which version of christianity is correct?

[Jehanne]

I cannot recommend the following high enough:

Audiobooks by Professor Bart D. Ehrman

I would recommend at least these audiobooks (if possible, in order):

• The Historical Jesus (GC)
  
• The New Testament (GC)
  
• How Jesus Became God (GC)
  

[Dundee]

I am commenting.  I didn't, and won't, watch the video.  I'm a rebel like that.

Comment, comment, comment.

 Good!
I also hate watching long videos.
If someone has something to say, he could put it in writing.

We are a forum, aren't we?
Not a cinema.

[Drich]

I cannot recommend the following high enough:

Audiobooks by Professor Bart D. Ehrman

I would recommend at least these audiobooks (if possible, in order):

• The Historical Jesus (GC)
  
• The New Testament (GC)
  
• How Jesus Became God (GC)
  

the dude has nothing to go one. he speaks or gives explanation based on what he identifies as a lack of information. it's all speculation based on speculatory work of others. For people who pretend to demand proof for everything, you seeming overly willing to drop this requirement if and when someone is telling you what you want to hear. Not one of his 'facts' can stand up to any serious academic scrutiny. in fact if you consider the books he dismisses/the gospel and any other writtings on christ the church retains, there is more in the way of written academic proof for christ, than supports his various speculations.

The dude is a snake oil sales man he simply knows how to package bullshit in a way you 'smart people' love to gobble down information.

---

I am commenting.  I didn't, and won't, watch the video.  I'm a rebel like that.

Comment, comment, comment.

 Good!
I also hate watching long videos.
If someone has something to say, he could put it in writing.

We are a forum, aren't we?
Not a cinema.

5 mins. when i write things down... most of you try and get the gist, and then plug in your own narrative. 90% of the time the subtleties of my pov are lost to your stereotypical christian argument.

for instance on the topic of prayer, those who watched the video about 60% argued the point which was miles from those who wanted to argue their own understanding of prayer. while those on topic came to understand they never once prayed with the understanding of what or why they were doing it.

when I write out the topic 80 or 90% do not get the topic. the see the title and assume they are equipped to argue the point.

[Drich]

I cannot recommend the following high enough:

Audiobooks by Professor Bart D. Ehrman

I would recommend at least these audiobooks (if possible, in order):

• The Historical Jesus (GC)
  
• The New Testament (GC)
  
• How Jesus Became God (GC)
  

the dude has nothing to go on. he speaks or gives explanation based on what he identifies as a lack of information. it's all speculation based on speculatory work of others. For people who pretend to demand proof for everything, you seeming overly willing to drop this requirement if and when someone is telling you what you want to hear. Not one of his 'facts' can stand up to any serious academic scrutiny. in fact if you consider the books he dismisses/the gospel and any other writtings on christ the church retains, there is more in the way of written academic proof for christ, than supports his various speculations.

The dude is a snake oil sales man he simply knows how to package bullshit in a way you 'smart people' love to gobble down information.

---

 Good!
I also hate watching long videos.
If someone has something to say, he could put it in writing.

We are a forum, aren't we?
Not a cinema.

5 mins. when i write things down... most of you try and get the gist, and then plug in your own narrative. 90% of the time the subtleties of my pov are lost to your stereotypical christian argument.

for instance on the topic of prayer, those who watched the video about 60% argued the point which was miles from those who wanted to argue their own understanding of prayer. while those on topic came to understand they never once prayed with the understanding of what or why they were doing it.

when I write out the topic 80 or 90% do not get the topic. the see the title and assume they are equipped to argue the point.

[Jehanne]

I cannot recommend the following high enough:

Audiobooks by Professor Bart D. Ehrman

I would recommend at least these audiobooks (if possible, in order):

• The Historical Jesus (GC)
  
• The New Testament (GC)
  
• How Jesus Became God (GC)
  

the dude has nothing to go one. he speaks or gives explanation based on what he identifies as a lack of information. it's all speculation based on speculatory work of others. For people who pretend to demand proof for everything, you seeming overly willing to drop this requirement if and when someone is telling you what you want to hear. Not one of his 'facts' can stand up to any serious academic scrutiny. in fact if you consider the books he dismisses/the gospel and any other writtings on christ the church retains, there is more in the way of written academic proof for christ, than supports his various speculations.

The dude is a snake oil sales man he simply knows how to package bullshit in a way you 'smart people' love to gobble down information.

---

Professor Ehrman is a distinguished author who has authored a popular textbook on The New Testament:

The New Testament -- Professor Bart Ehrman

I guess, Drich, what is your alternative?  You??

[The Valkyrie]

Answering the original post title...

The one with no gods.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

the dude has nothing to go on. he speaks or gives explanation based on what he identifies as a lack of information. it's all speculation based on speculatory work of others. For people who pretend to demand proof for everything, you seeming overly willing to drop this requirement if and when someone is telling you what you want to hear. Not one of his 'facts' can stand up to any serious academic scrutiny. in fact if you consider the books he dismisses/the gospel and any other writtings on christ the church retains, there is more in the way of written academic proof for christ, than supports his various speculations.

The dude is a snake oil sales man he simply knows how to package bullshit in a way you 'smart people' love to gobble down information.

Spoken like someone who has read reviews of Ehrman, rather than Ehrman.

Boru

[Jehanne]

the dude has nothing to go on. he speaks or gives explanation based on what he identifies as a lack of information. it's all speculation based on speculatory work of others. For people who pretend to demand proof for everything, you seeming overly willing to drop this requirement if and when someone is telling you what you want to hear. Not one of his 'facts' can stand up to any serious academic scrutiny. in fact if you consider the books he dismisses/the gospel and any other writtings on christ the church retains, there is more in the way of written academic proof for christ, than supports his various speculations.

The dude is a snake oil sales man he simply knows how to package bullshit in a way you 'smart people' love to gobble down information.

Spoken like someone who has read reviews of Ehrman, rather than Ehrman.

Boru

To give credit where "credit" is due, I remember reading a review by an evangelical Christian of A Marginal Jew by Father John Meier, a modernist Catholic theologian, and this reviewer at least had the honesty to cite his sources as not being from A Marginal Jew, but, rather, a different source who had quoted from that work!  In other words, this evangelical Christian author, it is clear, had not even read the book by Professor Meier that he was reviewing!

[Nay_Sayer]

I am commenting.  I didn't, and won't, watch the video.  I'm a rebel like that.

Comment, comment, comment.

 Good!
I also hate watching long videos.
If someone has something to say, he could put it in writing.

We are a forum, aren't we?
Not a cinema.

I've seen the videos. They're drivel.

RAmen

[Simon Moon]

the dude has nothing to go on. he speaks or gives explanation based on what he identifies as a lack of information. it's all speculation based on speculatory work of others.

This is laughable, considering you base your theistic belief off texts, written decades or more after the alleged events, by anonymous authors, that were not eyewitnesses. Your beliefs don't quite even rise to the level of speculation. Ehrman's research, is based on the same texts as you believe, plus much more.

For people who pretend to demand proof for everything, you seeming overly willing to drop this requirement if and when someone is telling you what you want to hear. Not one of his 'facts' can stand up to any serious academic scrutiny. in fact if you consider the books he dismisses/the gospel and any other writtings on christ the church retains, there is more in the way of written academic proof for christ, than supports his various speculations.

The dude is a snake oil sales man he simply knows how to package bullshit in a way you 'smart people' love to gobble down information.

That is not what is going on here, at all.

I do not demand 'proof' for any claim, just evidence, that provides warrant to support the claim. And there is no amount of textual evidence alone, that is enough (for critical and rational thinking, and correct application of skepticism) to support any supernatural claims. Including: zombies rising from their graves and entering Jerusalem, people living in fish for several days, talking serpents, demons living in pigs, etc, etc,

The fact that you are convinced that texts that have stories about these, are relating true events, doesn't say anything about Ehrman being a snake oil salesman, it speaks to your gullibility. Your standards of evidence is lower for your chosen theology, than it is for other supernatural claims.

The existence of an itinerant, messianic rabbi named Yeshua, existing in 1st century Palestine, is a perfectly acceptable position, and one that Ehrman supports. He agrees with all the scholarship with regards to this position. He is not outside the mainstream scholarship on this at all. It's the supernatural claims where he happens not to be as credulous and gullible as you are.