Saints meet your opposition

Thought it be intresting to direct you scripture scholars on the answers this man poses instead of tearing each other apart by personal opinions.
I look for things like this to see what the enemy has been up to. Reading the comments on this post many agree with his observations.
Can anyone here set him straight on his false findings? Or is he right.
The resurrection is the core of our belief. How would you respond? Or do we live by blind faith?

I agree. The enemy is up to a lot these days.

It might be an idea to watch Dan Wallace debate Bart Ehrman.

that guy is a real dipstick..................

Your personal opinions dont matter...can you prove he is in error.
That is the whole point of this thread. Refute what he declares.
There are many here that claim to know the truth..and waste no time to derail other peoples thread so here you go.
Its amazing to me that there are not more replies to this thread.
We are called to answer all that ask the hope that is with in us...lets go saints....what are the errors in this mans theory.
Hes attacking the very foundation of our faith.

It'd be a better idea to read the Bible, ask God for wisdom (that He promised to give us), and not bother with meaningless "debates" between educated fools.

Perhaps you'd like to go first. Aren't you essentially doing the same thing? I mean, you said he's the opposition, a false teacher and he's in error. But so far I haven't heard you refute anything he said.

Absolutely ignorant rubbish. Not to be taken seriously. In many cases, Jesus' words were being recorded in real time. Matthew, the tax collector, was expert at shorthand. And the Holy Spirit opened the mind of the Apostles to remember His words in due time. Furthermore, the text matches the true historical context to perfection.

Blaaa.....Blaaa.....Blaaa. Same old naturalist assertions that have been made since the day after Christ's resurrection. This man says nothing new.

If the gospel accounts were all identical, this clown would be the first to then claim they were then proven to be manufactured. And of course you cannot use science to prove faith....they are mutually exclusive. He begins his argument with an assertion that miracles cannot happen but offers no proof from his "science" that his assertion is correct. If you want to understand the issues of miracles PLEASE read C.S. Lewis book Miracles. It's a little work to get through but puts the issues of miracles in another perspective.

There is much more that can be said and pages written, but his arguments should deceive no one!

Good, thought provoking post.

The accounts of Jesus were witnessed firsthand; paralytics walking, blind people seeing and people who helped condemn others to death had their hearts changed into engines of love and righteousness.

Also, there are no writings from 2,000 years ago disputing what Jesus did. If Roman authorities knew what was written about Jesus were fabrications, they would have let the world know. Nothing from Cesar, Nero, or anyone else vehemently disputing the miracles of Christ.

Bart’s problem is he wasn’t there to see it so he doesn’t believe. He simply cannot see the forest for the trees.

I didn't watch the video but...

Death, resurrection, and life are central themes of all natural creation. Indeed, we are all alive because of these axioms.

A seed falls to the ground, dies, and a life-giving plant emerges from the ground. Now, what emerges from the death of the seed is not another seed, but a plant that produces and abundance of fruit with seeds within themselves: e.g. they are in likeness and kind to the original seed. One seed, therefore, may populate the entire earth with enough time. Any sustenance we receive for our bodies exists because of these principles.

Death, resurrection, and life are everywhere.

"Meaningless" I do read the Bible. That doesn't mean that I can't learn from other Christians.

Is Daniel Wallace a fool in your estimation because he is Christian? Or is it because he is a professor of NT studies who rigorously defends the historical authenticity of The Bible?

I'm not sure why he alludes to the idea that the gospel we call / label "John" was not written by an "eyewitness"...

...when 21:24 says, "this is the disciple who is testifying concerning these things, and he wrote these things, and we have known that his testimony is true," where the word "THIS" refers back to the guy having just been spoken of in the preceding verse (the guy Peter was asking Jesus about)... who happens to be the one who leaned on Jesus' breast at the supper (per v.20), the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had also ran to the tomb with Peter, and who was the ONLY one of which that text states "he saw [the linen cloths] and BELIEVED" (this wasn't said of Peter, note); and who the text states was also present at the Cross. (He doesn't have to be one of "the 12"... so who's to say this person was "uneducated" like the fishermen-disciples were supposed to be [esp. Peter & John referred to in Acts 4:13], per the OP-vid-speaker? Jesus had MANY "disciples," recall... Nowhere does scripture state that the writer of this gospel was "John"... yet it seems the OP-vid-speaker is assuming b/c "Peter and John" were "unlearned and ignorant men," that the writer of that gospel ALSO must have been so... Why does he assume this??) See also what is said in 20:31.


I had another thought, but it flitted away while I was pondering the utterly poor reasoning skills of the OP-vid-speaker...




Oh yeah, so... if I'm in my late 50's, can I not write about things I witnessed 45 years ago?? Like, the house I lived in as a small child, for example?? (historical things... ; why would we suppose that this info would be INACCURATE just because "40 years" separates them, b/f I write about it??)

From what I could gather, his argument is that we don't know for sure who wrote the gospels; therefore, they couldn't have been written by the traditional authors. He's basically saying he doesn't know who wrote the gospels, but he knows for sure who didn't write them. This is very poor logic and about what I'd expect from an egghead theologian.

Hmm well lol not someone (video) I would be listening to. I wouldn't use the word dipstick but.. its clear he does not know what he's talking about. I am sure he thinks he does praise God but.. interesting for sure

I didn’t listen to the video but the way.
Usually it helps to have an atheist here but since I talk to them daily this is an old argument.
And the reason I like to have a live atheist here is because I want to treat every person as an individual, not apply group-think to them.

With that said the general convo goes like this:

Atheist : Personal testimonies are false and cannot be trusted.
‘Theist: Why should anyone acknowledge your existence when you say “I’m in pain”? Do you believe you exist?

Depending on the flavor of atheist they may choose to say that reality is not real, thus proving a creator or they may choose to say that their personal experience is real thus proving personal testimonies .


ALL of this is exhausting because it’s the same old tired arguments and it’s better done on live chats or face to face convos for faster resolution which can take a few hours.

Simply because watching two "Educated theologians" (each with his own theological axe to grind) is never likely to produce anything except CONFUSION at the practical level. The Bible says what it says, and is BY DEFINITION a reliable source, and its AUTHOR is present and accessible for comment.

Jas 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Jas 1:6
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Jhn 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

While I do not watch posted videos, Bart Ehrman is well know for his heretical views. Why anyone would bother listening to him is puzzling.