Don't Blindly Follow "Biblical Scholarly Consensus"

The Bible is of the elite. It's not true and you can't be trusted. The Bible exist because they wanted to. Given the story there's no way it would have unless they wanted too.

biblical scholarly consensus isn't just Bart Erehman and his beliefs. The field is extremely diverse, and on top of this, there are many highly respected and intelligent bible scholars who are Christians like Dale Allison.

Bart Ehrman is one of the foremost Biblical scholars of our time - and for very good reason.

Other than his somewhat defective Christological exegesis in John, he is for the most part pretty spot on - and in particular in making the Bible accessible to the common man - in contrast to so many high-browed evangelical scholars, e.g. Lane Tipton. Bart has gotten beyond all that - thank God!

I highly recommend regular doses of Ehrman - especially for his grasp of critical analysis - and historical evidence.

Biblical scholars work with the earliest copies of the scriptures. Translations of translations over hundreds of years invites changes, big and small. The early church canonized books that were later taken out. Wordings in different translations at different times differ, sometimes creating differing accounts. The Bible is written by fallible humans. It’s a piece of literature that’s been modified and refined for 2000 years. Biblical scholars are stepping back and watching the development of the scriptures and Christianity through time, year by year. Now we like to think that the biblical canon we have today has been the same ones shared by the first Christians. That’s just not reality. Biblical scholars are important for understanding Christianity. I understand we NEED to believe the Bible is inerrant, so much of life is unreliable and disappointing, but a deep dive into Christian history shows you what makes Christianity special, but also what makes it human.

The New Testament books are not teaching history. We can't date when Jesus was born and when he died because of contradictions between the Gospels.

If you get spiritual truths from the Gospels, more power to you, but don't attempt to get history out of them. That's not what they're for.

What a hatchet job you are involved in...if you are interested in making a career of trying to destroy Dr Bart...which you cannot even get close to...why don't you take Dr Bart on face to face..and let's see who really knows the facts. Most of what you criticize about Dr Bart is inferred by you in a misdirection to make it sound like Dr Bart is way off. When Dr Bart takes on these Christian scholars in debates he usually ends up looking like the calm one in control of the facts and the Christian usually has to go off on some tangent like you do. For example you mention Tim Mcgrew on the unbelievable show...well, if anyone goes back and listens to those podcasts you will see exactly what I am talking about...where mcgrew answers questions with misdirection, always interrupts, and cannot control the facts anywhere like Dr bart...similiar like you do. It really looks petty.

Great video. He's a child of Satan. Matthew 15:14 "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

I listened the Yale lecture series on the NT a couple of years ago. The completely Roman opening, forgetting everything about the Jewishness of early Christianity, put me off. Listened to it all the same.

Liked the OT lectures better, esp. the one on the Torah. Excellent structure!

The fact is that scholars base on opinion they draw not necesariy the truth
Example
Did jesus exist?
Some say its a myth
Others legend
Others real he existed
They use same sources but see difference in positions taken
As christians we use NT to interprete NT

Everytime I hear “biblical scholarly consensus” it’s literally just Bart Ehrmans opinions lol

The good thing about real academia is that its not at all about trusting people, but its simply to let the data and the facts speak for themselves.

Ehrman is just a willful misinformant feeding their preconceived notions to prejudiced atheists. How he can claim that Jesus never said to be God is outright laughable and in any serious discussion should get him laughed out of the room.

Wow, this was very desperate.

Mr. Ehrman claimed in Revelation 2:22-23 that Jesus said he was going to rape the harlot then kill all her babies. Actually, that isn't what was said at all. He also pointed out that "Jesus was evil in Revelation". If you all go and read Revelation 2 verses 22 and 23, it should become perfectly clear what was said. Never just accept what someone tells you without checking things out for yourselves. Be diligent.

😂😂😂😂😂

He is speaking the truth way before I heard him I did my own research and Bible study found New Testament is counterfeit left Pegan christianity

Catholicism created Christian doctrine study yourself many Pegan God’s stories and rituals in New Testament, + free Masonry and Illumanti

He is speaking the truth he was Christians I left Christianity way before I found his channel christianity and Islam counterfeit religion created by Romans Jesus is not Messiah of Isreal he is Caesar Messiah of Romans watch the documentary and learn the history of sages of Jerusalem many False Messiah came.

Dr. Ehrman lost his faith (as far as I heard) because of the problem of evil. Not because he thinks the NT was too full of contradictions or written too late etc. So he himself didn't think any of it invalidated Scripture enough for him not to believe it.

Yet he bases most of his public statements on the things that he didn't think was enough of a problem to lose his faith in the first place. I think he has the modern day "elite syndrome" where he thinks his opinions are so important and above question that lies are okay to save people from themselves.

When I started looking in to Barts arguments, I was actually dumbfounded and mortified. He's out there spreading misleading arguments and leading many astray. His arguments are unreasonable because he's not even quoting scripture properly.

Unfortunately the vaxx take didn't age well

This over two year old video, just showed up in my feed. It got my attention with the title, “Don’t Blindly Follow…” Let me fill in the blank here. Nobody should blindly follow anything. But if the person who posted this video was intellectually honest, he would have avoided poisoning the well, in the title, before he even gets to his main arguments. I could follow his title with my suggestion; “Don’t Blindly Follow…” anything in the Bible.

I always read more than one source. I find PROF EHRMAN's approach educating, entertaining and it has lead me to you.

I don't understand a schokar like him doesn't tie Matthew 26 65 68 to Daniel 7 13 15 🤔

In Germany, before the scademic, it was deterrmined by a virologist that measels is not a virus that passes from person to person. He put this out as a challenge that went to court. He lost the first round yet appealed. Went to their supreme court and he won as it was not proven that measels is a virus.

thank you

This scholar is just telling the truth

Don't Blindly Follow "Biblical Scholarly Consensus", Don't Blindly Follow "Historical Scholarly Consensus" Don't Blindly Follow "Scientific Scholarly Consensus"

I will agree that you should not place "blind faith" in anyone or any work of literature. Not even the Bible or even the Quran. You can cherry pick mistake that Bart makes. After all he is not being inspired by Yahweh, Jesus or even Allah. His books are not nor does he claim them to be inerrant like some Christian claim Bible is without error. 😇😎😉

Beliefs are not facts.

Thanks! Keep up the good work!

Would be nice to see Ehrman take a lie detector test to see if he truly believes all the lies he spills

Most of these scholars work at secular schools which by law prohibit teaching that favors a certain religion or any religion at all. This means if they came across any evidence for the veracity of the Bible, they wouldn’t be able to teach it.

well said! And, I am one who embraces doubt as part of the journey in faith!

BE is so incredibly sloppy in the easy stuff that it makes me even more suspect of his handling of the more difficult things.

And Peer Review doesn't mean endorsement of content. It is really a very very low bar.

The 'scholarly concensus' at one time was that the Hitites were non-historical, legendary, myth. When they dug a few feet deeper, they found an extensive Hittite civilization. Scholarly concensus means 'I let other people do my thinking for me'.

Bart Ehrman more like Bart Errorman haha gottem

Don't blindly follow anything.

I sometimes wonder if Bart Ehrman isn't a double agent. For example, his theories about Mark, are so obviously wrong and easy to refute. He makes really weird, absurd suggestions that are easy to refute if you simply know the New Testament pretty well, but Ehrman also testifies to the validity of many things that are very helpful to Christian apologists to have validated by a well-known atheist Biblical scholar. i.e. 1) that although there are many errors in the copies of the Gospels we have, none of those errors upturn orthodox (with a little "o") Christian understanding of these works, or the theology that flows from them - you can debate the orthodoxy, but it doesn't flat-out overturn it 2) that the errors are overwhelmingly of the minor typographical type - the books appear reliably maintained through the millenia, well enough that we've a good idea of what the authors were trying to communicate 3) That Jesus was clearly an actual person in history 4) He was crucified by the Romans, died and buried and 5) on the 3rd day his empty tomb was found. With just those 5 points, Christians can build a reasonable case for Christianity's truth. Ehrman helps contemporary Christianity. He doesn't hurt it (not does he profess to desire to hurt Christianity - he just doesn't believe it).

Ehrman did study with some of the great modern Bible scholars, such as Bruce Metzger - who was himself a believer. Metzger knew all of the facts that Ehman knows, yet those facts never led Metzger - or 90% of the others who learn them - to questioning his faith - rather it seemed to strengthen it. It seems the people who fall away from Christianity in their religious studies started out with absurd assumptions - i.e. there should be no typos in handwritten documents if they are true scripture. Even Muslim Koranic scholars deal with the manuscript error issue. This is obviously always going to be the case, but we know, from vast amounts of evidence - such as the vast archives of the Dead Sea Scrolls - that the scribal traditions have proven to be remarkably good at what they were trying to do, vis-a-vis preserving religious documents that the scribes considered of life-saving value.

The Bible today is a book more studied by more professionals and laymen than any other book in history, notwithstanding other religious scriptures. Quite arguably, the New Testament, which is much shorter and an easier read than the Old, is far more intensely read, since it is the core book of the largest single religious group in the world. There's nothing a 21st century Biblical scholar is going to discover from reading the New Testament that hasn't been known for centuries - so how do you address this so as to have a successful academic career? I think Ehrman's strategy is to toss out bizarre claims that even he understands are weak, but that atheists want to hear. The people who buy his bestselling books (bestsellers are a rare thing for a biblical scholar, whether atheist or believer) either want to believe what he is writing, or will buy his books to understand a disbeliever's point of view - and potentially to refute the arguments. Either way, Ehrman sells a ton of books. It's really, really hard selling books that explain orthodox Christian teachings, but it's those orthodox teachings that you end up with if you read the Bible sticking to honest and most apparent interpretation - so taking Ehman's tact makes sense in the context of Modern Academia.

Modern Academia in soft studies like literature and history does not reward truth, it rewards developing a following. What Ehrman does makes complete sense if your goal is a successful career as an academic and scholarly writer.

Well-said!

You can’t really scrutinize a historical perspective from a theological perspective…I guess you can but don’t expect anyone to respect you for it. His faith is irrelevant to whether or not there are contradictions in the Bible. Don’t be so insecure.

I have purchased three of Bart Ehrman's books. I've noticed he teaches his opinion without showing the evidence when supposedly trying to "debunk" a Christian claim. And many skeptics and Atheists will take that as true. Let's be careful and let us be wise

You say Bart is not trustworthy however I think you have taken him out of content, he clearly states that you should listen to the author of each book and not try to match each book with each other and read what the author is trying to say in his own words, so you haven't allowed for that at all.
Bart is using the historical method which is not a matter of simply believing the text but trying to find what was originally written by the author which is difficult because there is no original.
You can be as critical of Bart as you like but you are approaching it from more of apologetics then using the historical methods which is just trying to correct what is supposed to be there.

Well-said!

I don't understand why I shouldn't trust someone giving me their interpretation of the Bible, but I should trust the bible?

But why does god play so stupid all across the Bible with his own crimes he did breaking his own laws he imposed on humanity? Have you bothered reading the book with half a brain ? If you did you wouldn’t say all this nonsense which you can’t prove!!!

I don’t believe anymore in the bible it is written by men, men that lie.