Bart Ehrman?

a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

You can keep your book, Jesus has me
Cheers

originally posted by: babloyi
The problem is, as others have mentioned, without the Bible, there is no Jesus.

We still have non canon bible, manuscripts and codexes. Even, the gnostic writers of Dea Sea Scrolls did mentioned Jesus few time. Also there is very few historical letters from secular authors. We just have to keep digging up for ancient relics. Historical Jesus will not simply cease to exist. Time will not easily erase Historical Jesus from memories.

originally posted by: babloyi
And if the Bible, as you too admit, is corrupted or contradictory, then how can we trust what it has to say about Jesus?

It has never been a problem to christian before. Why should it be problem now?

originally posted by: babloyi
Certainly, one could agree that the concept of idolising the Bible would be wrong, but one would still need a trustworthy

Yes we can agree on this.

Trustworthy bible may not be found on the surface, due to languages, cultural and age constraints. It may be found in a very hard way through study and research.

a reply to: babloyi

Without the bible there is no Jesus but we have the bible,me have it

We need the bible, I am not arguing we don't, just because there are minor errors it doesn't in my opinion negate the whole bible. As the 2 of us are 1 said, the core teaching doesn't change, never said it was wrong, just a few minor errors that are mostly irrelevant

The core message is Jesus, us loving God, loving others, it's very clear. People are complaining about some strange issues that effect nothing related to the core message

Believe what you want

a reply to: EasternShadow

We do have the bible, it exists so the point is moot.
Otherwise you are spot on, it needs to be studied and understood
Faith in Christ has grown based on the word and Spirit, even if I believe the word isn't perfect.
Jesus is

a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

The KJV Bible has never been proven to have errors in it. And I promise you, I will not use any useless "original greek" or hebrew to answer your errors you post, I will use the KJV Bible alone. All new english translations have tons of errors in them, but not the King James Authorized Version.

There are issues between Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew that if considered you will find it hard to keep your position . ie

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yeah we're doing this in an old thread of mine...

a reply to: EasternShadow

I was going to rebut some of your comments, but I don't know where to begin really. I'm assuming english is not your first language so I will show you some grace. Almost all remarks you made were in reference to statements I made speaking in sarcasm, or taken out of context wholly and completely to a level that defies english grammar. Not sure if you're real...or just be trolling...

But you did make me smile with this display of nonsensical squabble. Please do re-read my post and try to interpret it better. I would be happy to answer any real questions you had about the Bible though.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

There are issues between Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew that if considered you will find it hard to keep your position . ie

Sadly, I don't think you really know what you are talking about here, respectfully (really not trying to be mean here). you see.......the Masoretic text (Old Testament) we can talk about....the "original hebrew" though...well, we have a problem:; I'll wait right here, please go get me a copy of the original Hebrew so we can compare and contrast.

(i'll give you a hint, it doesn't exist.....)

P.s. I have copies of Tischendorf's codex Sinaiticus, an english verision of the (fake) greek septuagint, three different interlinear bibles (for this very argument incredibly enough, and they all contradict each other in multiple places), Zodhiates's hebrew and greek study bible, not to mention hard copies of Strong's, Crudens, and Young's concordances.

THERE ARE NO HEBREW ORIGINALS any where, period. Same for greek originals.

a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

If I’m right they don’t think their was an original Hebrew..

I’m pretty sure they think the first actual books written down were in Greek. That the Bible was oral tradition for 50ish years then you have mark surface and a couple others that don’t survive like “Q”.

A couple decades later Luke and Matthew pop up..

Then John.. then the Pauline’s letters begin to start being used as cannon.

In less than a hundred years it became a VAST majority Roman religion and the numbers of Jews who joined was minimal.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

What makes you think it was a Romam religion, how did it serve Rome
In fact the bible teaches nothing like Roman rule

Care to explain that, think about if first I suggest before answering

I have read so many times people say it's a Roman religion but never heard a decent explanation as to why

Maybe a thread coming on

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
I would be happy to answer any real questions you had about the Bible though.

Then I'll try to use short simpler english structure.

Did you said this?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
And I promise you, I will not use any useless "original greek" or hebrew to answer your errors you post,

By "original Greek" and Hebrew, I assume you mean Greek Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic?


What is AKJV's source(s)?

When was AKJV's first published?

Did first century christian read AKJV?

Did Mark, Luke, Matthew and John authorize the use of AKJV?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
I'll challenge your post; sure, Bart is an idiot, but he is right to believe if the Bible has errors in it then God is a liar and we cannot have any faith at all in the Bible, or in Jesus Christ either for that matter, considering the only way you know about Jesus Christ at all is because of......the Bible!!!!

Did you said if the Bible has errors in it then God is a liar?

Did you said this?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
All new english translations have tons of errors in them,

Are you admitting the Bible has error?

Are all new English translations not the Bible?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
but not the King James Authorized Version.

Do you claim AKJV is free from error?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
There are two creation accounts, you are right. Just like there are 4 gospel 1st advent accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), 4 2nd advent accounts in the boo of Revelations, 2 accounts of the giving of the law (Exodus and Deuteronomy) 6 accounts of the Kings and history of Israel, and they all write from their own perspective. They complement each other, they do not copy each other, that would have defeated the whole purpose of God allowing multiple different accounts of the events.

Did you said the accounts complement each other?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
What if the part about Jesus being God is an error?

Do you claim Jesus is God?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
A simple man dying for me 2000 years ago does nothing for my eternal soul.

Do you claim Jesus was a simple man?

I let you answer all the above questions first. Keep in mind, I'm typing from mobile phone ( non-english language setting ) with auto correction on. So, it sometimes mess up with my spelling and words.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Because in less than a hundred years it was mainly Romans lol..

The Jewish followers of jesus thought he would be resurrected during their life times..

So when that didn’t happen after 60-80 years the majority of the Jewish followers went back to Judaism..


Plus there was the Pauline tradition of rejecting the Old Testament laws, which didn’t surface until the time of Paul.. 30-50 years after the crucifixion. Which turned off most of the Jewish converts, but the Romans who no longer needed to get circumcised to join loved it... it didn’t matter to the people born Jews because they were already used to those laws..


But most importantly and I guess as evidence for my parroted claim (sure wasn’t me who did the scholarly work lol) the gospels become anti-Semitic..

You can trace how much “blame” the Jewish people deserve for the crucifixion, relative to how much blame the Romans deserved..

For mark, the earliest book, the Romans were to blame and the Jews were bystandards.. by the time John was written the bad guys were the Jewish people..

We know the order the gospels were written in, and you can tell the Romans morph from the main antagonists to the Jews being the main antagonists and the Romans are excused by the Barrabus ordeal.

a reply to: Raggedyman

“Give unto ceaser what is ceasers” Maybe lol....

How about “slaves obey your masters as if ordered to by Christ himself”...


There are dozens of pro-Roman/government New Testament verses..

So many that a minority of scholars think the Romans created/edited Christian doctorine..


The main stream opinion on why a softer less rebellion oriented Judaism and Christianity emerges at that time. Is because the Romans killed everyone with more militant views..


This isn’t unknowable stuff like “were the gospels written by or from eye witnesses?”...


The earliest books cast the Romans as the bad guys, the later additions cast the Jews as the villains..

Why??

Because mark was written when the average Christian was a Jewish convert and the later books were written after it was predominately Roman religion.

Only you Josh could make such a mess of the simple....

Can you tell me why you say it's a Roman cult, how did it serve Rome

Or is that your answer, because it was mainly in Rome, in fact it wasn't mainly in Rome, Rome adopted it to control people and then perverted Christianity by using it as a tool to wage war

Where are the gospels anti Semitic, your theology again? Or someone else told you, sure doesn't seem you did any scholarly work...again

Circumcision, Jews, Romans, what???
Pretty sure I asked you to put a bit of thought into your reply, it's just foolish nonsense

We know the order of the gospels, really, evidence for that?

Jesus never tried to fight the Romans, ever, never tried to start a rebellion, they were never the antagonists, the religious were

You are just so full of nothing valid Josh, nothing intelligent about this subject at all

a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's a pity you think you understand something about this, because you don't

Render to ceaser your money because it is his image, render yourself to God because you are made in Gods image. That's what Jesus was telling the faithfull, nothing to do with money and Rome

Sorry Josh, you havnt a clue and your comments are invalid wild guesses, to justify your silly comments

a reply to: EasternShadow


originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
I would be happy to answer any real questions you had about the Bible though.

Did you said this?:
And I promise you, I will not use any useless "original greek" or hebrew to answer your errors you post, By "original Greek" and Hebrew, I assume you mean Greek Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic?

Thank you for your very kind and well organized reply. The purpose of that comment was to say I will answer questions with the ENGLISH text of the Bible, not with the Greek Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic. (both are hebrew texts). You see, most Christians try and explain away conflicts in the Bible by using the mythical "original autographs" but there is no such thing. They just don't know that, honest mistakes.

What is AKJV's source(s)?

The KJV's source is the Hebrew Masoretic, and the Textus Receptus ("received text" or Majority Text: meaning the vast majority of the scraps of manuscripts and oldest (we have over 8000) were used for the New Testament translation in the KJV)

When was AKJV's first published?

1611AD

Did first century christian read AKJV?

No. They used the 8000+ pieces I talked about earlier.

Did Mark, Luke, Matthew and John authorize the use of AKJV?

No.

Did you said if the Bible has errors in it then God is a liar?

Yes, absolutely. And God is a weak, frail, handicapped fool if He was not able to preserve His words perfectly just like He would want us to have them for His own children. God can create a billion galaxies, and trillions of giant Suns, but apparently He is too weak to keep a book error free. The arrogance of bible scholars is pathetic.

Did you said this? : All new english translations have tons of errors in them,

Yes, ALL new english bibles are filled with errors. Not the KJV though.

Are you admitting the Bible has error? Are all new English translations not the Bible?

Only new english bibles. And of course, any new bible in other languages as well that used the same manuscript evidence that the new bibles used (pieces of litteral trash like the Sinaiti"cuss" ((found in a trash can by Constantin von Tischendorf because it was already filled with errors)) , Vaticanus, the Septuagint, Alexandrinus, etc.)

Do you claim AKJV is free from error?

Yes, without shame. Happily and confidently.

Did you said the accounts complement each other?

All the multiple listed accounts in the Bible for any event all compliment each other and gives different perspectives on the event. Sort of like how movies or Sport reviews (instant replays) give you different camera angles so you can be confident of the outcome. God did the same for you with the multiple accounts giving.

Do you claim Jesus is God?

Yes. He did too. (and don't be ignorant and say He didn't)

A simple man dying for me 2000 years ago does nothing for my eternal soul.
Do you claim Jesus was a simple man?

Yes, and if just a MAN simply died for me, that would do nothing for my soul, or yours. But if God Himself died for me, and paid the price I owe for sinning (death) then offers me redemption in full, then that would save my soul from Hell. This is the gospel. Jesus Christ lived a simple life as a man, but He was GOD in the flesh. The flesh or body of Jesus was just a vessel that held God Himself. Without that vessel, anyone who got near Him would have burnt up instantly like getting to close to the Sun, or like when God appeared on Mount Sinai (burning fire of power).

a reply to: Raggedyman

A) at the end of the first century it was a religion for Roman peasants.. not the mainstream aristocracy.. that takes another couple centuries..

It was a Roman cult Because unlike its first iteration the vast majority of the Christian church’s members were not born of Jewish ancestry.

They were pagan converts.


That is why there are not many early Christian documents in Hebrew. They are mainly in Greek, because they were not written in Hebrew in the first place.


Paul’s letters shed light on the transition, because he is obviously arguing with another faction that is saying they should all be converting to Judaism..

The modern Jews believe he was arguing with James, jesus’s Brother. .. that Paul represented the younger generation who wanted to separate from Judaism.

I’m not sure where they get that tradition from exactly, but it comes up fairly often in Jews vs Christians debates.



B) The first century Jews were constantly starting rebellions and their messiah prophecy is specifically centered on “freeing the Jews from bondage”.. the Jews were in bondage to Rome..

The Jews were constantly at war with Rome, leading to the destruction of the temple in like 70ad..

This crackdown was incredibly brutal and basically everyone who wouldn’t play ball was murdered.. whole cities and such..


The Romans specifically targeted religious centers and burned or confiscated all the Jewish/Christian texts..

It is thought the Dead Sea scrolls were buried to save them from one of the purges.. maybe everyone who knew where they were was murdered..

The history that survives to us today, concerning Judaism and Christianity starts here..

According to Josephus, 1.1 million non-combatants died in Jerusalem[1] and 100,000 in Galilee. He also tells us that 97,000 were enslaved.[1] Matthew White, The Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2012) p.52,[2] estimates the combined death toll[clarification needed] for the First and Third Roman Jewish Wars as being approximately 350,000

a reply to: JoshuaCox

a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

If I’m right they don’t think their was an original Hebrew.. I’m pretty sure they think the first actual books written down were in Greek. That the Bible was oral tradition for 50ish years then you have mark surface and a couple others that don’t survive like “Q”.

"Q" is also a hypothetical myth to try and explain the differences between the Synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John. There is another manuscript hinted at as well by the scholars called "X". All of these guess works are nothing more than an inferred explanation for supposed errors in the gospels, and they use an inductive method of reasoning to go about this sloppy guess work and claim it is scholarly. Mark is supposedly copied from these nonexistent ghosts called Q and X, and they say Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. Prove for this? Don't be silly, there is no proof. Try and find it.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

A) at the end of the first century it was a religion for Roman peasants.. not the mainstream aristocracy.. that takes another couple centuries..

It was a Roman cult Because unlike its first iteration the vast majority of the Christian church’s members were not born of Jewish ancestry.

They were pagan converts.


That is why there are not many early Christian documents in Hebrew. They are mainly in Greek, because they were not written in Hebrew in the first place.


Paul’s letters shed light on the transition, because he is obviously arguing with another faction that is saying they should all be converting to Judaism..

The modern Jews believe he was arguing with James, jesus’s Brother. .. that Paul represented the younger generation who wanted to separate from Judaism.

I’m not sure where they get that tradition from exactly, but it comes up fairly often in Jews vs Christians debates.



B) The first century Jews were constantly starting rebellions and their messiah prophecy is specifically centered on “freeing the Jews from bondage”.. the Jews were in bondage to Rome..

The Jews were constantly at war with Rome, leading to the destruction of the temple in like 70ad..

This crackdown was incredibly brutal and basically everyone who wouldn’t play ball was murdered.. whole cities and such..


The Romans specifically targeted religious centers and burned or confiscated all the Jewish/Christian texts..

It is thought the Dead Sea scrolls were buried to save them from one of the purges.. maybe everyone who knew where they were was murdered..

The history that survives to us today, concerning Judaism and Christianity starts here..

According to Josephus, 1.1 million non-combatants died in Jerusalem[1] and 100,000 in Galilee. He also tells us that 97,000 were enslaved.[1] Matthew White, The Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2012) p.52,[2] estimates the combined death toll[clarification needed] for the First and Third Roman Jewish Wars as being approximately 350,000

Yeah right, you obviously know nothing about what you are talking about

Better get one of those scholars who told you what to think to help you out, hope they are not a flat earther, just in case you believe that as well, be careful

a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

The New Testament authors quote old testament sources at the time which in more cases then not agree with the dead sea scrolls as well as some versions of the Septuagint . As far as witnesses go 2 or more go against the Masoretic Text and even Jesus in quoting from Isaiah adds "and give sight to the blind which is not in the Masoretic text but is in the dead sea scroll of Isaiah . which are a thousand years older . Huston we have a problem .