Bart D Ehrman's Latest Apostate Hits (or Misses!)

Recently BAR magazine delivered the teachings of Dr. Bart Ehrman to light as he did an expose on how Jesus  the man became venerated as deity. 

Building on and reaffirming his self proclaimed "agnosticism" the American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,  took about 45 minutes to make his case, beginning with a 2 minute presentation of a parallel called "One remarkable Life" based on the life of Apollonious of Tyana, who was said to have many of the same appellations of Jesus, claiming that there were "many" son of God myths during that time, flying around the pagan (non-Jewish) world.

In his diatribe he claims that Apollonious of Tyana was an incarnation, born of a virgin, was a miracle worker, suffered at the hands of Romans, and experienced resurrection...in other words, Apollonius's life was parallel to Jesus life during the same historical time, therefore the recorded events of Jesus life and even Jesus himself was not specially unique for the time. The peanut gallery asks:  Is any of this true? Well some is and some isn't, and what isn't makes the total difference.  

Unraveling The Tangled Web Of Deception

Unfortunately, Dr. Ehrman continues to persist in partial and half truths to make and promote whole and complete lies. In the Facebook group In Defense Of The Faith, I took the time to outline Dr. Ehrman's flawed starter argument in the following manner:  

"In this discourse Dr. Ehrman sets out to prove how Jesus became the "Christ" or how he became divine. He, like Robert Price, are building off a discredited hero thesis by English folklorist Lord Raglan who claimed that all hero myths of antiquity shared 22 traits. Price claims that Jesus had all 22 and therefore was nothing more than a hero myth.

Read more!

Athiest Smackdown Over The Historical Jesus

As I have outlined in my post, "The Raging Battle For The Jesus Of History" there is an ongoing fight over whether Jesus really existed or whether he was just a myth promoted by people who had some kind of utopian vision for their society. 

Dr. Bart Ehrman

One thing that I have found interesting is when nonbelievers disagree on the topic they approach one another with the same or similar vitriol in which nonbelievers attack Christians for their belief. Unfortunately for the "mythists" there are people on both sides who understand historical studies and have the ability to decipher historical facts. These people use the same arguments that Christians use to defend the historical person of Jesus. 

Recently, agnostic Bart Ehrman had to take one of his fellow non-believers, who calls himself "The Infidel Guy" (some guy named Reggie), to school on the historical Jesus. When The Infidel Guy mentioned that Paul may have lied about Jesus, and Dr. Ehrman asked "Why would he lie?" it seems that everything fell apart. Not only is there no good reason to believe that Paul lied, there is no historical reason to believe that Jesus did not exist and that Paul was not referring to him. 

What really hyped things up was that Ehrman suggested that the sources such as Robert Price, who has spent great time promoting that Jesus was a myth (made a lot of money too) is not credible at least in Dr. Ehrman's eyes. Although I find it hard to believe that Ehrman was unfamiliar with Price as he seemed to appear at least on radio, because he at least knew about his employment, stating that he was not a professor,  and at least one book he wrote. Ehrman also seems to discredit Dr. Hector Avalos as merely an Old Testament scholar, with the implication that he wouldn't offer any insights on the historical Jesus either. 

In short I guess if atheists want to know anything about the historical Jesus, they should consult Dr. Ehrman which seems to be a two edged sword that Erhman uses to cut whomever might get in his way. 

     

Pt. 1

 Pt. 2


Blessed!

Read more!

Misquoting Who? Another Ehrman Fantasy Rebuffed Out Of The Gate

New Testament Historian and alleged biblical scholar, Dr. Bart Ehrman, Professor of NT studies at UNC has forged a career and padded his bank account significantly calling into question the entire Biblical narrative of both Old and New Testaments. To be frank, he should be the main person on his knees thanking Jesus and the God of the Bible, because he has made his living solely off of God and his work as recorded within scripture. Ironically, he owes God everything he currently enjoys!

His books are best sellers and referenced by many atheists and Christians. His publisher allows him to promote his works through multiple video casts and podcasts aimed at not only driving sales, but creating interest and stirring as much controversy as possible so he can come in hot and be in the forefront of Biblical and scholarly discussions.

In a videocast promoting his book "Misquoting Jesus" Dr. Ehrman claims that the doctrine and teaching of the "Virgin Birth" was an error promoted by only 2 gospel writers (Matthew & Luke), was not known as being of any importance by NT authors, primarily Paul, and was essentially a later development within the text and in particularly the gospel narratives themselves. He claims that Matthew Chapters 1 & 2 and even Luke 1& 2 were probably inauthentic later insertions to the text to affirm certain theological beliefs regarding Jesus origin over time.

Ehrman, who I have consistently named and given my annual "Anti-Christ Advocate Award" because of the complete fantasies by which he endorses and subsequently dupes the public. He is certainly a "learned" scholar. However, his aim is to deconvert individuals from Christianity, and cause those students, who pay to be in his classes, to doubt their faith and I suppose, become little Ehrmans and go out doing the same for as many Christians as they meet...

For starters, I wouldn't pay this devil a dime to sit in his classes. I would not advise any parent to subject their child to his style of Biblical illiteracy...yes I said "illiteracy"...To expound...Dr. Ehrman, who no doubt, believes what he says, is blind as the devil as it pertains to TRUTH, which can be known with certainty. satan too, knows a lot more than we do as humans, but he is blind and illiterate. While this is not the point of this article, Dr. Ehrman would claim that historical truth cannot be known with certainty, and that supernatural truth can never be established from historical narratives and as history, and as such, any supernatural events, can only, at best, be a matter of faith, which is subjective and less stable and reliable than truths that derive from non supernatural causes...(Yes, that is another article that I can do later) ...These, of course, are my words, but would be an accurate assessment of Ehrnman's basic propositions in Biblical or historic Christian truth in particular.

With all of that said, and I hope you can see that I clearly and plainly disagree with much of what Dr. Ehrman asserts and contends, and certainly his moral rationale of his alleged work, I have however, bought, paid for, and read a couple of his books including the awful, "Misquoting Jesus". Certainly, in order to examine his work and offer commentary, I have to research his work and make sure that I am representing his positions accurately. I certainly wouldn't want to lie on him like he lies on God!

So far as Jesus being "misquoted" and Christianity not promoting the message of Christ, for sure, if we, as Christians, don't know what Jesus said, Dr Ehrman certainly doesn't know... How could he claim to know that something,... anything,... was "misquoted" unless he has the original or is able to work things back to the original? Then who gave him the original, or by what "magic" does he conjure up substantive truths that have escaped Christianity, and the minds of Christians for over 2,000 years but have suddenly come down to him? In other words, everyone in the world and history, were simply of lesser intelligence and ability until he came on the scene...Too bad he was born too late, he could have certainly "corrected" Paul, the Apostles and even Jesus himself and then we would all know the truth for sure!!! What arrogance and utter nonsense in the name of a "friendly" Professor, or someone dedicated to "knowledge". We see the exact same approach of satan (aka the serpent) as he presented his own set of truth to Eve in the Garden. it was satan that was telling the truth while God, by not telling the complete truth, was also telling a lie. Ehrman, moves in the path of "his father"...

I'll leave that alone, but PLEASE!!!!

Nevertheless, Dr Ehrman deals with the concept of "the virgin birth" in his December 2023 video below. Of course, he has the inside track on why Matthew was wrong, why Isaiah 7:14 was a misinterpretation based on a misapplied Greek word and mistranslation from the LXX, and why Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was conceived as Christians believe.

Thankfully, I have already done some of the heavy lifting on the issue and have preserved my thoughts and what I believe is the correct Biblical teaching on the issue in 3 podcasts also below that I did in 2017. Although Dr Ehrman offers no new information in this interview, making it necessary to update or clarify my position, he does give me fodder to expand and build upon the information I present which I will do in a future writing and podcast.

I hope you enjoy these presentations. Even Dr. Ehrman's...I think lies such as those he presents, should be examined in light of the TRUTH that we know and have received from holy scripture.

Blessed!

Read more!

Is Belief In The Bible Essential To Christian Faith?

In reference to the title question of this article, according to Professor Bart D. Ehrman Chair, Dept. of Religious Studies UNC Chapel Hill, belief in the bible is not essential to the Christian faith. In a very brief and fantasy laden article, published by the Washington Post Online on May 1st 2009, Professor Ehrman reflects on the criticisms leveled at him because of the claims of his new book 'Jesus Interrupted'. I am preparing a post to deal with Professor Ehrman's irresponsible biblical interpretations and will have it posted either here or at The Dunamis Word 2 for study, but I just wanted to look at a couple of his arguments in particular regarding the bible and biblical passages. Tracing the view of the authority of scripture to the Niagra Conference and 14 Point Creed, Professor Ehrman says this regarding the fundamental belief in the authority of the scripture:

• "To make faith in the Bible the most important tenet of Christianity was a radical shift in thinking -- away, for example, from traditional statements of faith such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, which say not a word about belief in the Bible."..."Here are the historical realities. Christianity existed before the Bible came into being: no one decided that our twenty-seven books of the New Testament should be "the" Christian Scripture until three hundred years after the death of the apostles. Since that time Christianity has existed in places where there were no Bibles to be found, where no one could read the Bible, where no one correctly understood the Bible. Yet it has existed. Christianity does not stand or fall with the Bible."

Read more!

Academic Confusion...Class DISMISSED!

Although I feel that a "higher education" in ministry is not required to be an effective minister, pastor or church leader, I certainly do not discourage them that pursue this avenue. However, and with that said, I feel for some of our families who send their children to Universities expecting that their faith in Jesus and in the bible to flourish often are disappointed when those same children come back confused and sometimes disillusioned by professors that are either agnostic about God or just flat out atheistic in their approach to explaining away the bible and the God presented within it.

Individuals such as Dr. Hector Avalos, a Professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, who is an atheist (see my debate with him HERE, HERE and HERE) and Dr. Robert Price, who was once the Chair of Theological Studies at Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary, and of course, Dr. Bart Ehrman who is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.(Evidently a position of certain distinction) Along with Dr. Ehrman at UNC is Mr. "Jesus Dynasty" himself, Dr. James Tabor who continues to attempt to prove that not only is Jesus buried, but he was not the Messiah, is of no special concern upon history, certainly is not God, had a human father that was certainly not God and had a secret family here on earth. You certainly don't expect to be confronted with atheist dogmas when trying to learn the bible, but that's par for the course.

Dr. Ehrman, who is a sort of a reluctant favorite of mine, as I will purchase a book here and there to see his latest and greatest mis-hits, or should I say, mis-directions, is one that is a preeminent scholar in New Testament Literature and, whether you agree with him or not, is a staunch advocate for a real Jesus as opposed to the Jesus mythers who seem to believe the garbage and stink of Richard Carrier's ideas are somehow "fresh" and enlightening. 

So, even though I gave Dr. Ehrman my anti-Christ Advocate award, I will commend him for vehemently arguing the historicity of Jesus. It seems that when Dr. Ehrman believes something to be true, he acquiesces to that truth and what he believes, as long as there is evidence in support of his position. So all of my critique of Dr. Ehrman is not necessarily negative, and if we were to meet, I would be honored to discuss matters with him I'm sure. (provided that he didn't charge me like he does to be a member of his blog)

WITH THAT SAID, I MUST still continue to condemn atheists and agnostics in seminary leadership positions such as Ehrman, for making it a mission to de-convert students who have trusted that they will grow in their faith and learn truth. It seems that many will be confronted with a healthy dose of misdirection, confusion and flat out deceit.

There are two things to be said about this however. First, it could be that some non-believing individuals attend seminaries directed by atheists, so that they can further develop their unbelief. There are some individuals who graduate from seminary, see opportunity to only make money in and from ministry. I am reminded of a theology school student who said, he didn't believe in God, but he was only taking the course because the church offered him a pastoral leadership job. For these hirelings, there is no conviction or call of God. It is only a money making venture, or a place to gain accolades and attention. Still there are others who only want to expand there pursuit of seeking to "bring down" the Christian faith. Teachers and professors such as Ehrman are the gurus they need to employ to help them increase in knowledge and to gain some sort of credibility.

Secondly, and this may be the case, maybe the expectations of sincere students and families are misplaced. It comes down to this for them, they should do better research,  I believe that it is ultimately the responsibility of the student and their family to research these institutions just like they research everything else. So I can't lay the total fault at Ehrman's feet.However, having placed a child in college, I understand that sometimes individuals are so overwhelmed with college acceptance and the name and prestige of a University acceptance or chance to be a part of a University, that research sometimes takes the back seat and emotions take control.

The Opportunity

This is where Professor Ehrman comes in. As I've stated, I believe that studying under him will   enlighten any student to certain truths and also certain errors. Certain materials that students would not normally be exposed to, appear to be discussed indepth. In addition I believe that he has a command of history and literature and would not relish a debate him on those singular issues. However, Dr. Ehrman's interpretation of biblical fact is very problematic and from the way his written material reads, the Professor seems to make whole cases off of a partial interpretations of scripture, and that is my problem with his presentations in general.e

Although I have never sat in or been a part of his class, I have however read some of his books and continue to review them from time to time (too much mis-information at once makes my head hurt) Dr. Ehrman does examine some complex Christian biblical "difficulties" but in most cases he conflates these "difficulties" to the level of faith breakers. In other words his presentation is one in which it would seem that he is saying, because this alleged "discrepancy" or proposed "contradiction" exists (whatever they are according to him) that the bible should be abandoned as the word of God and that the early church leaders did not know what Jesus they were referring to. Of course, this sort of narrative fits snugly into his overall premise as he seeks to hold out for his German predacessor, F.C. Bauer's theory of "competing Christianities", which seems to have been debunked ad nauseum by many in the scholarly community and especially by many of the fine authors and graduates of the Dallas Theological Seminary, and Biola University graduates, who's scholars produce some of the best reading available on religious studies. 

It seems that Dr. Ehrman's objective is to encourage believers to jettison the bible if something does not make sense to him or doesn't fit what he views as "evidence" for the Christian faith and faith belief. Rather than look for and present solid answers to his question, even if he maintains his question, Professor Ehrman takes the route that Christianity and the search of God through and by it is some kind of hopeless venture and that we are ultimately left to follow the dictates of our own minds and hearts.

The Heart Of The Matter

In this article, I will present one such topic about which Professor Ehrman makes a whole case without a thorough examination of the evidence and a point which may catch some of his students unprepared.

When Was Jesus God, Son Of God And Messiah?

Once such subject that Dr. Ehrman confuses the biblical text on is what the bible teaches about the deity of Jesus. This is the fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. One cannot be a Christian unless one considers Jesus as divine. Professor Ehrman however believes that Jesus being divine was nothing that was attributed to him in life but was only attributed to him after his resurrection. This is his argument in his book "How Jesus Became God" . The book Description says this:

"Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection. Only when some of Jesus’s followers had visions of him after his death—alive again—did anyone come to think that he, the prophet from Galilee, had become God. And what they meant by that was not at all what people mean today.

As a historian—not a believer—Ehrman answers the questions: How did this transformation of Jesus occur? How did he move from being a Jewish prophet to being God? The dramatic shifts throughout history reveal not only why Jesus’s followers began to claim he was God, but also how they came to understand this claim in so many different ways."

Ehrman makes somewhat of the same argument in his book, "Jesus Interrupted" [Harper Collins 2009].

On pgs. 94-95 speaking of Paul's preaching and teaching about Jesus, Ehrman notes:

"In Paul's speech to potential converts in Antioch of Pisidia, he speaks of God's raising o Jesus in fulfillment of Scripture: "What God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, "You are my Son, today have I begotten you'(Acts 13:32-33)"

He then goes on to say:

"In this text the "day" Jesus became begotten as God's son was the day of the resurrection. But how does that square with what Luke says elsewhere? In Luke's gospel the voice utters the same words, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"(Luke 3:22) when Jesus is baptized"

He draws it out further by pointing to Gabriel's instructions to Mary in confirming that the child that she would have would be divine (Lk. 1:35) saying:

"In this instance it appears that Jesus is the Son of God because of virginal conception: he is physically God's son"

He concludes by asking:

"How can Luke say all three things? I'm not sure its possible to reconcile these three accounts: it may be that Luke got three different traditions from three different sources that disagreed with one another on the issue."

This appears to be the argument that Professor Ehrman is making in his book, "How Jesus Became God" 

A student may have a difficult time answering this. Ehrman, certainly takes literally the term "this day" as to mean, that precise moment, locking Paul into a narrative that he taught that Jesus was only Messiah after his resurrection which may be in conflict with what the gospel writers contend. Again Ehrman sews the seed of hopelessness and non clarity. 

Are things as hopeless as Ehrman claims?

I think NOT. Here is the primary reason why:

Interestingly, in the same book, "Jesus Interrupted", Ehrman lists a number of reasons why he does not believe in the authority of scriptures and why he believes that the church has either mis interpreted Jesus words, or that Jesus words just do not exist to affirm that Jesus was deity prior to his resurrection. 

Since Ehrman contends that the gospels are late creations "around" what is believed about Jesus and are an amalgamation of sources, then let us revert to a minimal facts argument. Let's agree that there are other works that are not in dispute which may help us settle this issue. Surprisingly enough, without saying a word, Professor Ehrman agrees that there are such books which are authentic and not in dispute about what is said within them 

On Pg. 112 of the same book in the chapter "Who Wrote The Bible" under the section, "Are There Forgeries In The New Testament?" Professor Ehrman states the following:

"Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight almost certainly go back to the author whose name they bear: the seven undisputed letters of Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon) and the Revelation of John (although we aren't sure who this John was)"

Interestingly, in most scholarly circles, it is believed that these letters, the ones that Ehrman names, were written prior to the gospels. In fact according to the late F.F. Bruce in his 1943 work, "The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?" the most preeminent work and authority on New Testament documents and their dating, the dating of the works that Ehrman names are as follows:

Romans: 57 AD

1 Corinthians: 54-56 AD

2 Corinthians: 54-56 AD

Galatians: 48 AD

Philippians: 54 AD

1 Thessalonians 50 AD

Philemon: 60 AD

Now, that creates somewhat of a conundrum for Ehrman at this point. He has previously argued that the gospels were late developments. (I mean read the book and his works on the subject and you'll see). However, these works, some of the first that Paul wrote, were early developments. Most if not all prior to AD 60 and one, Galatians some 15 to 18 years after Jesus crucifixion (depending upon the date) Because of this, Ehrman, like most critical scholars would contend that what these books say are the actual teachings of the early church on the subjects that they embark upon. 

Paul On The Deity Of Christ

Interestingly enough, Paul says specifically what he means about Jesus and who he was and when he was deity. 

Philippians 2:5-11 ~ 5-Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6-Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7-But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8-And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9-Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:10-That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11-And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 

This what scholars have deemed a "hymn" was delivered to the New Testament church by Paul from an early account within ministry. It is clear that Paul did not contend that Jesus was deity only after the resurrection. He contends, rather clearly that Jesus was deity, PRIOR to his virgin birth because he was/IS God!

Here is another that conforms to the thought that Jesus was pre-existent as God:

1 Cor. 8:6 ~ But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Remember, Paul was a monotheist in the most strict sense of the word. The attribution of the one God by "whom are all things" is not in contradiction or contrast to the Lord Jesus Christ "by whom are all things, and we by him". The statements are in accord with one another. 

Then  Paul further affirms that Jesus was the "Son", once again, from the beginning and not just after his birth or resurrection. 

Gal. 4:4 ~ But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (ESV)

According to what Paul alludes to, his teaching did not just simply begin with him. He says in 1 Cor. 11:23. "For I have received of the Lord..." Certainly the resurrected Christ met Paul on the road to Damascus. This would allow a further revelation of Jesus to Paul as he records in Galatians 1.

There is somewhat of a scholarly consensus that Paul receives his instructions directly from the Lord in regards to the sacrament of the church that was already in existence as something commonly held and believed among the church. In other words, what Paul receives, by revelation, is in accord with what the believers of the "Way" were already practicing and teaching among one another. This would be a confirmation to believers that Paul had indeed either met Jesus by revelation or had been with church leaders and was versed in the early creed of the faith. 

I present the 1 Cor. 11 passage to address issues that the church was not aware of these things and that these issues were developed by Paul. Clearly they were not his creation. The church already had a "high view" of Jesus prior to Paul's interaction with them.  

Conclusion

Here we have a claim of Ehrman that the church and followers of Jesus was inconsistent as to when Jesus was God and Messiah. However, when we examine the scripture it does not display the discord that Ehrman claims. 

We see that from early documents, agreed upon to clearly have been written by the person claiming to have written them, that Jesus was taught to be not only God at birth or resurrection, but also preexistent and God before he came to earth. 

I haven't touched on the book of Revelation but if we go there, it is chalk full of more of the same information. At either rate, we do not see a church in conflict over when Jesus was Lord, Messiah or God. We see a church accepting that Jesus was God in a preexistent form, working miracles on earth and rising again from the dead to demonstrate his power over all life and death, ie: acting as God!

What are we to make of Luke's account in Acts 13 that Paul invoked Psalms 2 to say that "this day" or the day that Jesus was resurrected that he became the Messiah? Or that Jesus was somehow the Messiah only because he was born of a virgin?

Personally, I say not much!

Obviously, Paul taught that Jesus was God in a preexistent condition and therefore the Messiah at birth. To the Jews or Greeks who did not know, which was the context of Paul's preaching at Antioch, the resurrection, though having occurred prior to that day, would have been the day in which this revelation would have been made known unto them. Paul did not teach, in the early letters, neither did the church contend that Jesus became Lord or Messiah over time or because of some event that occurred during his lifetime no matter how special that event was. 

Further, Psalm 2 is a prophetic Psalm and was also alluded to by the writer of Hebrews to point to the deity of Christ as well. Similar to Peter's use of the book of Joel in Acts 2, Luke displays that Paul alludes to the time in which Jesus would reveal himself to the world, even the unbelieving Jew, by the irrefutable fact of the resurrection. 

What neither he nor Luke intend to convey is that the resurrection is the time in which Jesus would be made Messiah. While some would say that interpretation renders the use of the word "day" or "Yom" in Hebrew with undue ambiguity, because of the prophetic intent it is a moot point and one that does not have any bearing on the communication that Jesus was deity before he was born, was Messiah when he was born and is our savior because he shed his blood and demonstrated who he is through the act of resurrection. 

Clearly, that is what the church taught and what the church believed. Paul affirms this early as recorded in Acts. 

Blessed!

Read more!

Pseudepigrapha. Did The Bible Authors Lie?

In another of a series of apostate moments designed, in my opinion, to drive books sales, Dr. Bart Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, recently stated the following in a Huffington Post article:

Professor Bart Ehrman

"Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery."

Since Dr. Ehrman delivers such a convoluted picture of the study of ancient biblical historiography, I feel that an examination of his comments are in order. It seems that Dr. Ehrman is continuing to take circumstances that most scholarly literary historians are well aware of and have adequately addressed over the years, raising certain issues to an overblown and disproportionate level, and building on many modern conspiracy theories that seem to surround the biblical texts in general.  Ehrman builds upon the discredited foundation of his mentor Dr. Walter Bauer, whose theories of multiple Christianities first century AD have been handily refuted. For more information on this and a better understanding of the assumptions behind the scholarship of individuals like Ehrman, please obtain the book, "The Missing Gospels, Unearthing The Truth Behind Alternative Christianities" by Dr. Darrell Bock Nelson Books 2006. 

In his written works Dr. Ehrman seems to be somewhat of a fatalist asserting that history can't be known for certain, even stating that the words and deeds of the historical Jesus may never be known because we don't have the original texts of scripture. If these arguments are not patently false, they are at least refuted quite adequately over the years, both in print and by debate. Of course I have addressed some of his assertions in previous articles HERE and  HERE, but Dr. Ehrman continues to offer more and more sensational notions at every turn. It is that sensationalism that he often implores as he seeks to sell and promote books, through seeking to shake and disturb the faith of millions who have come to know and trust in the historical biblical narrative. It is for that reason primarily that I DO NOT ENDORSE UNC Chapel Hill Religious Studies as a place of consideration for biblical students seeking to received a fair, balanced religious education. It seems that one that corrects or challenges his arguments will probably fail his class and waste tuition funds.

Statements such as Dr. Ehrman's describe what scholars who study ancient literature call Pseudepigrapha (Gk: "falsely attributed")or literature written by a person other than whom the writing is ascribed. Similar to what we may call a "Ghost Writer" in modern times, Pseudepigrapha goes a step further when the author attaches or assigns a name of a popular or powerful figure, past or present, in order to establish credibility for the document among a target group of individuals. Dr. Ehrman's argument appears to be that the attribution of famous names was done to New testament documents in order to deceive the readers into believing and  following practices which may not have been intended to be followed or that were not a part of the original message of Christianity as taught by those very same leaders. As we will see, he is among an ultra fringe shred of scholars who adopt this position in part because theories regarding this have been adequately refuted over the years. I believe Ehrman takes advantage of the new generation biblical critic who has never taken a look at this issue and assesses the bible and historiography ignorantly.

From A Historical Perspective, Did Pseudepigrapha Exist?

Follow me as we lay a little foundation:

Read more!

The Morality Campaign Against God Pt. 2

As discussed in The Morality Campaign Against God Pt. 1, there is a seething cauldron of growing hatred against both God and Christians in general. The non-theist desires to place the worlds ills at the feet of God and Christianity saying that God is the author of hate and division in the world therefore calling him, his actions and the actions of Christianity's adherents immoral.

Professor Bart D. Ehrman in his book "God’s Problem: How The Bible Fails To Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer" while not dealing with the morality of man, concluded that suffering is caused due to evil forces in this present world (apocalypticism). He explains how this continues even though prescribed atonement (sacrifice of Jesus) has been made to eliminate it. He concludes by calling the actions and the nature of God into question and poses that God has failed to answer why we suffer and that humans must do whatever is necessary to eliminate their own suffering. In other words Dr. Ehrman calls God’s morality and goodness in dealing with man into question.

What Does It Mean To Be Moral Or Have Morality?

There are many definitions for morality and what it is to be moral. There are both descriptive and normative definitions of the word. There is the theory of "natural law" as it pertains to morality and then there is relative morality, ethical morality and absolute morality out of which objective moral values as referenced by most Christians spring forth, along with the contention that God is the moral law giver.

Then there is a growing field of study in which even monkey's, apes, and dogs are said to have morality. Yep that's right, the atheist hates God so greatly until he is willing to exalt an animal to the status of man before he admits tha there is a God...What a Farce and a TOTAL shame! Click HERE for the truth about Monkey Morality. Yet this is nothing new for individuals throughout history have done this same sort of thing, valuing animals and the creation greater than God and those created in HIS image and likeness.

Romans 1:21-24 & 28 ~ "21-Because that, when thay knew God, they glorified him not but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hear was darkened. 22-Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23- And changed the glory of the uncorruptable God into an image made like unto corruptable man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. 24-Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lust of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves."

As stated previously Dr. William Lane Craig Has laid out the argument as follows:

1- If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

1. 2- Objective moral values DO exist.
2. 
   
   3- Therefore God exists.
   
4. From Dr. William Lane Craig, "Why I Believe God Exists" as found in Geisler & Hoffman, "Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe" (Grand Rapids Baker Books, 1999)p.75.

Through history, religious thinkers such as Aquinas (1227-1274) have held that morality is known to all those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment, whether or not they know of the revelations of Christianity.

While I gave special attention to that argument in my last post even going so far as to state the following:

• "So the Christian world view already acknowledges that one can be good for goodness sake, but that one cannot be saved or acceptable with God no matter how much good one does or performs"
  

However, I would like to further develop that idea and submit that there is a difference between the moral good of a Christian and the moral good of a sinner.

A Christian springs forth the good that they do because the heart is good and has been changed by the power the Lord. Whereas a sinner does good out of a different set of principles or essential necessities. Though the same or similar characteristics may exist in the life of a Christian and sinner, a Christian has been impacted supernaturally by the God that they serve, therefore the good that the Christian does is unto the glory of God and not merely because it was a good act. So the difference is not necessarily in the "What" of moral behavior the difference is in the "Why" of moral behavior.

John 7:37-38~ "37-In the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. 38-He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

The Naturalist Solution

Create or try to find some way to genetically account for moral behavior.

The atheist/humanist/naturalist has claimed that God offers no benefit towards morality and moral behaviors. Basically stating that all things being equal, that a sinner can be just as good or moral as any Christian, but as we have noted that argument is a non-starter and a given because we can readily observe sinners doing good things or performing good acts according to natural law. However we cannot find any genetic or natural means whereby a sinner gains those moral values. Why? Because the naturalist only responds in ways that are randomly predetermined by genetic processes and natural selection. Natural selection however is a totally blind process with no regard for outcomes either positive or negative. In other words genetic process does not care or offer a priority of moral good for the individual or society.

To further illustrate the terrible problems associated with this viewpoint, we cannot overlook the comments of one of the leading atheists and proponents of methodological and metaphysical naturalism, who is non other than Oxford Professor and scientist Dr. Richard Dawkins.

When discussing morality in a recent interview with with Justin Brierley on Premier Christian Radio Network Dr. Dawkins said the following about why mankind currently holds that the act of rape is wrong:

• Richard Dawkins: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.


• Justin: So therefore its just as random as any product of evolution? (Referencing human moral value selection)


• Richard Dawkins: Well, you could say that, but it doesn't in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.


• Justin: Ok, but ultimately your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six?


• Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah."
  

Justin then goes on to say this regarding Dawkin’s statements:

"Dawkins is not saying that "rape is ok" – he believes it is wrong from within his evolutionary perspective. However, he does admit that the belief itself is essentially arbitrary given that we could have evolved different morals – and that there can be no overarching moral fact that rape is wrong, as this would suggest values etc. that eclipse his strict naturalism. Of course, not many atheists actually want to admit that this is a logical outworking of naturalism (though it is very hard to deny) and talk all the time as though they are privy to absolute moral facts."

In the naturalistic worldview the definition of morality is solely based on blind chance and what we evolve into. Professor Dawkins agrees that the idea of rape being wrong is an arbitrary product of evolution. In his worldview we evolved to gravitate from rape being an acceptable moral standard. The problem is that Dr. Dawkins cannot account for any of this as he knows that evolutionary process and natural selection are blind and unable to distinguish between moral good and moral bad.

Hold the Phone!

This means that under the naturalist framework, we all would generally accept rape as being ok if only our genes through evolutionary process told us so? This also means that we all could accept murder pedophilia, incest, mutilation, and even eating our children as potential morally equal genetic outcomes of natural selection. Everything is based on random processes.

Devastating Effects

The effects of this type of thinking is enormous and impacting. To draw out it’s conclusions, the criminal then has no responsibility for his/her actions, because genetics become the reason and the need to fulfill criminal behaviors. Free will becomes and illusion shrouded by genetic processes and functions. What was thought to be "freedom of choice" only becomes predetermined genetic responses to stimuli. Moral good and moral bad are merely process of chance and therefore cannot be adequately penalized or rewarded. There is no special good or reward for faithfulness between spouses and no special bad or punishment for infidelity.

It is out of this understanding of natural morality sometimes called "natural law" that homosexuality flourishes. That abortion thrives. That most manias are merely reduced to diverse behaviors. This is the difference between Christian Objective Moral values and the naturalist, relativist or subjectivist value systems which campaign for morality without God. There is no standard of what is called objective morality or any standard of what should be moral obligation.

Additional Scriptural Insight

Judges 21:25 ~ "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

This scripture is reverberated 3 times within the book of Judges. (Judges 17:6, 18:1, and 21:25) one of the most interesting notes is that this scripture is was inserted at a time when we would not be expected to see any kings in Israel. I’ll explain:

Sampson had been deposed by God from being a Judge in approximately 1050 to 1070 BC. (Judges 16:31) Samuel would later reign as the last Judge/Prophet but a King would not be appointed by god and anointed by Samuel until (1 Sam. 10:1 & 17) l or at least another 13 to 32 years in 1038 BC.

One thing we learn from studying the Kings of Israel is that they were not spiritual restorers or moral leaders of the people. That position was reserved for the Priest and the Prophet whom God would raise up. So 2 questions arise?

1. What king was being referred to?
2. What was the social and moral implications of not having a king?

In my opinion this scripture does not merely reflect a future expectation of Israel, it reflects a current (historical) condition of Israel. The actions of the people were effected because there was no God directed leadership.

So the King being referred to is God himself that had given sign after sign raised up Judge after Judge to help and bless Israel and restore them to fellowship. In essence God was King doing and performing duties of taking care of the nation, but his leadership was not kept before the eyes of the people.

What were the results? Obviously the scripture indicates that the people developed their own brand of morality and their own sense of what was right and wrong by doing "what was right in their own eyes". The story of Micah in Judges 17 is indicative of this problem. Micah wanted a relationship with God but did it his way with a total disregard for the path of the Lord. He hired a pastor (priest) made and ephod and a teraphim and consecrated one of his sons to be priest. (Judges 16:5) His actions would affect a nation as the tribe of Dan would take his items and create a nation that was given to idolatry.

In part this scripture is representative of the morality of man without God or the understanding of God’s moral value system. That man is destined to do what is right in his own eyes and those actions will not be pleasing to God, because they miss the whole point of God’s purpose for relationship with and between man.

A Note On Morality From A Respected Christian Professor

Dr. Craig Bloomberg offered this in response to an atheist website called Debunking Christianity that asked him to address why he was still a Christian. On morality he said the following:

"In fact, if Christians have to wrestle with the problem of evil, so must everyone else. Indeed, we must all wrestle as well with the problem of good. Where do these concepts come from? What makes the most hardened atheist (usually) insist that there is something just plain wrong, perhaps even immoral, with torturing prisoners, abusing children, raping women, and with someone else gratuitously murdering them. The most advanced of apes has never disclosed any awareness of systems of morality, which is why we never arrest and imprison them, even if they kill humans. (We might euthanize them once in awhile, but not as retributive punishment, merely to protect the rest of humanity.) And we certainly don’t condemn multiple-partner animals of being unfaithful to their mates. Mark Twain (no evangelical he!) put it well: "Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to." Near the end of his life, Darwin admitted he had no satisfying explanation for human moral consciousness and reasoning."

When all is said and done Jesus provides a much better answer to the questions of morality among mankind. Although some have set forth to address the issue saying that morality is based on identity (vis a vis Ayn Rand) identity or self awareness tells us absolutely nothing about morality, objective moral values and what God has done for us through the power of HIS Spirit and sacrifice on the cross of his son Jesus Christ.

Blessed!

Read more!

The Raging Battle For The Jesus Of History

Of a certainty there has been no more controversial subject in historical studies than that of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is the head and the Chief Cornerstone of the Christian faith. In Christianity almost every word recorded within the pages of holy writ refer ultimately to Jesus. For the skeptic, and agnostic this poseses a problem of epic proportions. For the question is asked how can we truely know this Jesus of history?

This sort of conundrum has led to a host of various interpretations of history and faith as it pertains to the discovery of the "real" Jesus. It was during the 18th Century Enlightenment that German, Deist scholar Dr. Hermann S. Reimarus (1694-1768) set forth a totally different and radical view of who Jesus was. He set forth the idea that Jesus was a political and social idealist who never intended to start a religion and failed in his mission to liberate the Jews politically. He gave no creedence to the Jesus of faith or miracles for that matter. (Please Go Here To See Why He Was Wrong)

Partially due to the era of Enlightenment, there have been countless individuals who have set out to define, shape and reevaluate who Jesus was. To display how heated and contentious this subject can be Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) reviving thoughts set forth by German Professor G. Wobbermin tried to solidify the idea that the "historical" Jesus was even different from the "historic" Jesus. The distinction, he claimed, was that the "historic" Jesus was responsible for untold evil and repression of individuals down through the ages, while the "historical" Jesus was a person of meekness who truely sought to help individuals. In essence, in this argument, the "historic" Jesus is a product of what Christians and the church "believe" about Jesus and that "belief" is not necessarily patterened after the "historical" person.

Jesus very own words seems to negatively cap this argument in some way:

Mt. 10:34-36 ~ "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35-For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36-And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household."

Again, there have been countless others such as E.P. Sanders and in more recent times apostates such as John Dominick Crossan, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar (The Who's Who Of Apostates), and a host of other agnostic professors some of which have been featured HERE, such as Elaine Pagels, Bart D. Ehrman and James D. Tabor and even atheists such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier that have set forth their own versions of the historical Jesus. So among scholars as we have noted, there is a battle for the historical Jesus.

Dr. John P. Meier, Professor of New Testament at the University Of Notre Dame, in his landmark works "A Marginal Jew- Rethinking The Historical Jesus" Volumes 1-3 Poses a question in Volume 1 of the Series as such:

• "...what do we mean when we say that we are pursuing the "historical Jesus" or the "Jesus of history"?..."By the Jesus of history I mean a Jesus that we can "recover" and examine by using the scientific tools of modern historical research." ~ Dr. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Rethinking The Historical Jesus Volume 1, (1991 Doubleday) pg. 25.

One of the primary influences within modern scholarship pronouncing the differences between the historic and historical Jesus was German Lutheran, New Testament professor and father of biblical form criticism, Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) He rejected the historical Jesus as a basis for faith and claimed the genre of the gospels to be kerygma which he described as a development of preaching, having taken a literary form. Regarding the person of Jesus however, he set forth the following:

• "...we can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary..." ~ Rudolf Bultmann "Jesus And The Word" pg. 14

One of the reasons this is so important and controversial is because we can't and don't necessarily know "everything" about the Jesus of history. For instance, we do NOT know his favorite colors, food, or shoes etc. Other even more significant historical information such as what Jesus did in his intermediate years is still a mystery to us. These are the things that we can only wonder about the Jesus of history, but yet we have received from him enough to evaluate and know the Jesus of our faith.

These thoughts and recent discoveries (1945) of alternate gospels at Nag Hammadi, Egypt have caused some scholars to proclaim that we now have the missing pieces necessary to help us find the "real" Jesus. These finds, however have been less than convincing and in many cases clearly legendary dated too late to shed any light on the person of the First Century Messiah and savior of the world, and contain messages more associated with gnosticism than Christianity in any era.

For the person who doesn't mind delving deeply into the epistemology of their faith and further past traditional biblical studies, these thoughts and this debate quite naturally lead to other questions that I pose and ask you to contemplate and respond:

• Is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of faith?
• Whom must the Christian know in order to gain salvation, the historical Jesus or the Jesus of faith?
• Are we required biblically to know the Jesus of history in order to come to saving faith?

As you may tell this is and can be a rather complicated study. We know from scipture that we must believe God in order to receive:

Heb.11:6 ~ "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

However this verse addresses a matter of faith and not necessarily history.

In essence this post os for them that are into serious analysis of their faith and examination of Jesus. One thing I am confident of is that Jesus can stand any thorough examination that we require. He remains the only figure in history that invites us to emainine him and know his realness. Remember what Jesus said to Thomas:

John 20:24-29 ~ "24-But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25-The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26-And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27-Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28-And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29-Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Thank God, Jesus can stand any examination whether one of history or one of faith.

Blessed!

Picture Courtesy of Greg Webb, Black Jesus Picture Collection

Recommended Resources:

The Case For The Real Jesus ~ Lee Strobel, 2007 Zondervan

Dethroning Jesus ~ Darrell Bock & Daniel B. Wallace, 2007 Thomas Nelson

Reinventing Jesus ~ Komoszewski, Sawyer & Wallace, 2006 Kregel

The Missing Gospels ~ Darrell Bock, 2006 Nelson Books

The Jesus Legend ~ Paul Eddy & Gregory Boyd, 2007 Baker Academic

Read more!

The No "Jesus" Message From The Atheist In The Pulpit

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up." ~ Hosea 8:7

Not long ago I was engaged in a conversation in which I told someone that some of the people they rely on and who preach to them every Sunday only do so because of the ability to make money and earn a living and that they don't necessarily do it because they "believe" in what they are doing. Yes, some folk preaching about God, don't believe in the God they preach!

Yes, I understand that is shocking to some, but just look at what you are seeing. You are witnessing, and have been witnessing for quite some time, ministers, preachers and leaders, not just falling into sin and repenting, but actually wholesale living alternate lives and realities. 

Men fail. People fail. However, there is yet no failure in God!

Over some 14 years ago, along with many, I witnessed the ministry of Shane Perry. Shane was a White preacher who had and rehearsed all the sayings of whooping Pentecostal preacher...right down to his vocal inflections, preaching performances, entertainment and seemingly subject knowledge. In fact, Shane knew, and still knows, how to reproduce the gospel sound and make folk within Charismatic and Pentecostal circles, seem that they are hearing directly from the throne-room of God.

What The Problem Is???

Well, if that were all there was to it, everything would be good, but y-know that ain't it...recently, and I have no idea what sparked what, Shane took the time to not only announce his retirement, but to also briefly explain why. (Now, I will leave out all the Larry Reid beef etc...because I have no clue what was, or is between them and why they are cussing each other out on the internet...So, no story here on that)...However, I would like to examine what Shane, or Dr. Perry,. states in his video...Watch this: 

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." ~ 1 John 2:19

Now, Dr. Perry declares that he is not a "traditional Christian" for many, many years, and has been a "Universal believer" or what we call a believer in Universalism, that was trapped in the traditional

environment...He says he does not quote a lot about Jesus, and does not believe that Jesus is the "only way" to salvation nor does he believe the Bible fully because it has so many errors, mistakes and he knows this because he has studied Hebrew and Greek to assist him in coming to those conclusions. 

Even though he joined the South African ministry of Alph Lukau, allegedly, the greatest and most accurate prophet he has even seen, none of that could stop and or change him from his path of apostasy and now, incessant cussin' and whatever else he has undertaken since and in his retirement. 

Read more!

The Miracle Of Healing vs. Skepticism?

(Click "Read More" to watch the video)

I want to say that the blogosphere is an interesting tool. There are all kinds of people who claim to have some sort of expertise on some sort of subject. There is probably more argumentation over God and miracles than anything else on the internet including internet porn. One one hand this is a good thing that there is robust conversation and that conversation is about God, on the other hand the misinformation that centers around God and miracles is astounding. That misinformation seems to create its own culture of either internet miracle proponents or internet miracle critics and professional critics and skeptics like Michael Shermer, James Randi and others, who are modern thinkers who are scientifically centered. (so they say) These are  individuals who follow Humes thoughts that miracles don't exist as we discussed in an earlier post The Miracle Of Life After Death.

To these individuals it really doesn't matter what anyone's personal experience with God is or what anyone has experienced so far as healing by the hand of God. Yet they persist in calling others close-minded. First, for them, God doesn't exist. Secondly, all things that are not understood in the current realm of reality are chalked off to simple ignorance or lack of knowledge of some natural process. Therefore, critics such as these men play the "naturalistic faith card" to explain what they don't currently understand saying that "We'll understanding it better (by and by) when science comes". So the critic applies a "faith" in science with an expectation that science will answer all things even if its not in their lifetimes...This is revealing. It is called Scientism or Philosophical Materialism, and is actually the worship of the creature (science) and not the creator. 

Romans 1:20-25 ~ "20-For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21-Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22-Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23-And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24-Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25-Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."  

Read more!

Sin, Mistakes & Jesus

Heb. 4:15-16 ~ "15-For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16-Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

As I continue in the series I've subtitled "Atheism's Greatest Hits" It's my intent to present arguments and the resolution to those arguments so that Saints who are unfamiliar with these subjects won't be blindsided with attempts to undermine the Christian faith. We'll continue in this series by addressing and answering the question Did Jesus Make A Mistake?
We will deal with biblical inerrancy in a future post to refute the current demonically inspired lies regarding the reliability of the biblical texts themselves. For this writing I would like the critic to assume that what has been documented by biblical authors is fully accurate as written as I only wish to deal with the specific point of Sin, Mistakes & Jesus Words.

A Humanly Fallible Jesus?
Apostate Professor Of New Testament Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, asserts in his book Misquoting Jesus that his faith and belief was wrecked when he realized that Jesus made a critical mistake in reconciling Mark 2:26 with 1 Sam. 21:1-6, by claiming that David and his men ate the showbread "when Abiathar was the high priest." He goes on to claim that scripture records that when the event took place Ahimelech (Abiathar’s father) was actually the high priest. Therefore either Mark was wrong in his recounting or Jesus was wrong in reciting the passage. Either way, according to him, somebody was wrong.

Another popular criticism extends from the use of the term "this generation" in Mt. 24:34 ~ "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." The critic asserts that this passage is referring to the Great Tribulation and Judgement (Parousia) of the end times which would occur within a 40 year time frame. Further the critic asserts that there was a further promise of impending judgement upon Caiphas (Israel) in Mark 14:61-62 ~"61-But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62-And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

The assertion is that since the world yet exists Jesus was wrong about the impending judgement of the world and therefore made a mistake or certainly no less than mis-spoke and is simply a failed doomsday prophet as a result.

Read more!