts of Westtcot and Hort (from which all new bible translation filth flows) is grammatically incorrect.
Erasmus’s “created” word is nothing more than a synonym to fit the text better. Other examples would be words like grey-gray or defence-defense. There is no error, it was simply a synonym for an existing greek word, but Scrivener would never tell you that .

Do you agree Erasmus ( just like Martin Luther ) had neither qualified( as an apostle or prophet ) nor justified to change existing God's words through his "created synonym"? Do you agree, Erasmus had defy Jesus command to preserve the words?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
I mean the cursives, the vellum, the scraps of parchments that the church had used and believed which WAS the Textus receptus but just not in coined name yet. The evidences from which the “TR” text comes from is older than the complied completed TR manuscripts you know…..and the “old Latin” is part of the Textus receptus. Jeromes’s Vulgate is most certainly not.

All Latin Bible papyrus, cursives, vellums and fragments have been properly identified and catalogued. Could you point out which "Old Latin", Non-Septuaguart and vulgate Latin papyri, cursives, vellums and fragments Textus Receptus was based on? You also deny "Old Latin" as Vectus Latina which both Orthodox and Catholics had used before Jerome's Vulgate. So what "Old Latin" are you referring to?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Old Latin did not come from the Septuagint, ever. The only evidence at all of the Septuagint is from 200AD, that’s over 200 years AFTER Christ was born. There is no evidences that the Old Latin came from Septuagint, matter of fact, the Septuagint probably came from the Old Latin, the exact other way around. Both statements have the same amount of proof.

You already deny "Old Latin" as Vectus Latina. I have no idea what other old Latin parchments, vellum, cursives or papyri are you talking about. Could you provide better identification of what this "Old Latin" or "not yet coined as TR" is? Could you point their proper Identification? For example, Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27) and The Greek New Testament (UBS4). ( These are old Latin sources belong to Vectus Latina.)

There was no Latin or Greek translation before Septuagint. Septuagint LXX was the first and only direct translation from Hebrew Tanakh.

A. The Greek Bible in Latin (Old Latin)

1. Origin. During the first centuries of Christian expansion, the vernacular language of the Mediterranean world was mainly Greek, even in the West. The books of the OT were read in the early Christian churches according to the LXX and the NT in Greek. When the necessity arose—as early as the 2d century in Roman Africa—the Bible was translated into Latin from the Greek. In many places,Tertullian (ca. 160–220) used a Latin version already at his disposal, certain peculiarities of which remained throughout the history of the Latin Bible.
www.spc.rs...

Septuagint erroneous nature mainly due to bad translations and copyist errors. That is why further translations, commentaries or footnotes by early church fathers were required.

Or are you referring to Non Hebrew Tanakh sources such as New Testament and Apocrypha?

List of New Testament Latin manuscripts. Could you point out which ones you claimed as "Old Latin TR"?
en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
The apostles all used Greek, not Aramaic, nor did Jesus speak Aramaic in the gospels. This is ALL hearsay and traditions of (catholic) men. Earlier I stated the catholic church needs the gospels in Aramaic in order to prove Peter is the “ROCK”, because the word Peter in Aramaic is ROCK, but in greek Peter's name is STONE. Rock is the word used for the coming Messiah in the Old Testament. (Deau 32:31 Ps 62:7 Ps 18:2 1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. etc...)

Are you referring to Koine Greek New Testaments? Please keep in mind, I mainly refer to the Old Testaments translations and the early churches here. ( I was tracking down the earliest sources as possible to determined the autograph ).We will discuss New Testament source and KJV as "God Preserved Word" in due time, because they were collected differently from Old Testaments. And it is not an easy subject considering too many heresies, controversies, etc. But for now, just limited our views with Old Testament since it only source is easy, the Hebrew Tanakh. Do you agree?

My previous question was referring to Hebrew Tanakh ( Old Testament ). Jesus and the apostles were Jews. Therefore, as Jews they would traditionally study Hebrew Tanakh. Do you agree neither Jesus, nor the apostles did any translations to Hebrew Tanakh ( Old Testament )? The Old Testaments for the gentiles were mainly Septuagiant LXX, the only Greek translation available at that time, until Early Churches decided to go for "Old Latin" and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. ( Bear in mind, there were no Catholics or Protestant or Orthodox Churches at that time. Therefore this was not yet an issue with KJV. There were no issue with translations, errors and gnoticism in Jesus time. The only issue was Jesus using Hebrew Tanakh, Old Testament to introduce new covenant. Although, the common would spoke and wrote in koine Greek, Jesus as a Jews was addressing the Jews with Jews traditions. Therefore, it is most likely Jesus would used his native Hebrew and Aramaic to his fellows Jews, instead of Koine Greek. But we will touch the Act of Apostles and their involvement with the gentiles later.)

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
and yes, I am claiming the KJV is BETTER than the original manuscripts and autographs. We can get into that later.

You would believe KJV authors more than the original sayings of Jesus, the prophets and the apostles, Yet you can't verify anything from the sources? How can you be so sure, KJV is better than the autograph when you know we don't have one? Did God tell you to have faith in KJV? Did God tell you that he preserved his word through KJV? Did God tell you to have faith in fictional man-word unicorns and dragons? Or to have faith in Martin Luther and Erasmus faulty works which continues in KJV even to this days? Did god tell you that he "preserved" his not-perfect word by editing KJV twice?

Two editions were printed in 1611, later distinguished as the “He” and “She” Bibles because of the variant readings “he” and “she” in the final clause of Ruth 3:15 (“and he went into the city”). Some errors in subsequent editions have become famous.

www.britannica.com...

Do you idolize KJV? Do you aware it is forbidden to worship others than God?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Well, I mean….Ex 3:14 is STILL a wild card and not many people know what to do with it. Because God’s name is not “I AM”, nor is it all the many pro-nouns that are used to describe Him like those listed in Isa 9:6. From what I can tell from reading various sources, we do not know the name of God, nor how to pronounce His abbreviated Hebrew consonant only initials He goes by (YHWH) Thus the KJV translators made the only HONEST translational attempt at it by just calling Him LORD.

Fair enough. Although this would undoubtly leaves holes to interpreting the meaning of English Word, "LORD".

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
When the time comes in your life when you really need to hear from God of really need His help, God does not care what you call Him.
Luke 23:42 may prove it.

Jesus said,"Remember me" can be interpreted in several different meanings, such a remember his physical appearance, his teaching or his name. It doesn't prove anything.

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Moaning a bloody prayer to God without saying His name correct is not “vain” to God. Taking His name in vain is swearing falsely by God’s name. But any kind of praying to God in honest prayer is never taking God’s name in vain, even if you say His name wrong (Which we ALL do, since we don’t know His name, only His name taken for mankind to know, which is Jesus).
This is why converts are baptized in the name of “the Lord Jesus” because He is God:
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Look up in a concordance the many different times the phrase “in the name of” appears in the New Testament….Jesus is almost always the name it is referring too. Jesus is GOD. What God? The YHWH God.

This is the problem of "godhead" or trinity. But we will touch that later.

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
God cannot die, but His body can, and His body laid in the tomb for 3 days and nights. But His Spirit went to Hell (paradise) and laid our sins there and then His Spirit came back up and went into His body and He arose. His body died, but a Spirit cannot die. He then went to Heaven and presented His body a living sacrifice for the redemption of all the world’s sins. God accepted it, thank God.

See? That is the problem. Not only God allow his flesh and spirit to be tainted by earthly sin on cross, his flesh died twice meaninglessly. The end result is still the same. God never dies.
Not to mention, this death only saved very few people, "for many are called, but few are chosen" Matthew 22:14
It makes little sense to the doctrine of Divinity, Immortality and Supremacy Almighty God.

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
There are MANY verses that show Jesus is God. Another topic perhaps? And I disagree about Jesus being God is not universally accepted. I contend it most certainly is accepted amoung the VAST majority that Jesus is God. But this matter is not in debate, this can easily be shown with any type of internet search. Almost all Christians sects believe Jesus to be God. Only devils and wicked spirits believe Jesus is not God:
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Do you aware, all this verses were from John ONLY? Do you aware Mark, Matthew and Luke view Jesus divinity differently? Since the OP is about Bart Ehrman, I will quote him instead.

But more than that, in doing my research and thinking harder and harder about the issue, when I (a) came to realize that the Gospels not only attributed these things to him, but also understood him to be adopted as the Son of God at his baptism (Mark 1:9-11), or to have been made the son of God by virtue of the fact that God was literally his father, in that it was the Spirit of God that made the virgin Mary pregnant (Luke 1:35), and (b) realized what “adoption” meant to people in the Roman world (as indicated in a previous post), I finally yielded. These Gospels do indeed think of Jesus as divine. Being made the very Son of God who can heal, cast out demons, raise the dead, pronounce divine forgiveness, receive worship together suggests that even for these Gospels Jesus was a divine being, not merely a human.

But in a different sense from John. (And in a different sense from one another.)

In some ways, much of my book is predicated on the idea that when someone says that Jesus is God, you always have to ask “in what sense?” John’s sense is different from Mark’s and Mark’s is different from Luke’s and Luke’s is different from Paul’s and so on.

For Mark, Jesus was adopted to be God’s son at his baptism. Before that, he was a mere mortal. For Luke, Jesus was conceived by God and so was literally God’s son, from the point of his conception. (In Luke Jesus did not exist *prior* to that conception to the virgin – his conception is when he came into existence). For John, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being – the Word of God who was both with God and was God at the beginning of all things – who became a human. Here he is not born of a virgin and he is not adopted by God at the baptism (neither event is narrated in John – and could not be, given, John’s Christology).

So yes, now I agree that Jesus is portrayed as a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels. But in very different ways, depending on which Gospel you read.
ehrmanblog.org...

Do you acknowledge The Father, the son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons? Do you aware modalism and Arianism are both deemed as heretical?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
God separated His being. God and Man are both composed of BODY, SOUL, and SPIRIT. Animals only have spirits and body. Devils only have spirit, and souls which is why the yare always trying to take over another body to dwell in (demon possession). But man has all three, like GOD, after His “IMAGE”. The spirit powers and gives life to the soul, the soul dwells in the body like a garment or clothing. God simply separated these three aspects.
This is the doctrine of the Trinity. When Jesus took the sins of the world unto His body, His flesh, then God the Father (the Soul) turned away from Him because of Habakkuk 1:13. Believe this if you want, it’s a little much to take in, I know!
LORD = Father
JESUS = SON
CHRIST = Holy Spirit
thus…………………thus the LORD JESUS CHRIST; the full Godhead.

Do you believe Jesus is the begotten son of god, or do you believe Jesus is all the three persons you mentioned above? If Jesus is the full godhead, then what is the point of triune gods or trinity or "godhead"? You may as well claim Jesus is the only god. But you can't claim that either, can you?

a reply to: EasternShadow

Guessing english isn't your first language...

Good post though... let me help

DO You aware... is not english... "Are you aware" would be correct...

And let me also point out that Jesus was only considered "God" in Johns book... not in any of the Synoptic gospels

A divine being perhaps, but not God... and IF one actually reads his words in Johns book, and not the narrative, HE didn't consider himself God either

a reply to: Akragon

Then he was the best damn actor the planets ever seen, 5 Billion and counting.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Im sorry.... what?

a reply to: Akragon

His acting was phenominal.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

lol... what did he act like?

Or did you see a play which featured Jesus?

And what about 5 billion?

a reply to: Akragon

Like other actors on the stage of life. They dance to the rhythm of hypocrisy and subliminal defect.

5 Billion, is that all?

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Sure...

Have another one for me...

Cheers!

a reply to: Akragon

lol ok I shall.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: EasternShadow

Guessing english isn't your first language...

Good post though... let me help

DO You aware... is not english... "Are you aware" would be correct...

And let me also point out that Jesus was only considered "God" in Johns book... not in any of the Synoptic gospels

A divine being perhaps, but not God... and IF one actually reads his words in Johns book, and not the narrative, HE didn't consider himself God either

Thanks, I always confused with English grammar between "Do" and "Are" in question form.

I always feel there're something not right with John's narrative.
I have no problem accepting Jesus sayings in John's account. It just the way John narrated the event is extremely weird. The first time I read John 1-1, I already feel something strange. I'm not sure how to describe it. It's like a thundering flash, a feeling like reading Arius's account and I've been there before. And it's not right. I can't prove it and it makes me feel weak and hopeless.

I don't like John narrative, but not all of them are wrong. Jesus did said what he said according to John, especially regarding, "Before Abraham, I AM..." Jesus said it loudly that the Pharisees wanted to stone him and it stunned me greatly. ( But Jesus later clarified his meaning, so the Pharisees dismissed this misunderstanding and we continue to do our daily routines. To us, Yeshua bar Yosef, was always a troublemaker ever since he was cleansed through mikveh by Yochanan. ) It feel like I've been there before, witnessing everything! I'm not sure if it was something from dreams or other side effect. I never recall any of my dreams. But meh, just ignore my comments. Probably the coffee and thinking too much alter my consciousness when I write this post.

Thanks for correcting my grammar.

a reply to: EasternShadow

But you claim god cannot dies. Therefore, all this suffering was orchestrated hoax to deceit us into believing salvation. The sacrificial lamb was not sacrificed as intended. The sin had not been paid by blood. There was no resurrection because God never die. Do you aware such implication if God did not sacrificing himself as he promised? Surely you can't expect Christian to trust in salvation when God did not deliver his promise, because he is still alive and well in heaven?

You are understanding death in your own understanding and not in God's teaching through His apostles. There is one certain death of the terrestrial body of all terrestrial creation. That includes inanimate as well as animate creation. Then there is another possible death of the spirit. The Christ Jesus did not make it possible for us to live forever in this terrestrial body but did make it possible for us to live forever in a new celestial body.

You are correct in that God did not die but then you may be mistaken when you state that Jesus did not die the terrestrial death. All biblical accounts do verify that Jesus' terrestrial body did die and that He was restored to His former status as the celestial image of God. If Jesus did die how did He die for your sins? This is where most all Christians are not taught the fullness of why Jesus came to us in the first place.

It all starts when sin was introduced in the creation. The entire creation was then cursed and sentenced to die. This included even the very universe and all that is in it. As people died their spirits were contained or imprisoned in this earth which is called Sheol [by the Hebrews]. No terrestrial creation was allowed in the heavens of the Creator up to and including the time of Jesus. All spirits were kept in Sheol.

God knew that the day would come when the entire terrestrial creation would be completely dissolved . It would not last forever. If this creation would not last forever then what would happen to the good people who were in Sheol? Would the good spirits be dissolved along with the bad spirits? This is where God intervened and, through His Begotten Son, became flesh to deliver the good spirits out of Sheol and establish His kingdom in heaven so that all good spirits could enjoy everlasting life.

How then did Jesus do this? Jesus brought grace [repentance of sin] for those who would accept this new agreement. By accepting this agreement the sinner could then enter into the celestial abode and receive a new celestial body and live forever as a citizen of New Jerusalem. This New Jerusalem is the kingdom of heaven which Jesus preached during His ministry. This is the mission that God sent His Begotten Son to accomplish and this is why it is said that Jesus came to forgive your sins. It was not a blanket forgiveness for people who went to a church and joined the club or any other sort of
organization who claimed whatsoever they wished to proclaim. It was [and still is] a personal agreement between each individual and the Father through Jesus.

Regardless of belief, the apostles taught that Jesus did die a terrestrial death to bring salvation of everlasting life to this creation. But this dwarfed into a blanket misconception and greatly misunderstood conception. No one gets a free pass because Jesus died on a cross. Each person of accountability must accept Jesus' offer of everlasting life on Jesus' premise and not on any sort of organization liturgy or doctrine of men. This is the true Christian teachings of James [brother of Jesus].

a reply to: Raggedyman

An interesting thread regarding Erhman.
I have referred to him often. And regard
his academic persona as a front. I have
to question the public image he portrays.
Loss of faith, turned atheist, but will not
deny Christ? With the reasons given as
we see here arguable at best? The
suffering and evil in the world got him
all hung up? When even I can site reason?
And recognise it's on us not him as layed
in an easily understood account in Genesis?
God himself incarnates putting himself at
the mercy of carnel knowledge to suffer
with us and a scholar lacks understanding
that? And this guy doesn't just affirm
Christs existence. He regards the crucifixion
as undeniable as well. All that but no faith?
Or is he avoiding ridicule in an academic
world over run by secularism?