quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Ehrman claimed that only the book of John claimed Jesus was divine. What does Matthew 3:16-17 and Mark 2: 5-9 say?
I really don't feel like watching the whole video again to glean the quote I'm looking for, but one of his claims was that there were earlier books that don't include this stuff that were evidently revised to include this stuff hundreds of years after the fact.
I have no idea if its true or not but it stands to reason that many things were added or "improved upon" by scribes. After all, the oldest existing manuscripts date back to 300 years after the depicted events.
If you have no idea if Ehrman's statement is true or not, then why don't you find out? It takes about 5 minutes and I did the research for you. Why give Ehrman a pass?
You provided an excellent link that lists scholars' estimates of when the Gospels were written. The average was about 30 years after the crucifixion. To put that in perspective, this August is the 30th anniversary of Woodstock.
On a different thread, you said that the oldest manuscripts are 400 years old, now you say they are 300. Which is it?
Link"The earliest specimens we have date back to about 400 years after the events. "
100 years makes a big difference when dealing with historical evidence. Then on the same thread you stated,
"But the FACT, Nash, is that the gospels have been dated to about 50 to 70 years after the events happened "
So you've gone from 400 years, to 50, then to 300. Which is it?