I just want to give you this link and see if you can answer some of the claims Ehrman has. This video was the reason I  started to have doubts in my faith. Could you maybe give some information on the claims in this audio? I am farther in my faith now, thanks to your explanations! It seems to me from the claims he has that he is working for the devil because of the books he has written. Thanks John you’re a big help for my faith….   here is the link


I have read a lot of Ehrman. He is an absolutely top scholar, but his conclusions are not consistent with the evidence. The changes he talks about are extremely minor, despite what he says. The only example he gives int the audio above is the drops of blood passage in Luke. How does this possible change affect whether the Bible teaches Jesus is God? Even if a scribe added this, the effect on the New Testament is miniscule. The possibility that an ending was added to Mark does nothing at all to undermine the inspiration of the original Mark. This is really just a smoke screen, in my opinion. Read the book of John. Is it clear that John believed Jesus was God? It could not possibly be more clear that Jesus proclaimed his divinity and that John believed in his divinity. You should not be confused by Ehrman’s attempts to take your focus away from the obvious. It could not possibly be more clear that the early church, including John, Luke, Paul, Matthew and Mark all believed Jesus was God. Ehrman is overstating the diversity of early church beliefs and understating the case for the orthodox view. His bias comes through in rather blatant ways. You must look at the actual evidence. I have read much of Ehrman and every time I do, my faith in the overall reliability of the New Testament is not weakened and my faith that the Bible, in the original, was inspired and that Jesus is the Son of God is not lessened at all–in fact it is increased.

The case for the existence of God, for the inspiration of the Bible and for the deity of Jesus is absolutely overwhelming. Ehrman does publish top-rate scholarship, but his conclusions are not consistent with the data, in my opinion.  The fact that later scribes made minor changes to the original gospels (and the changes are truly minor, despite what Ehrman says) does literally NOTHING to undermine the inspiration of the original text.  Do not be deceived and train yourself to separate the evidence from Ehrman’s conclusion.

Was there any conclusion of Ehrman, based on actual data, which caused you to doubt? What might that be? Please supply specifics and I will try to respond. I can see how you might be disturbed by a scholar like Ehrman losing his faith, but you do not know him personally. You do not know what sin he got involved in. Despite his statements, you do not know for a fact that he was in fact saved. Many will leave the faith. This fact does not affect the case for Christ or the case for Christianity. The case for Christianity is based on the evidence and the fact is that, despite all his efforts, the evidence Ehrman offers does little or nothing to undermine reasonable confidence in the inspiration of the original text or in the deity of Jesus.

That is my conclusion. You ought to read one of his books for yourself, remembering that he is coming from a rather strong bias and has a definite agenda which affects his interpretation of the data.


John Oakes



Comments are closed.