• What happened to The Ehrman Project?

     

    Bart Ehrman‘s books played a big role in my journey out of Christianity.  I even remember what I was eating as I started reading a copy of Misquoting Jesus I’d just borrowed from my university library.  I also remember many debates I had with my wife (who was still a Christian then) as I was leaving the faith.  One “resource” we found was a website called The Ehrman Project.  This had a collection of videos by conservative evangelical Christian scholars, purporting to be a decisive refutation of Ehrman’s work.  Needless to say, the appalling arguments presented by these Christian scholars helped me see the poverty of the case for Christianity, and the weakness of the defenses against its many scholarly critics.

    I stumbled across an old bookmarked link to the website today and thought I’d go there to reminisce, but I was surprised to see it had fallen into disrepair:

    ehrman_project_broken

    Well, the Ehrman Project videos are still available for you to enjoy on youtube, and I definitely recommend them to anyone familiar with Ehrman’s work – it’s quite fun to see the lengths evangelical scholars will go to to argue against mainstream critical scholarship.  The standard of the videos is nicely summed up by Dr Robert Cargill:

    The video rebuttals offer little more than setting up and knocking down straw men, red herring explanations, the reframing and redefinition of certain critical questions in a strained effort to avoid answering them, and the recitation of facts leading to non sequitur conclusions that only non-critical scholars would accept as satisfactory answers.

    As an example, the first video I clicked on just now was entitled Which day was Jesus crucified?, and narrated by Dr Michael Kruger from the Reformed Theological Seminary.  The synoptic gospels say that Jesus was crucified on the day after Passover (Mark 14:12-26Matt 26:17-30Luke 22:7-38), while John’s gospel places it on Passover itself (this is most clearly seen in John 18:28 and the surrounding context, which says that the Passover meal was to be eaten on the day Jesus was crucified, not the night before as in the synoptics).  You don’t really need to be a Bible scholar to see there is a contradiction here, but Ehrman does a good job of showing it beyond any possible doubt.  And how does Kruger deal with Ehrman’s case?  Well, of course, he ignores almost everything.  He pretends Ehrman based his entire case on two things: that John didn’t record the eating of the passover meal during the Last Supper, and the wording “day of preparation of passover”.  Of course, Ehrman had many more points that were all completely ignored.  Also completely ignored was what the Bible actually says.  Plenty more examples exist, but the quality of the scholarship is just so poor it’s not really worth bringing them up.  Except that so many of my Christian friends were really impressed by the site.

    Oh well, it’s gone now.  I tried to figure out where it went, but I didn’t have any luck (apart from stumbling upon Dr Cargill’s excellent blog in the process).  Luckily, Ehrman himself has not gone anywhere, and I’m really looking forward to reading his new book, How Jesus became God.

    Screen Shot 2014-03-18 at 10.49.46 pm

    Category: Bart EhrmanBibleChristianity

    Tags:

    Article by: Reasonably Faithless

    Mathematician and former Christian
    • ncovington89

      You know, there’s a book scheduled to come out on the same day as Ehrman’s called “How God Became Jesus” (an evangelical book that intends to argue the alternate position). I think it’d be an interesting blog project if both were ordered and reviewed side by side.

      • http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless Reasonably Faithless

        I have been recommended to read the latter by a Christian friend, but I have so much to read nowadays and so little time, I prefer to only read Christian books if they come highly recommended by Christians who have read them and think they contain good arguments. But that is one I’ll keep an eye on.

    • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

      Ehrman is a master at making a molehill seem like a mountain. The smoking guns he uncovers are usually empty water pistols. What I’m saying is that he finds discrepancies in the details and then portrays them as important. That is, he majors on minors.

      As historical documents, the New Testament is better attested than anything else we have from Greco-Roman times. If Ehrman’s standards for textual reliability were applied to all ancient literature, the Loeb Classical Library would have to go out of business.

      Ehrman used to believe the New Testament and now he doesn’t. I get it. What I object to is his campaign to get others to share his doubts. It’s not becoming for someone who makes a claim to academic integrity.

      • http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless Reasonably Faithless

        Actually, Ehrman gives good reasons for why he (and other critical scholars) considers some discrepancies in the details to be extremely important. I highly recommend you have a look through some of Matthew Ferguson’s many good articles that address common arguments like the one you made above:

        https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/

        • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

          I did as you suggested and found Matthew’s approach to be very much like Bart’s – that is, a majoring on minors. They both grew up as Christian fundamentalists, eventually shedding the Christianity but retaining the fundamentalism. Rejecting God because He doesn’t do things the way we think He should is self-limiting. Groupthink is counter-productive whether practiced as a Christian or as an atheist.

          Matthew is seeking a PhD in Classics, but there is more and better textual evidence for the New Testament than any of the classic authors he will study.
          I came to faith as an adult because I read the New Testament and found its truth claims compelling. I could find no reasonable basis for denying the things that Paul, Peter, John, and the others wrote. Let Matthew study Homer, Plato, Aristotle and the others. He will find good things in them. I study those who wrote of Jesus and I find even better things.

          • http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless Reasonably Faithless

            I’m glad you had a look, though I don’t think you’ve really taken much in from either author if you think they just “major on minors”. But that’s fine, I know a lot of Christians say that. I’m not speaking for Ferguson, as I don’t know his story in much detail, but Ehrman shed his Christianity very gradually over about a decade (if I recall), slowly moving through various less-evangelical views until reaching agnosticism, and dis-belief in Christianity. I don’t know if this was your intent, but it is a very common thing to say that people like Ehrman rejected some kind of crazy fundamentalism, and threw the baby out with the bath water, as if he would have been much more secure in his faith if he just had a more moderate view.

            I have no problem with the fact that there are far more manuscripts for the New Testament than for other ancient texts (and neither does Ehrman or Ferguson). I’m pretty sure Ferguson has a post dedicated to that fact, but I couldn’t locate it. Here is a good post from Patheos:

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/11/25000-new-testament-manuscripts-big-deal/

            • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

              The Patheos article by Bob Seidensticker makes a big deal of the fact that a large proportion of the biblical manuscripts date after the 10th Century. However, what he doesn’t tell you is that if you ignored all manuscripts produced after the 10th Century the New Testament would still have as much or more textual reliability than any other writing from antiquity. This is yet another example of majoring on minors.

              The point he makes in passing – that textual reliability does not guarantee historical reliability – is correct but is beside the point at hand. The point of the article was textual reliability. If you don’t have textual reliability, then historical reliability is moot. Many uninformed people today are not willing to read the New Testament in order to test for themselves its plausibility because they have been led to believe by people like Bart Ehrman that these writings are not even textually reliable.

              First things first. Decide whether or not the New Testament is textually reliable. Then, and only then, is it worth taking the time to read and then have a reasonable discussion about whether or not it is historically reliable.

            • http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless Reasonably Faithless

              apologies for the lengthy delay in responding. i don’t think these kinds of articles are hiding anything (or “don’t tell you” something). they are responding to a certain claim. the claim is “we have thousands of manuscripts”, and the response is “most of them are so far removed from the originals to be completely irrelevant”. that point stands, and is decisive against the premise that thousands of manuscripts is good news for textual reliability (and the oft-inferred historical reliability).

              and don’t worry – plenty of informed people have read the new (and old) testament and have judged it utterly ridiculous. i spent 30 years of my life believing it to be true before eventually realising it isn’t. i agree that plenty of people just believe what people tell them – whether that be ehrman or dawkins or their priest/pastor/rabbi/imam/whatever. but what does that matter? the more interesting question is what is true?

            • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

              Yes, I am quite interested in what is true. I spent almost 30 years believing what I heard people say about the Bible being full of contradictions and subject to interpretation. Then I read it for myself…and found the biggest dose of truth I had ever encountered.

          • http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless Reasonably Faithless

            Aha! Here it is:

            https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/leveling-a-mountain-of-manuscripts-with-a-small-scoop-of-context/

            By the way, coming to faith as an adult is nothing to be proud of 😉

            • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

              Matthew seems more emotional than logical.

              1. Matthew wants to make the point that the medieval church cared more about copying the Bible than copying Plato and Aristotle. Even if true, it doesn’t change the fact that the New Testament is at least as textually reliable as any classical author. It’s irresponsible for an educated person to say otherwise. Matthew is making an ad hominem attack: “The medieval church guys were baddies…so the New Testament can’t be textually reliable.” Even if true, it’s a non sequitur.

              2. Matthew says that “textual accuracy does not equal historical accuracy.” I could not agree more. But as I said in my other post, textual reliability and historical reliability are two separate questions and have to be addressed in order. If he’s willing to concede that the New Testament is textually reliable then we can have a discusion about whether it’s historical reliable. But when a person goes back and forth questioning one and then the other, you get the idea they’re just trying to avoid a meaningful discussion.

              If you wanted to have a discussion with me about whether or not the New Testament is trustworthy, I’d first want to see where you stood on its textual reliability. If you felt that its text was as reliable as Plato, Aristotle, or any other classical author then I would proceed to talking with you about its historical reliability. On the other hand, if you were one of those people who did not think it was textually reliable, then I would give you the evidence to show that it is better attested than practically every other writing from antiquity. If that evidence didn’t convince you, then we’d go our separate ways. It would be foolish for both of us to waste our time discussing whether or not texts were true if we couldn’t even be sure of what they said.

              3. Matthew’s third point is “textual criticism is not a wholistic approach.” That is nothing more than a truism. So what? Textual criticism is simply the means of answering the question, and it’s a question we have about every ancient text: Is what we’re reading what they wrote? Whether a writing is ancient or modern, I want to read what the author wanted to be read. If I can’t be sure that what I’m reading is what he or she wrote, I don’t want to waste my time reading it.

              Matthew obviously feels a lot of resentment toward people that he feels misled him. Unfortunately, it affects his judgment. And now he is misleading others.

              By the way, I don’t take pride in the fact that I came to the Lord as an adult. I wish I had been wiser sooner.

            • http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless Reasonably Faithless

              i suggest you get in touch with matthew – he’s a nice guy and will surely respond to your queries. but for what it’s worth…

              1. who is saying that the NT is textually less reliable than other classical authors? the point is simply that there is a good reason we have *more* copies of the NT than other ancient authors that has nothing to do with how (historically) reliable it is. namely, that people cared more about this stuff because of their religious commitments. i don’t think matthew ever made any argument that could be summarised in the way you did: “The medieval church guys were baddies…so the New Testament can’t be textually reliable.” you complain that matthew’s argument is an ad hominem, but you seem quite happy to completely misrepresent his – straw man.

              2. “textual accuracy does not equal historical accuracy.” i’m glad you agree. but i don’t see why you are complaining about this. matthew’s article addresses people who (mistakenly) infer historical accuracy from a large number of manuscripts (most of which are many hundreds of years removed from the originals). you might not be a person who makes this stupid inference, but then the article is written for other people – not for you – great.

              i’m perfectly happy to accept the NT is for the most part fairly reliable on a textual basis. but i don’t have to agree with you on the level of its textual reliability in order to discuss whether the NT is trustworthy. i’m happy to grant 100% textual reliability for the sake of argument in order to discuss the more interesting question of whether it is historically reliable. i just don’t think you need to “attack” the textual reliability of the NT in order to argue against its plausibility. and neither does ehrman (or matthew ferguson or any good scholar). ehrman is a professional textual critic and NT scholar – his job is to look at that kind of thing. people often seem to conflate this (and scholarly tasks such as examining in excruciating detail whether a single word was this way or that way in the original) with his religious beliefs – he is not an agnostic because the longer ending of mark was not in the original text. as he points out on many occasions, most of what he covers in his books is stuff he believed when he was still a christian. as he learnt more and more through his studies, he grew less and less “fundamentalist”, and more and more liberal – but all the while, he was still a christian, until eventually he stopped believing for theological reasons (to do with suffering – he wrote a book about it).

              3. you seem to have picked a “truism” from matthew that you happen to agree with, but act incredulously as if this was supposed to be some devastating christianity-killing point. you write:

              “Textual criticism is simply the means of answering the question, and it’s a question we have about every ancient text: Is what we’re reading what they wrote? Whether a writing is ancient or modern, I want to read what the author wanted to be read. If I can’t be sure that what I’m reading is what he or she wrote, I don’t want to waste my time reading it.”

              i completely agree. whether i end up agreeing with paul or the gospel authors, i’d much prefer to be making this decision about the words of the original author rather than some scribe who shoved his opinion in there. well, i agree up to a certain point. if thousands/millions of people believer the longer ending of mark is “gospel truth”, then i care about discussing it.

              but yeah, have a chat to matthew – he’s a nice guy.

              “By the way, I don’t take pride in the fact that I came to the Lord as an adult. I wish I had been wiser sooner.”

              this probably doesn’t need a response :)

            • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

              I had the chat with Matthew. Apparently, his niceness extends only to people who agree with him.

          • cphus

            I have been following him for few years.He has changed his positions on Jesus and His disciples many times.if you watch his past debates and compare them with his recent interviews you can see he has evolved on many positions as he keeps discovering new things.One example is he used to say the synoptic Gospels do not mention divinity of Jesus and only Gospel of John does so.It is true Jesus in Gospel of John is theological not historical.Now he mentions in interviews he was wrong about it.The foundation of Christianity is based on resurrection of Jesus.Historically it is harder to prove any miracle or supernatural event using manuscripts.So the appropriate opinion from atheist and agnostic historians should be “I don’t know it could have happened”.The evidence for resurrection of Jesus is quite convincing but atheist historians just want to deny it for obvious reasons.Instead of saying “I am not sure”.Bart Erhman has been trying to make the case against resurrection by mentioning hallucinations and lies.There is no historical evidence AGAINST resurrection.

            • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

              I think it helps book sales to say things like that, but I haven’t seen any material change in his views. For example, in his most recent popular-level book “How Jesus Became God” he says that he used to think worship of Jesus as divine arose late in Christian antiquity but now he thinks it arose early. Yet he doesn’t take Jesus’ divinity any more seriously than he did before. As I have said, he trumpets minors as if they were majors. And he thus misleads the poorly-informed who are impressed by his bombast and anti-evangelical rhetoric.

            • http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless Reasonably Faithless

              “I haven’t seen any material change in his views”

              “he says that he used to think worship of Jesus as divine arose late in Christian antiquity but now he thinks it arose early”

              that seems to me to be a pretty massive change in his views!! even if “he doesn’t take Jesus’ divinity any more seriously than he did before”, this is a huge change of view. does ehrman need to (re)become a christian for you to feel he has made a significant change of mind???

            • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

              If Ehrman thinks faith in Christ is irrational, I don’t see how it makes much difference whether he thinks people became irrational shortly after Christ died or long after it. On the other hand, if he doesn’t think faith in Christ is irrational, why doesn’t he believe?

            • http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless Reasonably Faithless

              hi cphus, thanks for your comments. i definitely agree on some of your points. i think the response “i don’t know” is entirely justified – i am in no position to say that jesus definitely didn’t rise from the dead. however, having examined the evidence *for* the resurrection, i find that the various cases that have been put forward for the resurrection are very weak. so i am in a position of having no compelling evidence for the resurrection. i also have no compelling evidence that any of the miraculous claims of any other religion are true. i don’t think the resurrection is any more or less likely than the claims of islam (say) being true. i was born in a christian culture, but that shouldn’t sway me, or else things would be different if i was born in india or saudi arabia.

              i haven’t seen the interviews you mention. do you have a link? (i don’t recall ehrman saying the synoptic gospels don’t ever mention jesus’ divinity.) ehrman is a good scholar – he continually updates his views as he sees the evidence leading him to new positions. i like that about him. i don’t take his word on everything, but evaluate his arguments on their own merits.

              ehrman makes a case against *the evidence for* the resurrection. hallucination or lie hypotheses are almost never put forward by someone who *really believes* that this is exactly what happened. rather, they are put forward against someone who thinks the resurrection is really what happened. if you think X happened, but i can imagine a bunch of possibilities, Y,Z,… that are all more plausible than X, then without claiming to know what really happened, i have good reasons to doubt X.

            • cphus

              In Bart Ehrman’s book -‘How Jesus became God’, he mentions Jesus claims divinity only in Book of John.
              you can read about it here.

              http://blogs.christianpost.com/confident-christian/barth-ehrman-and-the-divinity-of-jesus-21129/

              Find me a religion where an individual like Jesus that existed who didn’t commit a single sin, who didn’t chase any girl, lusted on any woman , who was unmarried ,who practiced non violence,who didn’t wage a war,who lived being poor all His life,who asked us to love our enemies, preached love, kindness,forgiveness,brotherhood , who showed compassion ,cared for sick, poor and disabled.We don’t have any evidence of Him commiting any wrongdoings.And the price He paid was crucifixion.By the way you can check what i said about Jesus above if they are true with any serious agnostic and atheist historians including Bart Ehrman.Bart Ehrman is a big fan of Jesus’s teachings even though he doesn’t accept Him as God.There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever lied.This has been long established by all historians.You can verify yourself with any secular , atheist or agnostic historians.They can vouch for it.Pretty remarkable the prophets in other religions had commited unspeakable crimes and acts and justified their actions with lot of excuses.
              We have historical evidences of Paul commiting persecution of Christians , peter lying and denying Jesus ,judas betraying Jesus and so on .Why we don’t have any record of Jesus commiting any wrongdoing?.Maybe because He didn’t do anything wrong?.Strange! as humans we commit sins every single day.And Jesus being a ‘human’ didn’t commit any while all others did.
              You can watch Bart Ehrman’s debates where he believes whatever Jesus spoke in synoptic gospels were authentic.There is no historian who doubts Jesus’s sayings in synoptic gospels.

              By your logic if ‘X’ truly happened then there are many possibilities ‘Y’,’Z’ etc.
              In this case ‘X’ is Jesus always told the truth which has long been attested by historians.Then there is only one possibility ‘Y’ which is that He didn’t lie. There cannot be many possibilities because if it is
              established that a person doesn’t lie and always tells the truth then whatever he told must be true.

              If there is historical evidence that Jesus spoke the truth and occasionally lied then there are two possibilities he spoke the truth or he told lies.But we don’t have any historical evidence Jesus ever lied.

              So Jesus said He was son of God [Mark 14:62,Luke 22:70] which all historians agree He did say that.Do you agree He told the truth that He is son of God?.Or if you deny and say He lied,then your logic is wrong.if X is true Y is the only possibility here.

              Jesus performed numerous miracles.I didn’t want to add them to the list above because historically we can’t prove them with manuscripts.So I wanted to limit the list about what Jesus said and did to what all historians agree upon.Again the writings do claim Jesus performed miracles.

              There was no one like Jesus.No historical figure even comes closer to Him.And there will be none ever.

              There are no miracles in other religions.Islam has no miracles.Prophet muhammad didn’t perform any miracles.In fact, Muhammad, the founder of Islam, actually believed Jesus was a prophet who performed miracles, including raising the dead.However, in the Koran when unbelievers challenged Muhammad to perform a miracle, he refused.
              He merely said they should read a chapter in the Koran. (See Sura 2:118; 3:181–84; 4:153; 6:8,9,37 in the Koran.) And yet Muhammad himself said, “God hath certainly power to send down a sign” (Sura 6:37). He even said, “They [will] say: ‘Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?’” (Sura 6:37). Unlike Jesus, miracles were not a sign of Muhammad’s ministry. It wasn’t until 150 or 200 years after Muhammad’s death that his followers invented miracles and ascribed them to him. There is no resurrection in other religions either.

              E.P Sanders who is agnostic is considered a prominent,well respected historian by all Christian , atheist and agnostic Historians.Bart Ehrman loves E.P Sanders, considers him as a serious and authentic historian.

              No historian believes Paul lied about Jesus resurrection.The agnostic serious historians like E.P Sanders just say he doesn’t know what Paul experienced but Paul did experience something out of ordinary.

              Atheist historians like Bart Ehrman must come up with something to challenge resurrection claimed by apostle Paul.

              Remember there is no reason for an atheist or agnostic historian to remain an atheist or agnostic if he/she believes resurrection did really happen.
              There are only two possibilities to debunk resurrection claims – Either hallucination or a lie.

              Question:What is the only way out if none of the historians believe apostle Paul and the disciples lied about resurrection?.
              Answer-‘Hallucination’.

              Atheist historians like Bart Ehrman claim hallucination for what paul witnessed.BINGO!!

              Paul’s 7 of the 13 letters have been attested by all historians including Bart Ehrman as historically accurate.There is no historian who doubts them.He wrote those letters to people who already accepted Jesus as God.So those letters were not written for others to convince Jesus’s resurrection or Jesus was God.
              Paul was not aware we would get hold of his letters after 2000 years when he was writing them.When researching manuscripts these details are very important for historians.The objectivity of the author of the manuscripts offers lot of verifiable clues.

              So Paul’s letters are really very important when researching about Jesus.Paul mentions Jesus resurrection in his letters to the churches.So none of the historians believe that Paul had any motive or hidden agenda behind mentioning Jesus’s resurrection because he is writing to the audience who already know and believe Jesus got resurrected.

              Do you know why Bart Ehrman claims he is an atheist?.he says he couldn’t explain why there is suffering in the world.That is his reason.Not because he doesn’t believe Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.Doesn’t it offer some explanation why he is pushing hard to deny Jesus as God?.If he accepted resurrection, he cannot deny Jesus is God.He has to deny it because he wants to live as an atheist.Does hallucination of disciples for resurrection even make sense?.

              If there was only one person who was hallucinating we can understand. All the 12 disciples were hallucinating and going on a pilgrimage preaching about Jesus with no added benefit to their lives?. for what? to be living in a fear to be chased down by Romans and getting beheaded?. These disicples were ordinary men who were timid.They were no brave souls.Were they doing it for money, fame?.They didn’t even fear for their lives.
              A disciple like peter who lied and disowned Jesus just to escape from Romans when Jesus was getting arrested went on a missionary preaching Jesus teachings after seeing Jesus rise from the dead even after knowing Romans would be after him and he would be persecuted for saying Jesus was resurrected.The best possible explanation for his action is he was hallucinating Jesus’s resurrection? give me a break.

              Long ago you were debating about the martyrdom of the disciples.

              You don’t believe all the disciples died for their beliefs.
              Historians do believe atleast 3 of the twelve disciples were martyred for their beliefs.
              I, personally do not know if all the 12 disciples died for their beliefs.I do believe based on historical evidence majority of them did die for their beliefs.If 3 out of 12 faced persecution it is not hard to fathom
              if not all the rest of them faced persecution atleast few others met the same fate.Just because you don’t have historical evidence doesn’t mean it may not have happened.Again this is just my opinion.I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

              here you can read about what E.P Sanders (who Bart Ehrman tends to revere) says about resurrection of Jesus.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus

              Look under Scholarly analysis – As historical event.
              He stated some of those who were involved in the resurrection event gave their lives for their beliefs.And Peter was one of that some.E.P Sanders goes so far as to say “What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know”.I believe E.P Sanders being an agnostic tried to be fair.Even Christian historians appreciate his honesty.He merely states he doesn’t know what gave them their resurrection experience and didn’t want to mention hallucination because he just doesn’t know.But Bart Ehrman has concluded it was hallucination.Strange!.
              There is a weak historical evidence that Peter was crucified upside down because he asked romans to crucify him upside down after he was captured since he saw himself unworthy to be crucified the same way Jesus was crucified.Again upside down crucifixion is not very reliable historically.But his martyrdom is.

              you can read more about Peter’s martyrdom here
              http://evidenceforchristianity.org/what-is-the-evidence-that-peter-was-crucified-upside-down-in-rome/

              Who goes on a missionary even after knowing they are going to be persecuted for their hallucination?.Only you can answer.I couldn’t think of a convincing answer from an atheist perspective.

              Jesus’s enemies would have produced His dead body to silence the believers in effect ending the spread of Christianity.The objective of Jesus’s enemies was to stop the spread of Christianity.Instead of persecuting each Christian who believed Jesus got resurrected all they had to do was produce Jesus body from the tomb with
              great fanfare to discredit the story of resurrection.I don’t believe it would be that hard for romans unless there was no body in the tomb.

              And also none of His disciples made trips to Jesus tomb after they saw Him resurrected.There is no historical record of His disciples venerating His tomb which so often happens to religious leaders and prominent figures.They could very well check themselves if they were hallucinating or not by just making a trip to the tomb of Jesus.Maybe because they knew the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was not in the tomb because they saw Him alive?.

              So if you see all the evidences that we could gather do you still believe there is a case against evidence for resurrection?

              If you keep an open mind and research on the available historical evidences there is no way you can deny something out of ordinary must have happened that convinced Jesus’s disciples and apostle Paul.Why push so hard to deny it with hallucination and lies?.You are a reasonable guy.Let’s be real.

              Now you tell me you put the evidence for resurrection historically and the evidence against the evidence for the resurrection’ on a balance which one outweighs the other?

              I am an Ex-Atheist who became a believer after seeing the historical evidences and watching debates between scholars. I am glad I accepted Lord Jesus as my savior.

              Everything that Jesus said and did were beautiful and extraordinary.Hope you could see the truth as I did.

              The reason Jesus asked His disciples to go on a missionary after resurrection is for people who were born in places like India and Saudi Arabia.And the disciples did a pretty good job for traveling as far as possible to preach the gospel.

              John 8:12 –
              Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

        • Jason

          Wallace points out that Ehrman doesn’t adequately deal with what the variants represent, so far I agree with Wallace. For instance, Erhman will rhetorically ask the following question followed by this “nail in the coffin answer.” Is there a trinity? it depends on what manuscript you read. However, what he won’t tell you, at least in the several debates i’ve viewed, is that when analyzing the manuscripts, he refers to in John’s writings, we find those variants are meaningful but not viable. I’ve never heard Ehrman respond to this challenge. If Ehrman wants to repeat over and over that the changes matter he needs to do a more thorough job of demonstrating how they matter. In this particular case they do matter but not in the way Ehrman impresses upon his listeners. They matter because they give us a picture of what 10th century scribes where doing with the text not because the change our understanding of what the earliest documents probably said. Most of them wrote the trinitarian formula in the margins, another thing Ehrman won’t tell you, and that matters. He also won’t tell you that the doctrine of the trinity doesn’t depend on that variant or that none of the cardinal doctrines depend on any of the 40 lines worth of meaningful and viable variants.

          Now, I have summarized one of the primary problems many recent and historical scholars have with Ehrman. If you disagree with the viable and meaningful proposition please elaborate or point me to a place where Ehrman deals with it, although, I would prefer the later.

          Full disclosure… I am a christian, I have a Master’s of Divinity, I consider myself a liberal evangelical(if there is such a thing), I have taken four years of Greek, (so I am less familiar with Ehrman’s popular writings than his academic writings) and I do respect Ehrman’s scholarly skills. However, he is not the only scholar I respect. I want to remain as objective as possible and I believe I am in a good position to do so because my reasons for believing go far beyond this topic, just as Ehrman’s reasons for not believing, according to him, have nothing to do with this issue. For me, this is simply a question of infallibility and inerrancy. Ehrman offers a challenge for where I stand on the subject and I can appreciate that.

          P.S. Brilliant title for this post. I never would have found your site if I didn’t ask my search engine “what happened to the Ehrman project?’ Kudos.

    • Jason

      Wallace points out that Ehrman doesn’t adequately deal with what the variants represent, so far I agree with Wallace. For instance, Erhman will rhetorically ask the following question followed by this “nail in the coffin answer.” Is there a trinity? it depends on what manuscript you read. However, what he won’t tell you, at least in the several debates i’ve viewed, is that when analyzing the manuscripts, he refers to in John’s writings, we find those variants are meaningful but not viable. I’ve never heard Ehrman respond to this challenge. If Ehrman wants to repeat over and over that the changes matter he needs to do a more thorough job of demonstrating how they matter. In this particular case they do matter but not in the way Ehrman impresses upon his listeners. They matter because they give us a picture of what 10th century scribes where doing with the text not because the change our understanding of what the earliest documents probably said. Most of them wrote the trinitarian formula in the margins, another thing Ehrman won’t tell you, and that matters. He also won’t tell you that the doctrine of the trinity doesn’t depend on that variant or that none of the cardinal doctrines depend on any of the 40 lines worth of meaningful and viable variants.

      Now, I have summarized one of the primary problems many recent and historical scholars have with Ehrman. If you disagree with the viable and meaningful proposition please elaborate or point me to a place where Ehrman deals with it, although, I would prefer the later.

      Full disclosure… I am a christian, I have a Master’s of Divinity, I consider myself a liberal evangelical(if there is such a thing), I have taken four years of Greek, (so I am less familiar with Ehrman’s popular writings than his academic writings) and I do respect Ehrman’s scholarly skills. However, he is not the only scholar I respect. I want to remain as objective as possible and I believe I am in a good position to do so because my reasons for believing go far beyond this topic, just as Ehrman’s reasons for not believing, according to him, have nothing to do with this issue. For me, this is simply a question of infallibility and inerrancy. Ehrman offers a challenge for where I stand on the subject and I can appreciate that.

      P.S. Brilliant title for this post. I never would have found your site if I didn’t ask my search engine “what happened to the Ehrman project?’ Kudos.