Some gospels weren't written by the apostles; they spoke aramaic; the gospels were written in greek

What say you?

Attached: 1200px-Bart-d-ehrman-2012-wikipedia[1].jpg (1200x1417, 215.54K)

Other urls found in this thread:

1: They easily could have been taught it.
2: They spoke what they said and a scribe wrote it down for them in Greek.
3:They received the ability to speak Greek from the Holy Ghost.

That's funny because these same biblical "scholars" say the gospels were written by people with a poor grasp of Greek. It's almost like Greek wasn't their first language or something.

correct, for example st. Luke was not called an apostle
in other news, water is still wet

so I just checked that guy in OP's pic is some sort of agnostic critic of New Testament
is this how their work look like? they spent years on their universities and then state things that were already known for 2000 years?


Bart Ehrman is one of the biggest proponents of Bible skepticism, he doesn't go as stupid as Carrier who says Jesus didn't exist, but in all his works and documentary appearances he tries to say the gospels were made up or exaggerated etc.

Tradition, going back to the 1st century, says that the apostles were involved in all of the Gospels. Matthew and John were written directly by them, while Mark was written by Peter's companion while Luke was written by Paul's.

Also, isn't this the guy who calls into question claims within the Bible and then turns around and makes his theories about the (((real))) history of the Bible by basing them on what the Bible says? As in, "hey, this book is bs, but here's my theory that presupposes that this Biblical narrative or event happened."


John and Mark spoke greek 100%
Matthew was probably written in Aramaic and then translated.
Luke was one of those of Paul, they preached and wrote for converted gentiles, he also had to know Greek.

But why was it written in Greek? Because hebrew and aramaic were the languages only of the jews, how can you convert all people if not by using more widespread languages?
It was the will of God, else why would the only prophetic book of the NT, Revelation, be revealed in greek?

t. captain obvious

They presuppose anyone who believes what they don't is stupid, ironically because they're stupid. It's like contesting "But the bible says God doesn't exist. Bet you didn't know that." I'm pretty sure all atheists commit this fallacy, whatever it would be called.

For example, I posed this argument to an atheist friend of mine:
1. If propositions are abstract objects, they are not contingent.
2. Propositions are contingent
3. Therefore, propositions are not abstract objects. (modus tollens from 1)
4. If it's true and doesn't have meaning, it's an abstract object.
5. Propositions are not true or they have meaning. (modus tollens from 4 and 3, DeMorgan's Law)
6. Meaning can be necessarily subjective and yet objective only if it's subject to God.
7. Meaning is necessarily subjective, i.e. meaning doesn't exist unless it can have meaning to someone, e.g. a book would have no meaning or potential meaning were no one ever to exist to have written or understand it; it would just be scribbles.
8. Therefore, if God doesn't exist, objective meaning doesn't exist. (modus ponens from 6)
9. If the proposition "Objective meaning doesn't exist," is false, objective meaning exists.
10. If objective meaning doesn't exist, the proposition "Objective meaning doesn't exist," doesn't objectively have meaning.
11. If a proposition is true, it has meaning. (disjunctive from 5)
12. If it exists, it objectively exists, e.g. if an idea exists, it objectively exists, not necessarily the subject of the idea.
13. The proposition having meaning, exists.
14. Therefore, if the proposition having meaning, exists, i.e. "if the proposition has meaning," then it having meaning objectively exists, i.e. "it objectively has meaning." (modus ponens from 12)
15. Therefore, if the proposition is true, it objectively has meaning. (modus ponens from 11)
16. Therefore, the proposition is self-refuting. (modus tollens from 10)
17. Therefore, objective meaning exists. (modus ponens from 9)
18. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 8)

The only valid contention would be if objectively having meaning is the same thing as having objective meaning, and yet he proceeded to claim it commits like a dozen fallacies, demonstrating not only a profound misunderstanding of what he was saying, but also the presupposition that I am stupid enough to pose an argument that somehow commits a dozen fallacies.

They just presuppose we're retarded. It has to be some kind of Presupposition of Stupidity of Your Opponent Fallacy or something.

Well traditional belief is to say the authors penned them themselves, but aside from the uncertainties regarding the attributed authorship, what would be more likely is that professional scribes were hired to do the writing following the apostles' or other followers' account which are more readily attributable to them.
Luke and the Epistles are more likely to have been penned by the attributed authors.

There were Hellenized Jews at the time and Greek was the administrative language, the Christian movement may have been enjoying more success with gentiles than with Jews also for the decision to be made to be write texts primarily in Greek. Nevertheless a strong Syrian Aramaic tradition flourished.


Good thing the thing that matters is that the Church picked the texts. Not who they were written by.

Attached: b44b2f80559bacba83bd2b387408e35f453389a9a512e1494f746f5f160564bb.jpg (660x564, 40.83K)

I think it worth remembering that he came from a protestant tradition which held that the bible was infallible, perfectly preserved/unaltered and absolutely produced by the Apostles named (which also means that John the Apostle as the John in Revelations).

Plus when you consider he comes from a protestant country it makes sense doubly so when you consider most of his books are about introducing these concepts to a lay audience who the idea that the named Apostles did not literally write it is in fact a radical idea.

It would be a different case if his content was articles trying to get published in academic journals or made claims of novelty.

What type of educational background does your friend come from because for people who are not versed in formal and modal logic you cant really expect them -even if clever in other areas- to be able to respond well to it.


Even Bart Ehrman himself admits that he is not that great of a scholar as people think he is. And by people, I mean those smug, godless, uptight urbanites who read the (((New York Times))), and listen to (((NPR))) where pseudo-scholars like Ehrman, Crossan, Borg, Azlan, and other schmucks from the ass-end of academia are given their fifteen minutes of fame to intellectually masturbate on orthodox Christianity.

They do this to make money. Those sad souls need your money because they know that they've wasted decades of their life and thousands of dollars in academia instead of pursuing actual jobs that benefit society. Schade.

I've made posts like this long before, OP. I, too, fell for the "historical-critical scholarship" meme and made it into a pathetic excuse to doubt my faith in Christ. But I grew up. This man is a tigger, OP. An actual tigger.

Attached: d29.jpg (466x349, 33.43K)

If someone is intimidated by a numbered argument with clearly mapped syllogisms, then the last thing they do is start incorrectly citing this and that fallacy. Posting the actual argument was convoluted. The point was merely to provide an anecdote emblematic of how atheists just assume ahead of time that people who disagree with them "just don't get it" and this is a sort of cognitive bias or fallacy that prevents them from even being capable of changing their mind.

Is he as outright fraudulent and deceptive as Aslan?

Ive noticed it to be otherwise, indeed I see it as them trying to use what tiny fragments of formal logic they know. Its kind of like when one discusses the WWII in depth and a person responds with the what they recall from high school or video games.
Id say its closer to just plain arrogance, stubbornness and bigotry.

The Holy Spirit gave them the gift of speaking many tongues but Greek was also the lingua Franca of the region so translating original Aramaic/Syriac works into Greek would've been common

How about you say that's what you'd do and leave it at that? Most atheists I've met including the one who looked back at me in the mirror when I was 13 will puff up their paltry knowledge when challenged so they don't lose face. This sort of intellectual dishonesty is why rationalwiki proudly lists all the classical fallacies and then peppers their articles with them in their most crude form.

Mark was the interpreter of Peter and wrote down what was relayed to him, accurately although not in order according to Eusebius.
According to Coptic tradition he was a native of Cyrene, Pentapolis (Libya, North Africa) so would be able to speak gentile dialect(s), supposedly he studied law and the classics.

According to Eusebius, Papias of Hierapolis (died 100ad) says that Matthew was written in the Hebrew dialect (which could mean Aramiac).

Has erhman had the audacity to say that? Very well, let us crush him…

>john's speeches, practices, and locations mentioned in the bible really really make the case that john was possibly an essene or an essene break-away.

There's more smashing to be done, though:

And yet more:

Overall, then, half of jesus's crew almost certainly spoke greek, and a plurality of them were almost certainly literate in it. If ehrman said otherwise, then he can suck it let him be anathema.

Yeah, pretty much.

that's how literally everything contra christianity works. seriously, I've had arguments on reddit where I literally articulate 2nd century responses and win.

It's like atheists don't even know that there's nothing new under the sun.

Not really. The term critic of the NT doesn't mean that he hates NT it means that he belongs to the school of thought that used the so called critic method while studying a sacred text. I watched two of his courses:

And I learned of lot new facts about biblical archeology and text linguistics. The guy is a scholar, a scientist. If he says something it is either a scientific historic fact or a topic that is being discussed in the biblical community. Here is an example from the course about the Apostolic Fathers so you can judge it yourself.

Attached: lo5.webm (408x308, 8.7M)

No one said he hates the NT. That is a straw man. Nor is he merely a critic. He is a vocal skeptic. Whether he is a scientist is irrelevant. If he isn't a logician, everything he says should be considered plausibly false. Only the deeply foolish revere science as an existential anchor.

The irony is that if this man, or any other vocal anti-Christian is correct, they have nothing to gain and therefore no motivation to be vocal anti-Christians (even though they probably just call themselves atheists). But if Christianity is correct, then objective evil exists, and they either again have nothing to gain and therefore no motivation to be vocal anti-Christians, or they stand to gain the destruction of belief in the truth. Doing anything necessitates motivation. Therefore, the irony is that the very act of being vocal about the supposed falsity of Christianity proves its truth.

It seems ridiculous at glance that anti-Christianity could be so simply self-refuting, but that's because it so simply is.

There is much to gain and therefore motivation for opposing e.g. Islam.


Bart Ehrman's the type of tigga to enjoy smelling his own farts.

flawless logic

Attached: atheism1.jpg (600x750, 71.25K)

p sure the contention is that they were fisherman, ie uneducated, rural retards

Attached: 215eua.jpg (615x500, 105.3K)

Attached: 873b40685.png (1080x810, 540.25K)

just because something isn't stated explicitly doesn't mean it isn't implied.
This is why i like christianity, christ trusts us enough to figure it out ourselves from the scriptures he have been blessed with.

WAIT people can know more than one language? YOU'RE BLOWIN MY MIND HERE