Bart Ehrman destroys Christianity in under 12 minutes.

[Minimalist]

Oh... Poor butt hurt xtians can't handle having their precious bible bullshit exposed. Sucks to be them but Ehrman is hardly breaking new ground here.

These Bible fuck ups were exposed as soon as the jesus freaks lost the power to burn anyone who said so at the stake.

[Ignorant]

Unless I've missed something, all he's saying is that you can't prove the resurrection using the Gospel texts. I think any Christian would be very wise to agree. Ehrman says that the gospel narratives, as they are found in the text, about the resurrection are not reliable historically. You might find it interesting that Ehrman DOES NOT believe EVERYTHING in the gospel texts are historically unreliable, e.g. He thinks it is almost certain beyond doubt that Jesus existed and was crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate. <= does that prove anything beyond that fact? No.

[Alex K]

Call me superficial, but I make a point not to watch videos that are advertised as DESTROYING or PWNING viewpoint or person xy.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I'm with you on that. Pisses me off.

[Aractus]

Unless I've missed something, all he's saying is that you can't prove the resurrection using the Gospel texts. I think any Christian would be very wise to agree. Ehrman says that the gospel narratives, as they are found in the text, about the resurrection are not reliable historically. You might find it interesting that Ehrman DOES NOT believe EVERYTHING in the gospel texts are historically unreliable, e.g. He thinks it is almost certain beyond doubt that Jesus existed and was crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate. <= does that prove anything beyond that fact? No.

No, he continually makes the claim the NT text is a 2nd century revision, which he has no evidence of, and the evidence he points to (textual variations) don't support his argument.

[Jehanne]

It's a great video; anyone who watches/listens to this video cannot possibly have any confidence in "Biblical" Christianity:

 It's certainly not systemic as is claimed by Bart, that fact alone is disproved by the second century manuscripts that exist of Luke and John.

You need to clarify, though, that these are not complete manuscripts.  For instance, the P52 fragment from the Gospel of John is the size of a credit card:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Li...apyrus_P52

P.S. In fact, here's a list of all New Testament manuscripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne...ent_papyri

[Jehanne]

Call me superficial, but I make a point not to watch videos that are advertised as DESTROYING or PWNING viewpoint or person xy.

Fine.  I hereby rename my thread to, "Bart Ehrman undermines Christianity in less than 10 minutes."

[Alex K]

Call me superficial, but I make a point not to watch videos that are advertised as DESTROYING or PWNING viewpoint or person xy.

Fine.  I hereby rename my thread to, "Bart Ehrman undermines Christianity in less than 10 minutes."

I can live with that :-D

[Aractus]

You need to clarify, though, that these are not complete manuscripts.  For instance, the P52 fragment from the Gospel of John is the size of a credit card:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Li...apyrus_P52

P.S. In fact, here's a list of all New Testament manuscripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne...ent_papyri

Sorry what I meant was manuscript not "manuscripts", and I was referring to P75:




Just to explain it since you probably can't read Greek - it's late 2nd century and on the same page that Luke ends (pictured above) John begins. I hope that clears that up. The manuscript is mostly complete, I'm not looking it up, but it has about 100 leaves (pages) that still exist today of the original representing more than 60% of the original manuscript. And of course it's Papyrus (made from reeds), not Parchment (animal skin); with parchment writings being much more durable of course.

P52 is fairly unique, most manuscripts are not a single scrap of a manuscript, again without looking it up the average length of a NT manuscript is over 400 pages: but most of those are from the 4th century on and are parchment. When looking at papyrus, those are generally earlier, and the break down and turn to dust much quicker, and they had less books (if any) bound together. In this case, P75 is just Luke-John, whereas your 4th and 5th century manuscripts usually contain the whole New Testament.

[abaris]

You might find it interesting that Ehrman DOES NOT believe EVERYTHING in the gospel texts are historically unreliable, e.g. He thinks it is almost certain beyond doubt that Jesus existed and was crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate. <= does that prove anything beyond that fact? No.

This cannot be stressed enough. Ehrman is also a theologian and not a historian or archeologist. That's why he still subscribes to parts of the gospels being reliable.