"The Church was pure until Constantine"

[DeusVult09]

While Mr. Erhman and Mr. Metzger may ahve their differences…the history of that period is much more believeable and credible by Mr. Erhaman, than it is the history recorded by the religious heiarchy of the day.

No bart ehrman is a sensationalist who on the basis of some misrepresented textual variants makes some very unsound claims about orthodoxy demonstrating his own anti-orthdoxbias due the failure of his protestant innerant view of the bible which led him to agnosticism

I have serious problems with the way he is misrepresenting Christianity and flat out lying in some cases. Let me offer you an example of one of his flawed arguments

In luke 3:22 after jesus’ baptismit says ”you are my son with whom I am well pleased” but there is an adoptionist variant which says “you are my son and today I adopt you”. Mr erhman argues that adoptionism, the belief that Jesus was adopted by god ( a belief similar to those held by the ebionites) was one of the earliest form of Christianity but with the ermegence of orthodoxy this scripture was altered to its present form and that adoptionism was one of the earliest forms of christianity. He argues thatorthodox church fathers altered and corrupted the scriptures to hide this and to promote their own version of Christianity which wasjsut one of many.

But there is a huge flaw with this argument, the earliestmanuscript containing this adoptionist variant is codex bezea and its from the 5th century!! Furthermore Bart ehrman fails to note that the traditional reading is present in codex sinaticus which is from the 4th century which is over 100 years earlier and its also present in codex alexandrinus which is a contemporary of Bezea

Futhermore he fails to reveal that the traditional reading in luke is in p4 and p75 both from between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Likewise all then synoptics contian this story and we find no such variant i n them anywhere. Like in Matthew 3:17 for example we have p64/67 and p101 which contain the traditional reading and both between the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

So you see what I mean on the basis of this 5th century variant he claims this verse was altered by the church to support the orthodox view when the earliest evidence proves otherwise and unless he can produce a far earlir manuscript with this variant people should not take his claims of orthodox corruption seriously.

 

[Hesychios]

No bart ehrman is a sensationalist

I disagree. He may be wrong about a lot of things but he is pretty sincere, and serious, in his work.

… who on the basis of some misrepresented textual variants makes some very unsound claims about orthodoxy demonstrating his own anti-orthdoxbias due the failure of his protestant innerant view of the bible which led him to agnosticism

I think you are probably right that he is an agnostic but we can’t go psycho-analyzing everyone who disagrees with us, as if their disagreement can only be explained because of some inner turmoil.

Your example may be a good example of where he is mistaken, I am not sure. I am not saying he is always right by any means, but he is reliable to a great extent, and there are things one can learn from these people. We can’t (or shouldn’t) lean primarily on one author to form our opinions anyway, that would be pretty dangerous.

 

[Hesychios]

Dr. Carroll, author of the Baptist church history entitled “The Trail of Blood,” makes the claim that Constantine called a council in 313 AD, the same year he issued the Edict of Milan, and this council first formed the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This theory breaks down, though, when one begins to read the history books and discovers that no Church council was held in 313.

I am with you in substance, but the council in question was held at Arles in 314AD, called by Constantine for the western Roman (later to be known by us as the Latin Catholic) church. The letters may have gone out in 313AD. It condemned the Donatists, among other things. Saint Constantine did not control the eastern empire until a final victory in the civil wars and so no eastern bishops attended. The organizing of the council was facilitated by a bishop from Spain, Ossios.

(As pointed out elsewhere above the church was structured with bishops, priests and deacons long before this time, the earliest non-Biblical evidence seems to be Ignatius of Antioch’s letters. Biblically the letters to Timothy and Titus seem to support the system.)

After that long intervening period Saint Constantine called the Council to be held at Nicea, which was assembled at the imperial palace. He sent a letter to all the bishops that were known of the day (within the empire) and paid for their transportation, lodging and meals. I am not positive but I think bishops from outside the empire had also been invited. This later Council is considered Ecumenical, the first is not.

Constantine’s city, built over the small port of Byzantium, was not ready at the time. A second Ecumenical Council was held at the new capital and that is where we get the final form of our creed.

It wasn’t until the church was liberated from government restrictions that it was able to own church buildings, and hymnography took off in a big way because singing in the liturgy wasn’t normally possible when neighbors were likely to report Christian worship.

According to Mayita, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that “… made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State.” That is not correct as written.

The Faith wasn’t adopted as the official religion in the age of Constantine, it was only freed from legal disabilities. Paganism was also tolerated. There was actually a pagan emperor who reigned after Constantine who was raised as a Christian in Constantine’s family household named Julian. He tried to restore paganism to dominance, but he died early, in a battle on the eastern frontier.

Under the emperor Theodosius (born in Spain, reigned 379 to 395AD) Nicene Apostolic Christianity was made the official religion, and received state sponsorship.

None of this supports the critic’s contention that the church was invented by Constantine, but it is our history.

Actually the first sovereign state to formally adopt Christianity was not the Roman empire, but Armenia!

They also had bishops, the Holy Eucharist (with belief in the Real Presence) and priests to confect it. By this time Christianity had already also spread to Persia and India, all with bishops, deacons and priests.

 

[DeusVult09]

I disagree. He may be wrong about a lot of things but he is pretty sincere, and serious, in his work.
I think you are probably right that he is an agnostic but we can’t go psycho-analyzing everyone who disagrees with us, as if their disagreement can only be explained because of some inner turmoil.

Your example may be a good example of where he is mistaken, I am not sure. I am not saying he is always right by any means, but he is reliable to a great extent, and there are things one can learn from these people. We can’t (or shouldn’t) lean primarily on one author to form our opinions anyway, that would be pretty dangerous.

I said he’s a sensationalist not just because I disagree with him as many probably suspect but rather because of the way he misrepresents things making them sound a lot worse than they are, only showing half of the story etc .

its not just bible believing laymen who have criticized him for this numerous of his fellow scholars and textual critics have criticized him like Bruce Metzger and Daniel Wallace . you can read a response to some of his sensationalist claims here bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

And I am not meaning to psycho-analyse him because it is he who has actually said that the reason he became agnostic is because some textual variants smashed his faith in the bible as he believed the protestant doctrine of ineerency, that every last word of the bible was directly dictated by god and thus is incapable of error and by seeing a small error he descended into disbelief. It was his prodestant doctrine of innerancy which led him into disbelief not the bible.

Bart ehrman clearly sensationalizes things time an time again why? Because it sells books! Skeptics love to have another reason not to believe that they can shove in the face of believers but its not the whole story on the issue you can just examine the work of other scholars on the subject to see that as there is much he ignores and does not mention

you can hear a debate between mr ehrman and another christian scholar here

Premier Christian Radio - Premier Plus

Discover Premier Christian Radio, your destination for contemporary Christian music, insightful conversations, and faith-based discussions. Join us and enrich your spiritual journey with uplifting content!

www.premierchristianradio.com

another response from another NT scholar Ben Witherington benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html

apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/01/bart-ehrman-vs-james-white-debate-mp3.html

 

[Publisher]

I disagree. He may be wrong about a lot of things but he is pretty sincere, and serious, in his work.
I think you are probably right that he is an agnostic but we can’t go psycho-analyzing everyone who disagrees with us, as if their disagreement can only be explained because of some inner turmoil.

Your example may be a good example of where he is mistaken, I am not sure. I am not saying he is always right by any means, but he is reliable to a great extent, and there are things one can learn from these people. We can’t (or shouldn’t) lean primarily on one author to form our opinions anyway, that would be pretty dangerous.

I agree…while Mr. Erhman is an agnostic…that doesn’t make him dishonest or wrong…any more than a person claiming to be a “Christian” makes them honest and right on any give subject.

I have read all of Mr. Erhman’s books…along with Eilene Pagels, John Spong, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Joan O’Grady, Hyam Mccoby among others on early Christain history…their views IMO are much more credible than many of the pious religious histories by churchmen.

 

[DeusVult09]

I agree…while Mr. Erhman is an agnostic…that doesn’t make him dishonest or wrong…any more than a person claiming to be a “Christian” makes them honest and right on any give subject.

I have read all of Mr. Erhman’s books…along with Eilene Pagels, John Spong, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Joan O’Grady, Hyam Mccoby among others on early Christain history…their views IMO are much more credible than many of the pious religious histories by churchmen.

I never said he was dishonest just because he was agnostic but rather that he was dishonest in the way he misrepresents things about the early church which just don’t hold water upon scrutiny (which I proved by the way)

So let me guess after reading those books Jesus for you is just a first century Jewish rabbi who may or may not have existed?, 90% of everything in the bible is just lies invented by pious churchmen to propagate orthodox Christianity? The entire new testatment has been corrupted for the same reason? Jesus was not god at all but only became so with the influx of pagan Greek believers who invented Christ’s deity and the trinity? The vast majority of sayings attributed to Jesus were just invented to gain converts or to address a local satiation, like john? paul invented christianity? Jesus was never resurrected but his body was stolen or it was lie invented to keep the religion going after his death? Or perhaps as mr borg would say the resurrection was just metaphorical? perhaps jesus never existed and is just a metaphore like a finger pointing at the moon?

Am I close is that what you believe? If it is a I feel sorry for you as believing that is an abandonment of truth and the Christian faith. What you are doing is relying on the writings of liberal scholars all of whom have an anti-orthodox bias to some extent . The historical Jesus movement is just one movement in scholarship it does not represent all scholars others have written heavily against it like D. Bock, Ben witherington etc.

No matter how much more “credible” you believe them to be than the history of pious churchmen, the evidence supports proto-orthodox Christianity being the earliest form of Christianity and not merely invention of clerics.

so what exactly do you beleive as a quaker and as a sceptic of christianity?

 

[Publisher]

I never said he was dishonest just because he was agnostic but rather that he was dishonest in the way he misrepresents things about the early church which just don’t hold water upon scrutiny (which I proved by the way)

So let me guess after reading those books Jesus for you is just a first century Jewish rabbi who may or may not have existed, 90% of everything in the bible is just lies invented by pious churchmen to propagate orthodox Christianity. The entire new testatment has been corrupted for the same reason? Jesus was not god at all but only became so with the influx of pagan Greek believers who invented Christ’s deity and the trinity. The vas t majority of sayings attributed to Jesus were just invented to gain converts or to address a local satiation (like john). Jesus was never resurrected but his body was stolen or it was lie invented to keep the religion going after his death. Or perhaps as mr borg would say the resurrection was just metaphorical?

Am I close is that what you believe? If it is a I feel sorry for you as believing that is an abandonment of truth and the Christian faith. What you are doing is relying on the writings of liberal scholars all of whom have an anti-orthodox bias to some extent . The historical Jesus movement is just one movement in scholarship it does not represent all scholars others have written heavily against it like D. Bock, Ben witherington etc.

No matter how much more “credible” you believe them to be than the history of pious churchmen, the evidence supports proto-orthodox Christianity being the earliest form of Christianity and not merely invention of clerics.

so what exactly do you beleive as a quaker and as a sceptic of christianity?

I do not accept the religious history which is “faith based” instead of historically based…if others find church based histories more credible…I’m ok with it. I simply find the more “secular” non religious based historical narratives more credible.

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth entered our world and loved, taught and died…those who followed him experienced God in their midst in his presence. I do not pretend to understand the mechanics of the incarnation…it is Holy Mystery…the writers of those books which came to be considered scripture sought to offer explanations of events which occured in this mans life. In time they came to believe that in him somehow God had entered our humanity and his life, death and resurrection were salvic in scope.

“Liberal scholars” who do not hold to “orthodox” beliefs doesn’t mean they are wrong or dishonest…any more than those “orthodox” scholars have only “truth” in mind when they share their histories…they are ‘interpretive’ histories of "what should have been’ or what “occured from God’s point of view”…“liberal scholarship” has allowed me…helped me to embrace a more credible world view of how God moves in our history than the pious churchmen’s view.

 

[TriuneUnity]

“Liberal scholars” who do not hold to “orthodox” beliefs doesn’t mean they are wrong or dishonest…any more than those “orthodox” scholars have only “truth” in mind when they share their histories…they are ‘interpretive’ histories of "what should have been’ or what “occured from God’s point of view”…“liberal scholarship” has allowed me…helped me to embrace a more credible world view of how God moves in our history than the pious churchmen’s view.

The problem is not Ehrman’s scholarship, per se. He is not doing anything new. Any person with sufficient interest and availability of scholarship has known about the factual issues he raises all along. But it is the conclusion Dr. Ehrman reaches that is unusual. Unlike Tischendorf, Bengal, Warfield, Carson, Silva, or Wallace, all of whom were or are fully conversant with the entire range of New Testament readings, Dr. Ehrman has found this information irreconcilable with Evangelical faith; part of his reasoning flows from his assertion that particular textual variants change the entire meaning of books of the Bible.

 

[Publisher]

The problem is not Ehrman’s scholarship, per se. He is not doing anything new. Any person with sufficient interest and availability of scholarship has known about the factual issues he raises all along. But it is the conclusion Dr. Ehrman reaches that is unusual. Unlike Tischendorf, Bengal, Warfield, Carson, Silva, or Wallace, all of whom were or are fully conversant with the entire range of New Testament readings, Dr. Ehrman has found this information irreconcilable with Evangelical faith; part of his reasoning flows from his assertion that particular textual variants change the entire meaning of books of the Bible.

Yes, I understand his conclusions are “irreconcilable” with evangleical faith…and while he does claim that some of the variants do change the meaning to an extent…thus there is no “iffallible Bible” to fall back on since we do not have an original of any text…simply a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy…he does not claim these variants chage the “**entire **meaning of books of the Bible.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yes, I understand his conclusions are “irreconcilable” with evangleical faith…and while he does claim that some of the variants do change the meaning to an extent…thus there is no “iffallible Bible” to fall back on since we do not have an original of any text…simply a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy…he does not claim these variants chage the “**entire **meaning of books of the Bible.”

It does result in that, though, Pub. He doesn’t say that every word has been changed, but that enough words have been changed that it changes the overall meaning the book presents. I am not sure why he comes to that conclusion. But he has.

We believe that the originals exist in the manuscript tradition—not a single manuscript—but in the manuscript tradition. So that when we look at Mark 1:41 and we look at the evidence that is the difference between Jesus with compassion reaching forth his hand or with anger reaching forth his hand, splagchnistheis versus orgestheis, we can look at the manuscript evidence and one of those two is the original.

The idea that we have to have absolute unanimity of opinion has never been held by anybody as the basis for believing God has preserved His Word, yet that is the standard that Dr. Ehrman presents; and no work of antiquity can ever meet that. The only way, then, that you can have a handwritten communication would in essence be that if a scribe is about to misspell a word or about to make an edit, all of a sudden he bursts into flames. Or God transports him off the rock here called Earth, or He all of a sudden takes over in automatic writing and makes him write the right word. This kind of assertion is just simply without merit; there is no reason to believe that. He has preserved it through the entire manuscript tradition so that there is never a controlling authority that can change or edit the text, put in doctrines, take out doctrines, etc., etc. The result of that is we have to look at textual variants, but the fact is, that is the best way to preserve the text, especially given the evangelical mandate of the early church.

 

[DeusVult09]

I do not accept the religious history which is “faith based” instead of historically based…if others find church based histories more credible…I’m ok with it. I simply find the more “secular” non religious based historical narratives more credible.

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth entered our world and loved, taught and died…those who followed him experienced God in their midst in his presence. I do not pretend to understand the mechanics of the incarnation…it is Holy Mystery…the writers of those books which came to be considered scripture sought to offer explanations of events which occured in this mans life. In time they came to believe that in him somehow God had entered our humanity and his life, death and resurrection were salvic in scope.

“Liberal scholars” who do not hold to “orthodox” beliefs doesn’t mean they are wrong or dishonest…any more than those “orthodox” scholars have only “truth” in mind when they share their histories…they are ‘interpretive’ histories of "what should have been’ or what “occured from God’s point of view”…“liberal scholarship” has allowed me…helped me to embrace a more credible world view of how God moves in our history than the pious churchmen’s view.

right ok if you want to reject church histories for those of skeptical scholars that’s up to you. Likewise you are free to believe that the bible is just a bunch of propagandist books but rather I believe they are the truth explained as the nt authors understood it rather than being mere propaganda.

I do not believe that Jesus’ deity is something that evolved over a long period of time which ultimately resulted in the gospel of john rather I believe it predated all the gospels as is recorded in Philippians 2:5-10 which is considered by many other scholars to be a far earlier hymn on the deity of Christ which paul is merely citing.

Liberal scholars often in my experience have strong anti- orthodox biases and I have found that many of them especially mr ehrman misrepresent Christianity relying on assumptions rather than fact. I know I come across them all the time as a theology student. I think liberal scholarship has very clear agenda to rationalize Christian belief under the assumption much of what is written about Jesus is just later myth that just needs to be thrown out to get to the historical Jesus and finally escape that mythological canonical jesus . it is a flawed assumption, there is no difference between the historical and canonical Jesus.

Liberal scholars are having a very detrimental effect on people’s faith, especially mr ehrman his books have really done a lot of damage and even when you show people how badly he misrepresents the situation and only shows one side of things they still don’t believe you.

I say all this as an ex-Pentecostal who became militantly agnostic and full of utter hatred for Christianity and jesus . I found truth in Catholicism a truth that liberal scholars constantly attack with their non existent proof and assumptions it seems these days people are willing to beleive any lie about jesus

 

[DeusVult09]

The problem is not Ehrman’s scholarship, per se. He is not doing anything new. Any person with sufficient interest and availability of scholarship has known about the factual issues he raises all along. But it is the conclusion Dr. Ehrman reaches that is unusual. Unlike Tischendorf, Bengal, Warfield, Carson, Silva, or Wallace, all of whom were or are fully conversant with the entire range of New Testament readings, Dr. Ehrman has found this information irreconcilable with Evangelical faith; part of his reasoning flows from his assertion that particular textual variants change the entire meaning of books of the Bible.

Yes your right he is not doing anything new, scholars have known about these textual variants for years. I don’t a a problem with the variants themselves, just how ehrman represents them and the inferences he makes about this great orthodox corruption conspiracy for whcih there is no proof

 

[DeusVult09]

It does result in that, though, Pub. He doesn’t say that every word has been changed, but that enough words have been changed that it changes the overall meaning the book presents. I am not sure why he comes to that conclusion. But he has.

We believe that the originals exist in the manuscript tradition—not a single manuscript—but in the manuscript tradition. So that when we look at Mark 1:41 and we look at the evidence that is the difference between Jesus with compassion reaching forth his hand or with anger reaching forth his hand, splagchnistheis versus orgestheis, we can look at the manuscript evidence and one of those two is the original.

The idea that we have to have absolute unanimity of opinion has never been held by anybody as the basis for believing God has preserved His Word, yet that is the standard that Dr. Ehrman presents; and no work of antiquity can ever meet that. The only way, then, that you can have a handwritten communication would in essence be that if a scribe is about to misspell a word or about to make an edit, all of a sudden he bursts into flames. Or God transports him off the rock here called Earth, or He all of a sudden takes over in automatic writing and makes him write the right word. This kind of assertion is just simply without merit; there is no reason to believe that. He has preserved it through the entire manuscript tradition so that there is never a controlling authority that can change or edit the text, put in doctrines, take out doctrines, etc., etc. The result of that is we have to look at textual variants, but the fact is, that is the best way to preserve the text, especially given the evangelical mandate of the early church.

yes, exactly. you raise some good points

 

[Publisher]

right ok if you want to reject church histories for those of skeptical scholars that’s up to you. Likewise you are free to believe that the bible is just a bunch of propagandist books but rather I believe they are the truth explained as the nt authors understood it rather than being mere propaganda.

I do not believe that Jesus’ deity is something that evolved over a long period of time which ultimately resulted in the gospel of john rather I believe it predated all the gospels as is recorded in Philippians 2:5-10 which is considered by many other scholars to be a far earlier hymn on the deity of Christ which paul is merely citing.

Liberal scholars often in my experience have strong anti- orthodox biases and I have found that many of them especially mr ehrman misrepresent Christianity relying on assumptions rather than fact. I know I come across them all the time as a theology student. I think liberal scholarship has very clear agenda to rationalize Christian belief under the assumption much of what is written about Jesus is just later myth that just needs to be thrown out to get to the historical Jesus and finally escape that
mythological canonical jesus . it is a flawed assumption, there is no difference between the historical or canonical Jesus.

Liberal scholars are having a very detrimental effect on people’s faith, especially mr ehrman his books have really done a lot of damage and even when you show people how badly he misrepresents the situation and only shows one side of things they still don’t believe you.

I say all this as an ex-Pentecostal and ex-agnostic who found truth in Catholicism truth which these authors constantly attack.

“Liberal scholarship” has provided an avenue for me to regain and deepen my own faith. Instead of “wandering in unbelief” the “liberal scholarship” has allowed me to see through a different lens and formulate a faith in Christ that I have found very “healing”…and has allowed me to be honest with myself…I still struggle but I am able to say with the man, “Lord I believe…help my unbelief”…Dr. Erhman, among others, has provided tools to view history as not being opposed to faith…God works in a very real historical setting…and things occur to further His purposes…I see the Hand of God more deeply in the history of Dr. Erhman…than I do in the pious faith stories called “history” by churchmen.

 

[rinnie]

The CC is pure and will always be pure. No one can corrupt the CC. It is led by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the living Christ.

Many People in the Church may become corrupt. But the Church will never be corrupt. The Church is again Jesus Christ himself leading us through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ could never be corrupt and Jesus Christ is the Church so again it is impossible.

So the Church was pure before and after and forever.

 

[DeusVult09]

“Liberal scholarship” has provided an avenue for me to regain and deepen my own faith. Instead of “wandering in unbelief” the “liberal scholarship” has allowed me to see through a different lens and formulate a faith in Christ that I have found very “healing”…and has allowed me to be honest with myself…I still struggle but I am able to say with the man, “Lord I believe…help my unbelief”…Dr. Erhman, among others, has provided tools to view history as not being opposed to faith…God works in a very real historical setting…and things occur to further His purposes…I see the Hand of God more deeply in the history of Dr. Erhman…than I do in the pious faith stories called “history” by churchmen.

Well speaking from my experience when I was completely ignorant of the subject of textual criticism as someone who had just regained his faith in Christ. after reading mr ehrman’s claim about the bible it almost shattered my faith and made me think “ohh maybe the bible is corrupted by orthodox elements in the church” as Muslim always have claimed but when I looked into the opposing view from other textual critics I was astonished at the deceptive tactics used by mr ehrman and his blatant misrepresentation of scholarly consensus and range and impact of these variants.

If you think a man who uses such deceptive tactics and has such an anti-orthodox bias is more trustworthy than the church fathers that’s up to you but I however do not. if I may , I suggest you read The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities by Darrel Bock to see an opposing viewof the situation.

 

[DeusVult09]

The CC is pure and will always be pure. No one can corrupt the CC. It is led by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the living Christ.

Many People in the Church may become corrupt. But the Church will never be corrupt. The Church is again Jesus Christ himself leading us through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ could never be corrupt and Jesus Christ is the Church so again it is impossible.

So the Church was pure before and after and forever.

yes i agree no matter how many sex scandals there are in the church it will not corrupt the church which is led by the holy spirit.

 

[Publisher]

Well speaking from my experience when I was completely ignorant of the subject of textual criticism as someone who had just regained his faith in Christ. after reading mr ehrman’s claim about the bible it almost shattered my faith and made me think “ohh maybe the bible is corrupted by orthodox elements in the church” as Muslim always have claimed but when I looked into the opposing view from other textual critics I was astonished at the deceptive tactics used by mr ehrman and his blatant misrepresentation of scholarly consensus and range and impact of these variants.

If you think a man who uses such deceptive tactics and has such an anti-orthodox bias is more trustworthy than the church fathers that’s up to you but I however do not. if I may , I suggest you read The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities by Darrel Bock to see an opposing viewof the situation.

I do not believe in the pious “faith-building” stories and history espoused by the ECF’s is absolute factual and historical…lot of embellishments and myth. Dr. Erhman as far as I have read has no intention of “deception”…he lays out the facts and allows those who wish to weigh against their own faith traditions. I understand it is believed that when a particular faith tradition “faith history” conflicts with secular history the secular historian is accused of misrepresentation or deception…I have not found that the case.

My faith was restored…not shattered…my love of the Bible was strengthened…I see the Hand of God moving now…where before it was just a bunch of myth…now I see the Bible as a source of Light…a sign which points to the Light…and being able to read scripture with it’s “layers upon layers” of development opens up vistas for me.

 

[DeusVult09]

I do not believe in the pious “faith-building” stories and history espoused by the ECF’s. Dr. Erhman as far as I have read has no intention of “deception”…he lays out the facts and allows those who wish to weigh against their own faith traditions. I understand it is believed that when a particular faith tradition “faith history” conflicts with secular history the secular historian is accused of misrepresentation or deception…I have not found that the case.

My faith was restored…not shattered…my love of the Bible was strengthened…I see the Hand of God moving now…where before it was just a bunch of myth…now I see the Bible as a source of Light…a sign which points to the Light…and being able to read scripture with it’s “layers upon layers” of development opens up vistas for me.

it is not pious faith building but its about truth. Truth and faith do not need to contradict. ECF? I do not assume mr ehrman is false just because he’s liberal but upon examination of his arguments and how he misrepresents things. just look at my refutation of his argument about adoptionism in Luke. He never mentioned that all codices and papyri before the 5th century have the traditional reading but on the basis of codex bezaze he alledges some great orthodox corruption of an adoptionist verse
even though there’s a vast amount of evidence indicating otherwise. That is deception pure and simple. What else shall I call it? Its not academic honestly or truthfulness.

 

[Publisher]

You hold the position many if not most “conservative” believers hold…I do not begrudge you that…I simply do not hold your beliefs.