Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Certainly not a scholarly consensus..




As I've said for years, it would be pretty hard for Mr. Erhman to get his Doctorate if his dissertation were titled "Why Historical Scholarship Is Correct", by Bart Erhman

a reply to: NOTurTypical

How would you know? Have you actually listened to what he has said or are you basing it off the video you just posted?

FYI soon as I posted I hit play and I am listening to the lecture in the background it is only 20 minutes in so I am leaning towards you haven't heard what he has to say on it.

Unless you watched the video some other time before but I doubt it.

BTW as I told you before he got his doctorate back in the early 80s so your point isn't much of a point.

a reply to: Grimpachi

How would you know? Have you actually listened to what he has said or are you basing it off the video you just posted?

I've read "Misquoting Jesus", I've seen that particular lecture, and I've seen numerous debates. Even Bart's former mentor, the late Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, was highly critical of his former protege's work. His biggest mistake is considering older texts to the better/more accurate.

He seems to not realize that those texts survived intact longer because they weren't being heavily used. That's why we keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights kept under special glass... so they weather the test of time.

BTW as I told you before he got his doctorate back in the early 80s so your point isn't much of a point.

I never commented that his doctorate was a recent acquisition. :-/

a reply to: Grimpachi

Unless you watched the video some other time before but I doubt it.

I've read the BOOK. lol

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Oh so the reasoning is they survived because they were not used as much.

You seem to miss one of the biggest arguments he has. Texts being changed after time being copied one to another.

Are you suggesting the gospels found in bibles today are closer to the original than copies dated closest to when the originals were made.

If so have fun with those mental gymnastics.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Im not personally a fan of Dr Metzger because of his belief in this heptadic structure theory... I think its a load, but that is my opinion... and I believe I've read that it has been debunked numerous times by actual mathmaticians...

And I also agree that older is better... Older means closer to the source... Just because it wasn't used does not discount the possibility that said texts were hidden away because of people in the church seeking out and destroying anything that disagreed with the theology they wanted taught

IF older is not better, Half the New testament is out the window... I think Metzger didn't like Dr.Ehrman's theories because he didn't think of them first... and simply came up with a weak excuse to debunk them

a reply to: Grimpachi

Oh so the reasoning is they survived because they were not used as much.

Yes. Precisely correct. And especially for works of antiquity that are made of paper. It's true for anything from history, the more it is handled and used the more it deteriorates.

a reply to: Akragon

Im not personally a fan of Dr Metzger because of his belief in this heptadic structure theory... I think its a load, but that is my opinion...

That's your choice, but math is math. But besides that, that has nothing to do with his scholarship or his education and professional career. Let's not forget he was Ehrman's mentor, not vice versa.

and I believe I've read that it has been debunked numerous times by actual mathmaticians

It's a "security code/fingerprint" of the author. If 1 letter is altered it all falls apart. The reasons why skeptics reject it isn't because of math, anyone can do addition, multiplication, and probability. The reason why it's rejected by some is that they reject the only manuscript it works with, the Textus Receptus MSS.

a reply to: Akragon

When I say he preferred "older MSS" you do realize I'm saying the older COMPLETE manuscripts correct?? There are fragments much older than the Alexandrian codecies and they align with the Textus Recetus(Syrian MSS), not the Alexandrian.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Akragon

I could add what some people here seems to be unaware of. The two books (or epistles) by Jude and by James in question here, are ver much included in the Bible. These are not some apocrypha or uncanonised material.

I apologize... I thought wthose were part of the Dead Sea scrolls.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Are you suggesting the gospels found in bibles today are closer to the original than copies dated closest to when the originals were made.

I only consider the TR manuscript to be authentic. That rules out 99% of all modern translations of the Bible. They are based off the Greek of Westcot and Hort, who both had contempt for the TR and favored the Alexandrian MSS.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

It's a "security code/fingerprint" of the author. If 1 letter is altered it all falls apart. The reasons why skeptics reject it isn't because of math, anyone can do addition, multiplication, and probability. The reason why it's rejected by some is that they reject the only manuscript it works with, the Textus Receptus MSS.

That's exactly the problem... the math doesn't add up... at least according to what I've read about his theory...

especially considering the fact that there were later additions to many of the texts...

When I say he preferred "older MSS" you do realize I'm saying the older COMPLETE manuscripts correct?? There are fragments much older than the Alexandrian codecies and they align with the Textus Recetus(Syrian MSS), not the Alexandrian.

I don't see your point...

a reply to: Akragon

That's exactly the problem... the math doesn't add up... at least according to what I've read about his theory...

Unless the TR Greek is used. Which is what I said.

I don't see your point...

There are two lines of MSS, the Syrian (Textus Receptus) and the Alexandrian (Siniaticus, Vaticanus, etc). The oldest COMPLETE manuscripts are the Alexandrian. But there are much older fragments, and the Greek of them aligns with the Syrian (TR MSS). The oldest fragment is either from the original gospel itself or the first copy. Discovered using the latest technology in microscopes by Carston Thiedie.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well it is your right to go by what had been selected for you in the 14th and 15th centuries.


As far as other manuscripts being preserved I think it is far more likely they were hidden from the church since they had a habit of destroying what they disagreed with they had no qualms with adding to the stories or changing them either.

The reason one hides something fr preservation is because they feel it is important to the future.

a reply to: Grimpachi

As far as other manuscripts being preserved I think it is far more likely they were hidden from the church since they had a habit of destroying what they disagreed with they had no qualms with adding to the stories or changing them either.

That's the Catholic church, I'm not a Catholic, and why I reject the Alexandrian MSS. (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus)

The reason one hides something fr preservation is because they feel it is important to the future.

Then what text were those old churches using if their bible was on the shelf?? This is 4th century man, there wasn't a printing press, the laity didn't have Bibles. The ones being used constantly never survived, they would wear out and copies had to be made.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

See there is still a problem.. the TR you're referring to is what they KJV was written from, which I use as well...

there are still many many contradicitons in it... and greek doesn't translate well into English...

So the writers of the KJV used words that were not necessarily used back in biblical times...

the whole heptadic structure Is bunk in my personal opinion... but again that is me...

and im not the only one with that opinion...

Its just another rouse to attempt to prove infallibility which can not be proven

a reply to: Grimpachi

No offense, I think you need a very quick and rough history of how the Bibles you see today and the different versions came to be:

a reply to: Akragon

there are still many many contradicitons in it... and greek doesn't translate well into English...

Correct, it's not in the original Greek. So you either have to learn Greek, or you do the absolute best you can with Concordances and Lexicons. Trust me, you aren't the only one, I struggle with a lot of things in it. Mine has a Hebrew and Greek Concordance in the back.

a reply to: NOTurTypical



No thanks do you have anything that isn't from an evangelical known for plagiarism?

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Akragon

I could add what some people here seems to be unaware of. The two books (or epistles) by Jude and by James in question here, are ver much included in the Bible. These are not some apocrypha or uncanonised material.

I apologize... I thought wthose were part of the Dead Sea scrolls.

No problem. Since you mention the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) -- contrary to popular belief, there is actually nothing related to Christianity or Jesus in the DDS material. They were a separate cult.