Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Bart Ehrman'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Courtyard
    • Welcome
    • Daoist Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • The Rabbit Hole
    • Forum and Tech Support
  • The Tent

Found 2 results

  1. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene

    Interview with Bart Ehrman about issues concerning 3 of Jesus' most important disciples. He explains that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. I believe it was the catholic church which slandered her as one, because she was a closer disciple to Jesus and actually outranked Peter who they claim is the first pope. Mary Magdalene was really the first one to see him after he came back to life, and was the one who propagated his teachings the most after his death. Bart Ehrman says here that he believes it was more-so Mary Magdalene who influenced the start of Christianity in it's earliest form, not Peter- 'Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene' : NPR
  2. Misquoting Jesus

    Misquoting Jesus Textual critics have proven many parts of the modern bible were not originally a part of it. One example is the story of the woman who was about to be stoned to death but Jesus saved her by saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It's been proven that this was added in hundreds of years after the NT texts were first written down, and the original texts didn't have this story. Koester notes: Someone arguing that it was originally in there has to explain why it does not appear in the most early accounts--why would they all delete? Why would it appear in the wrong gospel? Bart Ehrman Interview on "Misquoting Jesus" http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-14-2006/bart-ehrman Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus', with audio interview- Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus' : NPR The book of Bart- The Book of Bart Historians don't consider the KJV to be historically as authentic or original as some other versions Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which there are differences of some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament Greek text that the King James Bible is derived from. The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were not found until after the KJV was already written, so they are older and more original. They are considered to be examples showing just how much a bible can change over time. The Masocretic texts that the modern bible is based on are obviously historically inferior to Sinaticus and Vatinicus which are far older. Here are 5, out of hundreds, of modern interpretations of scripture that can objectively be proven false- 1. The story of the woman who was to be stoned but was saved by Jesus, never happened and was not originally in the bible 2. The Trinity did not exist in the original texts 3. Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus- Jesus the Nazarene means Jesus the Essene, not Jesus of Nazareth 4. Mary Magdalene being a prostitute rather than the head disciple of Jesus 5. The Resurrection as people today understand it was not in the oldest texts If you've played the "telephone game" as a kid where you whisper a phrase into someone's ear who then whispers it to the next kid and so on down a whole line up of kids. The phrase ends up something unrecognizable to the original. Now add that with whole texts that are supposed to come together as a complete story, different languages being translated, and different people doing different parts. I don't know that we can examine each change individually, but if you think about what the odds are....the odds are there are significant changes The bible of today is still a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, and obscure teachings and often originally oral traditions