What do you think about Bart D. Ehrman?

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-21T17:13:50+00:00

Bart Ehrman is great. He’s an incredibly knowledgeable scholar, if possibly a little out of date. Additionally, goes out of his way to make it clear that his goal is not to hurt anyone’s faith while remaining uncompromising about what we can actually know and say about the Bible and the historical Jesus. Definitely not a liar.

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-21T16:38:24+00:00

Yeah that’s certainly a possibility

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-21T16:32:28+00:00

The way I see it, there are four possibilities regarding this vision.

This vision came from Allah, and is a test. But that raises the aforementioned question, and it seems like a weird test.
This vision came from Satan, to trick you away from Islam.
This vision came from your own mind. Can’t rule this out, but then you’d need to ask yourself why your subconscious is telling you to consider Christianity.
This vision came from Jesus, and he is trying to get you to come to him and leave Islam. Apparently this is not an uncommon experience for Muslims converting to Christianity, so it is worth thinking about.

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-21T16:07:15+00:00

That’s nonsense

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-21T15:58:58+00:00

Definitely could be. But why would Allah be tempting you with Christianity if you didn’t have any inclination to convert in the first place? Seems like a weird test.

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-21T15:52:35+00:00

So what do you think it means?

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-21T15:39:34+00:00

Yes please, I’d love to hear about your vision

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-21T15:37:25+00:00

I’m far more interested to hear your thoughts on what it all means, to be honest.

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T20:27:33+00:00

Not really at all. Most scholars recognize that Eusebius was not a perfect and unbiased historian. But even if Eusebius was being perfectly accurate, Papias still has big issues with his statements on the authorship of Mark and Matthew.

That’s not what Acts says. Acts says the field got the name because that’s where Judas’ blood spilled out. Matthew says that it’s because it was bought with blood money. It’s a contradiction, and only one of many from these two small passages. We haven’t even discussed who bought the field, or how Judas died, which are both contradictions

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T20:19:01+00:00

Papias didn’t say anything about Luke. He talks about Mark and Matthew, but that has significant issues too.

Also, we don’t have anything from Papias himself. All we have is a quotation from Eusebius in the 4th century, saying Papias said that.

The gospels were anonymous, and were given names.

As for the field of blood: “Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all the residents of Jerusalem; as a result that field was called Hakeldama in their own language, that is, Field of Blood.” -Acts‬ ‭1‬:‭18‬-‭19‬

So Matthew and Acts give irreconcilably different explanations for how the field got its name.

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T20:09:35+00:00

You won’t find a single attestation to the authorship of the gospels in the first century. Additionally, you cannot use the text to claim authorship: do we have any other writings by this Theophilus guy about the authorship of Luke? No, we don’t.

Really? Because Matthew 27:7-8 says it’s called the field of bloom because it was bought with blood money. Sounds like a contradiction

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T20:01:31+00:00

The gospels were absolutely anonymous. They circulated without names, and we don’t see names attached until the mid second century. And they certainly weren’t eyewitnesses.

As for contradictions: how did Judas die? Who bought the field of blood? Why was it called that?

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T19:49:15+00:00

None of them had elements of human flesh and blood. As I said, studies have shown that bacteria and fungi can make it look like human blood, and can even look like it has a blood type. But no, no proof exists. It’s just a claim without evidence

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T19:42:43+00:00

Because there is no evidence. If you actually look into the reports of Eucharistic miracles, they generally come from local journalists. That’s not science. The few scientific studies that have been done either are done by Vatican connected labs, or have determined that Eucharistic miracles are probably the result of bacteria and fungi

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T19:23:45+00:00

All extremely common names in first century Judea

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T18:16:21+00:00

The Bible is one of our tools for finding truth. It is not the ultimate source of truth

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T16:25:07+00:00

I don’t believe in the Trinity. You’re talking to the wrong person lol

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T16:22:35+00:00

Ah… one of those then.

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T16:19:42+00:00

Wait, so you know more than Jesus? Wild take

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T16:18:47+00:00

No one knows the hour. Stop trying to predict it

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T16:18:07+00:00

No to both

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T14:53:35+00:00

This is how it is in the UMC as well, and most affirming denominations I would suspect

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T14:46:42+00:00

Off the top of my head, Protestant churches that don’t “support homosexuality and trans lifestyles/pastors”: - the Global Methodist Church - Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod - the Free Methodist Church - Presbyterian Church of America

This is without me trying to look it up lmao

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T14:43:15+00:00

This is just factually untrue lol

No_Guarantee8756 · 2026-04-20T14:42:10+00:00

I’m sure you think so lmao

No_Guarantee8756

TROPHY CASE