Bart d ehrman .... refutation of his case against the christian faith pt. 2

This is the second part on Bart Ehrman's attack on the the Christian faith; in another work of his called "Forged : writing in the name of God ... why the authors are not who we think they are" those this is not too dissimilar to his other efforts, there is a major difference he is now going after the writers  and not what they wrote

we will start out by looking at a few statements he makes in the first chapter to just give us an understand of his  modus operandi:

We find nothing quite so hilarious or outrageous in the writings of the early christians, in fact, there is scant evidence to suggest that any christian would put a known figures name to there work to see if they could get away with it 

documents going by gospels, acts, letters or apocalypses claimed to be by an apostle

many of these non-canonical books are fascinating and still worth reading, amoung the gospel, for example  there is an account alledgedly written by peter that gives a detailed account of the resurrection 

this is most strinking because the most readers have not noticed this ,, the new testament gospels do not narrate the resurrection    

We mention these two extracts for the simple consistency with in the attacks of this apostate scholar ... should i rephrase that false x-christian to make a complete contradictory statement this is the same guy who claims to have once had a born again experience .. what ever that maybe as it is not defined, to then claim that the idea of christianity being some very  unidentifiable thing, as there were many versions of what we can call christianity and there is no need to be discerning in our faith
so the question to ask upon this, is simple : what makes this man ever believe he was a true Christian as he claims to have once been?

this follows onto the next point that is just because it can be demonstrated that some works that come to us from the 2nd century forewads are fabrications and forgeries, this in and of itself does not provide a steady platform for assumptions based on feelings and naturalistic tendencies, if we allow Gods word to be what it claims to be "inspired of God" and that came by the pens of "men carried along by the spirit" then we have our true foundation of why an author may convey a message differently to another he has written even normal humans are capable of writing books with different audiences, different motivations and so forth ... 

Bart Ehrman is the prime example he has written books for the scholarly minded person like in the case of textual related works with his mentor, and he has written several for the lay person such as the ones in the last 10 years and also the one for athiestic dismissal of christs existence
if we were to apply this same critique on his own work might we come away with many works being seen as being written by other people based on styles, audience and other factors?
we can now with these fundamental aspects in veiw, turn to some of the major areas he pays specific attention to 

Barts veiw of peters and paul letters (with a contention of some scholar naturalistic bias)

* vertually all scholars agree that 7 books were written by paul . the remaining books under his name were note actually written by paul based on many factors they must be forgeries

* a reason given that these books were not written by peter as he could not write . this is due partly to a large study and partly to a scriptural reference to this effort

So  Bart's whole stance rests upon speculation rather than real substancial facts that can make such  theories more firm as a claim, what we are dealing with is a fallacious based assumption which is : 
guilt by association ... since it has been proven that forgeries written in the name an apostle or apostles from a later period in history from the 2nd century onwards ... it does not automatically mean the true work of these apostles are likewise forgeries

if we run with such ideas of people that are classed as "scholars" who are really just unbelievers that are are materialistic and anti-supernaturalists in function.  do such people take their argument and apply consistency in their own works 
even more is bart ehrman willing to apply them to his own works to see if they would stand the tests of such people

let us now turn to the biblical point in this veiw:

When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus

^{To this we note : firstly is being misunderstood by the critic it says nothing of peter and john being illiterate, not from their own words. secondly the term "educated" is not defined as to the exact meaning is it they were educated in the Jewish theological stances, or uneducated in all manner of understanding thirdly is it likely that Bart Ehrman is uneducated in many areas like science 
so the point here is that bart must show that uneducated only can mean illiteracy and not being educated in certian occupations
Bart then makes the follows statements upon peter and pauls writings which needs some attention:}

the letters of 1 &2 Peter I dismiss as being ... 

a) the fact that the person puts the term "peter"on the 1st letter rather then his real name simon like the second letter

b) the other problem is that these two work are so different in style and content that it leads us to either seeing one as the true article and the other as a false article... or both are false

Pauls letters  i dismiss as being. ....

a) the pastorial letters 1/2 timothy and titus are so different to the accepted books

in style and form that they must have different authors

b) Ephesians, colossians are seen as non - Paul in accordance to the language usage found

therein... such difference like "Ephesians 2 :-6" and "colossians 2 : 12-13

   

^{As before when dealing with such unfounded assumptions about a persons capabilities and capacities. in writing Bart has made a very interesting move here rather than dealing with such issues based on facts and evidence as thee is none ... he has turned to a form of textual criticism called higher criticism oe as i see it "the stand}ard of omniscience"

^{basically he is claiming to know what a persons capable of are based on their work or similar to what a scribe thought theologically by the copyiest error}

^{what I believe we need to do as humans is look past this idea of thinking people are incapable of writing in different fashions for different audience and motives}

^{if there is more than one theological subject that we may have deep love for and that love and obedience will drive us to write on it} 

^{the following example is a very dear brother in the lord Dr James White who has debated Bart Ehrman in the past and has written a number books:}

^{just few subjects to mention ... on the topic of textual studies he has the book "king James controversy" ... then on more theological grounds he has books aim at just building people faith .."the God who justifies"  "the forgotten trinity" and a few on the proclaimation of the "doctrines of grace" and "greif" ... then he has his defense work like against Mormonism  Catholicism  arminianism, and forth coming books on} Islam^{are we to suggest that a person can not write in different manners as to accomplish different goal in reaching different people}       

^{So what we must take away from this examination is that Bart Ehrman has wandered into a grave place of deception and error that even his own writing fall victim of .. in terms of the objections or the argument being offered are even more damning to his own works when consistently applied to his own side}

 this type of tactic is known by the term "double standard" ... and no one should ever use them in any manner