His unique position underscores the credibility of his assessment

I suggest this doesn't understand the ubiquitousness of controlled opposition. A "contrary view" that agrees with a narrative does not indicate truth and indeed is a provable ploy used often by the Cabal to create beliefs. You may not believe that, or think I am being paranoid, but I have found it literally everywhere. If you read my report you can begin to get a picture of what that looks like on the world stage.

With respect to Mr. Ehrman, I am not calling him controlled opposition. I have heard some of what he has to say in the past, but I have not investigated him. The reason I have not investigated him is because I do not disagree with the statement that the Bible we have is largely the same as the Bible that existed around the time of the creation of The Church. There are very important exceptions to that (Deut. 32:8 e.g.), but by and large it is the same in what's still there. My argument has nothing to do with that. My argument, as I have stated numerous times is that history has been rewritten by leaving relevant facts out. I have noted that the leaving out is what drives the majority of revision in history, not actual lies (though those exist too, and there is evidence of that in the bible).

It is undeniable that the Bible has been rewritten by leaving out parts. The original bible that was "official" in 400 AD had ten more books than the one that exists today for example. What was encouraged scripture for many in the centuries after the life of Jesus but before the creation of The Church had numerous other works that was later forbidden. You rely exclusively on what the "Church Fathers" have allowed, despite the fact that some of them had provable conflicts of interest, and questionable methods of silencing the opposition (penalty by death e.g.). You ignore those facts because "there is so much evidence in support." But those facts are evidence against.

Just think about it for one moment. Your argument "against" is not in addressing the facts against, but in labelling them as not relevant because the Church Fathers said so, and in the amount of evidence "for," even though it is undeniable that the Church Fathers destroyed much of the evidence against. Indeed, it isn't even a question that they tried to destroy it all, and they had access to the full powers of the Roman Empire, so they did a fairly good job of it.

Your argument relies on "experts" with provable conflicts of interest, and "the amount of evidence for," even though the experts destroyed all of the evidence against.

This is not a sound argument, rather it shows exactly the fuckery I am trying to point out that should create reasonable doubts in any investigator acting in earnest.

His unique position underscores the credibility of his assessment

I suggest this doesn't understand the ubiquitousness of controlled opposition. A "contrary view" that agrees with a narrative does not indicate truth and indeed is a provable ploy used often by the Cabal to create beliefs. You may not believe that, or think I am being paranoid, but I have found it literally everywhere. If you read my report you can begin to get a picture of what that looks like on the world stage.

With respect to Mr. Ehrman, I am not calling him controlled opposition. I have heard some of what he has to say in the past, but I have not investigated him. The reason I have not investigated him is because I do not disagree with the statement that the Bible we have is largely the same as the Bible that existed around the time of the creation of The Church. There are very important exceptions to that (Deut. 32:8 e.g.), but by and large it is the same in what's still there. My argument has nothing to do with that. My argument, as I have stated numerous times is that history has been rewritten by leaving relevant facts out. I have noted that the leaving out is what drives the majority of revision in history, not actual lies (though those exist too, and there is evidence of that in the bible).

It is undeniable that the Bible has been rewritten by leaving out parts. The original bible that was "official" in 400 AD had ten more books than the one that exists today for example. What was encouraged scripture for many in the centuries after the life of Jesus but before the creation of The Church had numerous other works that was later forbidden. You rely exclusively on what the "Church Fathers" have allowed, despite the fact that some of them had provable conflicts of interest, and questionable methods of silencing the opposition (penalty by death e.g.). You ignore those facts because "there is so much evidence in support." But those facts are evidence against.

Just think about it for one moment. Your argument "against" is not in addressing the facts against, but in labelling them as not relevant because the Church Fathers said so, and in the amount of evidence "for," even though it is undeniable that the Church Fathers destroyed much of the evidence against. Indeed, it isn't even a question that they tried to destroy it all, and they had access to the full powers of the Roman Empire, so they did a fairly good job of it.

Your argument relies on "experts" with provable conflicts of interest, and "the amount of evidence for," even though the experts destroyed all of the evidence against.

This is not a sound argument, rather it shows exactly the fuckery I am trying to point out that should create reasonable doubts in any investigator acting in earnest.

His unique position underscores the credibility of his assessment

I suggest this doesn't understand the ubiquitousness of controlled opposition. A "contrary view" that agrees with a narrative does not indicate truth and indeed is a provable ploy used often by the Cabal to create beliefs. You may not believe that, or think I am being paranoid, but I have found it literally everywhere. If you read my report you can begin to get a picture of what that looks like on the world stage.

With respect to Mr. Ehrman, I am not calling him controlled opposition. I have heard some of what he has to say in the past, but I have not investigated him. The reason I have not investigated him is because I do not disagree with the statement that the Bible we have is largely the same as the Bible that existed around the time of the creation of The Church. There are very important exceptions to that (Deut. 32:8 e.g.), but by and large it is the same in what's still there. My argument has nothing to do with that. My argument, as I have stated numerous times is that history has been rewritten by leaving relevant facts out. I have noted that the leaving out is what drives the majority of revision in history, not actual lies (though those exist too, and there is evidence of that in the bible).

It is undeniable that the Bible has been rewritten by leaving out parts. The original bible that was "official" in 400 AD had ten more books than the one that exists today for example. What was encouraged scripture for many in the centuries after the life of Jesus but before the creation of The Church had numerous other works that was later forbidden. You rely exclusively on what the "Church Fathers" have allowed, despite the fact that some of them had provable conflicts of interest, and questionable methods of silencing the opposition (penalty by death e.g.). You ignore those facts because "there is so much evidence in support." But those facts are evidence against.

Just think about it for one moment. Your argument "against" is not in addressing the facts against, but in labelling them as not relevant because the Church Fathers said so, and in the amount of evidence "for," even though it is undeniable that the Church Fathers destroyed much of the evidence against. Indeed, it isn't even a question that they tried to destroy it all, and they had access to the full powers of the Roman Empire, so they did a fairly good job of it.

Your argument relies on "experts" with provable conflicts of interest, and the amount of evidence for, even though the experts destroyed all of the evidence against.

This is not a sound argument, rather it shows exactly the fuckery I am trying to point out that should create reasonable doubts in any investigator acting in earnest.