Where Bart Ehrman's Theology Truly Shines
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- Talked a little about a new video from Ancient Paths TV • The Bible vs. Bart Ehrman about Bart Ehrman, playing a few clips and making application.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio...
#stumble #review #scholar
I thought Bart was a truly intelligent guy but after listening to him speak about the Trinity, I'm like this guy was once a professing Christian??
The Trinity is an invention after Jesus died.
@@TommyJTrump The Trinity was invented while Jesus was buried for 3 days?
@@TommyJTrump Nope.
@@TommyJTrump Genesis, anyone??
@@KristiLEvans1 nope
To be fair he should also include all the words of all the manuscripts. Add the all words up.
He is expert on textual analysis
Brother: don't say "he himself will admit" beacuse thus is putting words in his mount. Rather, let him say this or post a clip where he says this (there may be one) but that is the honest way to go about. Seekers of truth like me HATE it when people don't give references or put words in others mouth or summarize others opinions. Fake News reports do this A LOT and is annoying as heck. Thank you.
I always thought the differences in manuscripts between Majorscule v. Miniscules. So even though they might be the same words spelled the same away but because one manuscript made it in all caps whereas another writes them in all small letters-starts accounting for the thousands and thousands of discrepancies. I am sure these are not the only types of discrepencies but if I am wrong in my perceptions-please square me away.
I don’t think he was explaining his own perspective but that if the differences in the trinitarian theology. In fact he went on to describe other people who believe in modalism.
Is it a lie to make a true statement in such a way that means the opposite of the truth?
The word you're looking for is deceit .
@@killingtime9283 i can't remember the context of what i said; it's at least in response to something someone said.
I think it had to do with the absurdity of saying something true and not true at the same time. Deceit would work also, though.
If Bart at some point during this later chapter in his life believes.....it will be the first and last time he believes.
Do you say that because you believe that someone who truly believes in christ/christianity can't fall away from those beliefs? Or in other words because you believe in the "preservation of the saints" principle ?
@@gavinmcewen5896 Yes, you are correct.
@@robertknight3354 Yeah I find that interesting. As an ex calvinist I now think this is just one of the many examples of how religion can poison a persons mind against logical thinking. Imagine if we applied such an illogical belief principle to anything else,....Imagine claiming that all (or any) of the things that certain people might have genuinely believed down thru the ages (regarding everything from medicines right down to children believing in tooth fairy's or father christmas) were never actually ever genuinely believed at the time. And then using as your evidence of that, the fact that many of those people changed their minds and now believe other things.
No one in their right mind would for one minute accept such irrational logic/claims. Yet such nonsense gets openly adopted in order to make sense of illogical bible claims.
Self-serving, unfalsifiable nonsense.
Bart Ehrman not only gets the doctrine of the Trinity wrong but, he gets Sabellianism wrong! 🤣
LOL.. Yeah, like there is only one doctrine of the trinity! Someone is ignorant but it is not Ehrman.
@@gmac6503 Ignorant? Are you implying that there is more than one *CORRECT* Trinity? Now, that would be heretical and puts anyone who believes in that outside of orthodox christianity! There's only one true Trinity! Bart Ehman believes and espouses a false Trinity!
@@jhowe5571 I am implying that there is more than one doctrine of the Trinity. I see you assume there is one correct doctrine of the Trinity. Which one is the correct one? There are many different doctrines of the Trinity. I suggest you read a little bit about what they are.
@@gmac6503 ..."There are many different doctrines of the Trinity. I suggest you read a little bit about what they are."
There seems to be some presumption here, as to my Christian faith. I've been a Christian for going on 28 years. I first started in the word of faith movement, as I had no one to teach me the core doctrines of the faith and the only preaching I could find at the time were TV preachers. It was told very early on, in my faith to study the bible for myself, which when I did, I began seeing many inconsistencies in the WOF teachings.
Then, I heard a street preacher that preached the true gospel. It was then that I realized that all the things I knew were pieces of a whole gospel message. The sovereignty of God and His holiness. The law and judgment. And of course, the death, burial, and atonement. Along w/the sinfulness of man, I realized the WOF movement had a false gospel.
I left the WOF and found a church of fellow believers, and it encouraged me to study and learn quite a bit about doctrines of the faith. I learned a lot about the Reformation, church history, and soteriology. Also, I have studied a lot about false doctrines and how to recognize them. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of those doctrines. So, I have already, " -read- (studied) ...more than a little bit about what they are."
Biblically, the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed and shown to be three persons of the Godhead and yet, one being of God. The Athanasian Creed is probably one of the best to explain this, even though there are a couple of words that need to have their clear definitions in mind when reading it. Also, Dr, James White wrote the book, "The Forgotten Trinity". It is very comprehensive and I would highly recommend it.
So now, there's a little bit of my background, regarding what I know about Christian doctrine...
@@jhowe5571 1) I did not have any presumption at all about your christian faith. It is irrelevant nor do I care 2) Glad you got out of the WOF movement but it does't matter because it has nothing to do with Studying the Doctrine of the Trinity historically or knowing there are many doctrines of the trinity. The fact is there is NOT JUST ONE doctrine of the trinity and anyone who has studied it KNOWS that if someone denies that fact, then that person has not studied it. I suggest you study it if you want to learn. Go to Stanford's philosophy page, for starters, and you can learn. plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/
3) You obviously do not know and anyone who has studied it knows that you have no clue. So please just read it. It is like someone claiming they studied Greek and then continue to show blunders proving they never studied it. There is not a person in the world who has done any competent study on this topic who believes there is ONE doctrine of the trinity. It is not defendable so just stop, please. 4) Bbiblically there is no one doctrine of the trinity and until AD 381 it was never defined and even then the language was ambiguous. Until Nicene in 325 it never existed but after the so-called hypostatic union they had to do something about putting the holy spirit in there, hence 381. 5) I already read White's book back in 1998 when it came out and a few times since. Making claims is not proof of anything. It is a weak book.
Now to conclude; read the Stanford paper if you want to continue this and also you have no idea where I stand. A good trinitarian will openly admit there is no ONE doctrine of the trinity and will either pick one of the many that are available or become a unitarian or just keep being a trinitarian and resorting to Mystery, which many do and that is ONE of the many different doctrines there are. Please read the Stanford Paper.
James White slammed him in debate. The problem is, no one understands the debate. How many people watching know what those things are and what the terms mean ?
Is there a reason these clips keep skipping?
Yeah, I noticed the same thing. Glad you noticed it too.
I delete most of James's "uhm" pauses and lately trying to remove instances of stuttering.
Dividing Line Highlights
That makes a lot of sense! Thanks for responding. 👍🏼
Bart Ehrman donates debate money to charity.
Are we sure the "Three beings" quip wasn't just a slip of the tongue?
Obviously Mr Ehrman says this frequently enough that he should know not to express it this way. 🤔🤦♂️🤷♂️
Anyone with even basic theological training in Christianity knows that precision of language is central to any speech about the Trinitarian God. It is the last place where fuzzy terminology is acceptable. And no orthodox theologian would ever say "three beings". Three persons, but not three beings.
@@polemeros can you explain further please?
@@Porklion A being is a self contained entity. Three beings would mean three independent gods. It took 3 centuries for Christians to agree on the right language. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church 232-260 for an explanation.
@@polemeros thanks, I will. So, a "person" is not considered a self contained entity? I'm having trouble understanding the difference.
White was over his head in the debate with Ehrman
You’re misrepresenting Ehrman like usual
Hmmm no, Bart is just wrong abt the Trinity, he is not right on everything he is human, you just gotta admit that 😳
Another Ehrman worshipper. Kei, he’s not highly scrupulous.
lol I can't believe this, he is a joke
I think the joke is someone who calls this scholar a joke. Seriously, go study!
Hey James is trying lol
Ehrman can't even get trinity right, LOL!
There are many doctrines of the trinity. Which one do you hoid to? Do you even know?
@@gmac6503
The one that is defined by Nicaea and Constantinople 381 as well as Chalcedon.
That was held for almost 1000 years until the frankish Catholics came along and perverted it and then the protestant magisterial reformers more so.
@@ThruTheUnknown Nicea wasn't about the trinity. Go study!
@@ThruTheUnknown So you don't know all the different theories about how to define the trinity. Plus you don't even know what councils dealt with it. And you have the balls and ignorance to bash Ehrman?
@@ThruTheUnknown clueless is what you are
Nobody understands the doctrine of the Trinity. 3 can’t be 1. It’s absurd.
Yes but according to the Hebrew texts of John, Matthew, and even Luke, when it's being referred to God as LORD, should have been His real name Yehovah, otherwise, Lord just means "master" and doesn't necessarily point to God or Jesus. In those times, the rich people got called that title. Scribes and editors throughout the history have a lot of repenting to do.
See Nehemiah Gordon's findings.
@@danielomitted1867 books in Hebrew, not the Book of Hebrews. See Nehemiah Gordon's (who's a Jewish scholar) findings. And it's YehoVah, not Yahweh.
@@danielomitted1867 if you're just interested in arguing with yourself don't litter on my comment please.
@@MSHOOD123 its Yahweh, not Yehova.
@@menknurlanI think I'm going to trust Jews when it comes to God's name. ruclips.net/video/dbb45zmkli4/видео.html
showing some old clips and then refuting is not being honest
Has Bart recanted these statements?
If he’s accurately presenting the views of Ehrman (which he played videos from, so I don’t see how they aren’t), I don’t see how that would be dishonest. Would it be any more valid to quote from an old book of his? In order to respond to arguments, you need to be able to show them somehow. What if someone watched one of Ehrman’s old videos and was persuaded by his arguments? Why can’t White respond then?
Except 1) Bart Ehrman has not recanted, and 2) those clips are taken at taken time periods, some recent some earlier
He showed MULTIPLE clips of Ehrman saying the same thing. Over and over. That shows a pattern. Do you understand what I’m saying?
Bart Ehrman lives rent free in your head 😂
Bart Erhman is just one of many people James White has dealt with. You sound like a fanboy whos upset his guy got called out.
@@danielomitted1867 ehrman took white to school on their debate! who did he get called out lol
@@Ancient-theology if you say so.
James white owns him in every debate.
White destroyed him in the debate.
Brother: focus on the facts rather than trying to discredit Bart. Fact, Statement, Fact, Statement, with references please. Your Opinions are X zero
The entire New Testament is completely outside of the world view of anything in Tanach. Best example of this is when Matthew says "out of Egypt I have called my son" prophecies Jesus. Hosea 11:1 calls the nation of Israel the son of God. Matthew twists the term into a term of individual biological offspring. In Tanach it's a term of national identity.
Read your new Testament. When Peter says Jesus is Messiah, and Jesus says he must suffer and die, does Peter say "of course, Isaiah 53"? No. He thinks Jesus is wrong. When Jesus tells the multitude he must be lifted up, they say this is inconsistent with Messiah.
He came unto his own, a d his own received him not. Why? Because the entire story is inconsistent with Tanach. Gentiles accepted it. Why? Because they weren't grounded in Tanach.