-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Atheists and agnostics, secular humanists etc, may listen to him to hone up on their talking points. But I agree: after spending years speaking to non-believers online, I am not much interested in watching a video detailing their objections and speculations. If he were here in person and I had a chance to talk to him, it may be different.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-10
Ecclesiastes 1:9-10
-
1
- Show all
I'm not suggesting the person in the verses below was the writer of the gospel we label "John," mind you, but just supplying these verses to show that not all of Jesus' "disciples" were "unlearned and ignorant men" (said specifically regarding "Peter and John" in Acts 4:13)...
Mar 15:43 -
Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
Jhn 19:38 -
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
Mat 27:57 -
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
Luk 23:50-53 -
And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:
(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them ; ) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. [see also Isa53:9 re: "the rich"]
So, here's a "disciple" ^ who was both "rich" and a "counsellor" (certainly not what one would call an "unlearned and ignorant" man, as was said about "Peter and John" [fishermen-disciples] in Acts 4:13).
Who's to say that Jesus only had this ONE "disciple" who apparently had some smarts, and all others HAD to be "unlearned and ignorant men" (just because this was said of "Peter and John" Acts 4:13)??
Dumb argument, as I see it.
And why not (in the same vein) think that the majority of His disciples were rich and smart like this guy--if, like the OP-vid-speaker is doing, pulling out ONE VERSE (Acts 4:13) to blanketly declare that "unlearned and ignorant men" are descriptions entirely applicable to ALL of Jesus' disciples... (
)The OP-vid-speaker pretty much seems to make the point that the writers of the gospels had to be smarties (highly-educated, etc, he said--because of the style of writing, etc), but that all of His disciples were dummies (according to his flawed reasoning), thus (he seems to conclude) that these accounts are inadmissible as reliable historical documents... (huh??)... and that therefore the gospels were NOT written by "eyewitnesses"... (double huh????).
How he comes to these conclusions... seems to be... only so much human-reasoning (read: crazy-talk, LOL).
____________
Another question I have: Does he also conclude that Peter was too ignorant to have written the epistle of 1 Peter (since it was apparently written in Greek, which he's supposed to be "ignorant" of according to the OP-vid-speaker)? Or is it just the HISTORICAL parts of Scripture according to him (i.e. "the gospels" in particular) that Jesus' "disciples" (specifically, "eyewitnesses") could not have been relied upon to record accurately (thus inadmissible as reliable historical documents), according to the OP-vid-speaker? Likewise, was John too "unlearned" to write "Revelation" or was being a fisherman adequate enough for such a writing, so long as it isn't admitted into the category of "historical[-records] documents" which are considered in the courts of those judging such things as reliable or not (like "the gospels" would be)?
Just wondering...
-
1
- Show all
I'm not suggesting the person in the verses below was the writer of the gospel we label "John," mind you, but just supplying these verses to show that not all of Jesus' "disciples" were "unlearned and ignorant men" (said specifically regarding "Peter and John" in Acts 4:13)...
Mar 15:43 -
Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
Jhn 19:38 -
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
Mat 27:57 -
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
Luk 23:50-53 -
And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:
(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them ; ) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. [see also Isa53:9 re: "the rich"]
So, here's a "disciple" ^ who was both "rich" and a "counsellor" (certainly not what one would call an "unlearned and ignorant" man, as was said about "Peter and John" [fishermen-disciples] in Acts 4:13).
Who's to say that Jesus only had this ONE "disciple" who apparently had some smarts, and all others HAD to be "unlearned and ignorant men" (just because this was said of "Peter and John" Acts 4:13)??
Dumb argument, as I see it.
And why not (in the same vein) think that the majority of His disciples were rich and smart like this guy--if, like the OP-vid-speaker is doing, pulling out ONE VERSE (Acts 4:13) to blanketly declare that "unlearned and ignorant men" are descriptions entirely applicable to ALL of Jesus' disciples... ( )
The OP-vid-speaker pretty much seems to make the point that the writers of the gospels had to be smarties (highly-educated, etc, he said--because of the style of writing, etc), but that all of His disciples were dummies (according to his flawed reasoning), thus (he seems to conclude) that these accounts are inadmissible as reliable historical documents... (huh??)... and that therefore the gospels were NOT written by "eyewitnesses"... (double huh????).
How he comes to these conclusions... seems to be... only so much human-reasoning (read: crazy-talk, LOL).
____________
Another question I have: Does he also conclude that Peter was too ignorant to have written the epistle of 1 Peter (since it was apparently written in Greek, which he's supposed to be "ignorant" of according to the OP-vid-speaker)? Or is it just the HISTORICAL parts of Scripture according to him (i.e. "the gospels" in particular) that Jesus' "disciples" (specifically, "eyewitnesses") could not have been relied upon to record accurately (thus inadmissible as reliable historical documents), according to the OP-vid-speaker? Likewise, was John too "unlearned" to write "Revelation" or was being a fisherman adequate enough for such a writing, so long as it isn't admitted into the category of "historical[-records] documents" which are considered in the courts of those judging such things as reliable or not (like "the gospels" would be)?
Just wondering...
Mar 15:43 -
Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
Jhn 19:38 -
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
Mat 27:57 -
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
Luk 23:50-53 -
And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:
(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them ; ) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. [see also Isa53:9 re: "the rich"]
So, here's a "disciple" ^ who was both "rich" and a "counsellor" (certainly not what one would call an "unlearned and ignorant" man, as was said about "Peter and John" [fishermen-disciples] in Acts 4:13).
Who's to say that Jesus only had this ONE "disciple" who apparently had some smarts, and all others HAD to be "unlearned and ignorant men" (just because this was said of "Peter and John" Acts 4:13)??
Dumb argument, as I see it.
And why not (in the same vein) think that the majority of His disciples were rich and smart like this guy--if, like the OP-vid-speaker is doing, pulling out ONE VERSE (Acts 4:13) to blanketly declare that "unlearned and ignorant men" are descriptions entirely applicable to ALL of Jesus' disciples... (
)The OP-vid-speaker pretty much seems to make the point that the writers of the gospels had to be smarties (highly-educated, etc, he said--because of the style of writing, etc), but that all of His disciples were dummies (according to his flawed reasoning), thus (he seems to conclude) that these accounts are inadmissible as reliable historical documents... (huh??)... and that therefore the gospels were NOT written by "eyewitnesses"... (double huh????).
How he comes to these conclusions... seems to be... only so much human-reasoning (read: crazy-talk, LOL).
____________
Another question I have: Does he also conclude that Peter was too ignorant to have written the epistle of 1 Peter (since it was apparently written in Greek, which he's supposed to be "ignorant" of according to the OP-vid-speaker)? Or is it just the HISTORICAL parts of Scripture according to him (i.e. "the gospels" in particular) that Jesus' "disciples" (specifically, "eyewitnesses") could not have been relied upon to record accurately (thus inadmissible as reliable historical documents), according to the OP-vid-speaker? Likewise, was John too "unlearned" to write "Revelation" or was being a fisherman adequate enough for such a writing, so long as it isn't admitted into the category of "historical[-records] documents" which are considered in the courts of those judging such things as reliable or not (like "the gospels" would be)?
Just wondering...
John 12:42 states that many of the leaders believed. Acts 6:7 States that a great company of priests were obedient to the faith.
In consideration of the spectacular nature of the events.......there were undoubtedly MASSIVE amounts of first-hand accounts which were duly recorded by people who's primary task was to write things down in a historically accurate manner.
Which Luke used in his writings no doubt.
The Point of this Thread is Extremely Unrealistic:
Ehrman is a world-renowned, top scholar in the field of textual criticism, with anti-Christian views ranging from the simple to the infinitely arcane and complex...
trying to refute Bart Ehrman is not a reasonable task for the average layman.
There are plenty of Christian scholars who've debated him...
you should have just posted the debates.
.
Ehrman is a world-renowned, top scholar in the field of textual criticism, with anti-Christian views ranging from the simple to the infinitely arcane and complex...
trying to refute Bart Ehrman is not a reasonable task for the average layman.
There are plenty of Christian scholars who've debated him...
you should have just posted the debates.
.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I've seen this video on YouTube when Bert first introduced his theory. Many believe him because he once was a Preacher and Biblical teacher for God.
But what Bert does not mention is the Jews wrote in the Talmud that Yeshu was hanged for treason.
That is most important because Bert's real hidden argument here is that Jesus never existed.
But ironically enough, we have the Ancient Jews, Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamia, Middle Eastern, etc...[[mostly ATHEISTS]] have written about His factual existence.
But for modern day ATHEISTS, Bert is a godsend lol
But what Bert does not mention is the Jews wrote in the Talmud that Yeshu was hanged for treason.
That is most important because Bert's real hidden argument here is that Jesus never existed.
But ironically enough, we have the Ancient Jews, Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamia, Middle Eastern, etc...[[mostly ATHEISTS]] have written about His factual existence.
But for modern day ATHEISTS, Bert is a godsend lol
-
1
- Show all
