RE: What do the conservative Christians here think of Professor Bart Ehrman?
February 19, 2019 at 5:44 pm
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2019 at 5:47 pm by fredd bear.
Edit Reason: grammar
)
(February 19, 2019 at 5:12 pm)Drich Wrote: He's a troll.. most of his observation is empty conjecture or even neutral rhetoric, to anger inspired vitriol towards people who believe in God.. just look at his top 11 quotes:
1)“The search for truth takes you where the evidence leads you, even if, at first, you don't want to go there.”
netural rhetoric, as this mirriors a passage in 1 thess 5:21 Question all things and hold on to what is good. As you can see this sentiment can be used to support scripture and the search for God.
2)“There are few things more dangerous than inbred religious certainty.” vitrol as he plants the seeds of hatred towards the 'religious' as all being inbred. One could easily counter the only thing worse is someone with religious certainty is someone who views all things religious with the hatred of a nazi against a jew..
Can you see how the seeds of comparing someone with a nazi automatically contaminates one's view with any opposite religious views? That is just empty hate without cause. the same is true of ehrman calling all religious inbred. Remember these are supposed to be his best quotes... calling people names is the foundation of #2...
3)“In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!”
that's not true at all.
In fact there are several different sources and like with any 1st century source they are all considered to be religious and thus disqualified.. Mr. ehrman is playing a word game with small minded people. it is like saying there are no books written about the revolutionary war unless written by a sympathizer, and then proceed to call every publication a work of a sympathizer that is written on the subject. Like wise he says there are no books written outside of the writings of the religious, and everything written in support of christ then becomes religious.. What he means to say is there are no third part authors who deny christ existed.
Because in fact Paul was a religious scholar of another religion. He wrote of Christ. Luke was a 3rd party secular historian with no affiliation with Christ, Mark was a scribe with no religious affiliation. Mat was a government employed tax collector Only John worked for and knew jesus.
But all of the works they compiled are considered religious by ehrman because they speak of a subject he is trying to erase from history. what a phony, using a exclusionary tactic like that. If there were no writings of that period then how would we know?
“You can’t believe something just because someone else desperately wants you to.”
again neutral observation, I can also say you can't dismiss something just because you want too.
“Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. But there could be a fourth option - legend.”
vitriol. anger pointed at christianity with no real fact or purpose other than to challenge and ridicule a person of faith.
“In Matthew, Jesus declares, “Whoever is not with me is against me.” In Mark, he says,“Whoever is not against us is for us.” Did he say both things? Could he mean both things? How can both be true at once? Or is it possible that one of the Gospel writers got things switched around?”
mat 12:25 Jesus knew what the Pharisees were thinking. So he said to them, “Every kingdom that fights against itself will be destroyed. And every city or family that is divided against itself will not survive. 26 So if Satan forces out his own demons,[e] then he is fighting against himself, and his kingdom will not survive. 27 You say that I use the power of Satan to force out demons. If that is true, then what power do your people use when they force out demons? So your own people will prove that you are wrong. 28 But I use the power of God’s Spirit to force out demons, and this shows that God’s kingdom has come to you. 29 Whoever wants to enter a strong man’s house and steal his things must first tie him up. Then they can steal the things from his house. 30 Whoever is not with me is against me. And anyone who does not work with me is working against me.
Here in matt Jesus is addressing the pharisees teaching them a lesson about the source of his power and the holy Spirit. (the bit where you sins will not be forgiven if you sin against him
This passage from luke is a bit incomplete as it seems to be referencing the events of mark 9
luke 9: 49 John answered, “Master, we saw someone using your name to force demons out of people. We told him to stop because he does not belong to our group.” 50 Jesus said to him, “Don’t stop him. Whoever is not against you is for you.”
mark 9:38 Then John said, “Teacher, we saw a man using your name to force demons out of someone. He is not one of us. So we told him to stop, because he does not belong to our group.”
39 Jesus said, “Don’t stop him. Whoever uses my name to do powerful things will not soon say bad things about me. 40 Whoever is not against us is with us. 41 I can assure you that anyone who helps you by giving you a drink of water because you belong to the Messiah will definitely get a reward.
and as you can see mark's account is completely different than what was going on in mat. so yes Jesus did indeed say both. Erhman set you assholes up with the vitriol anger and sense of superiority by calling religious people inbreds so you all would feel so superior he could openly lie to you and your pride would have been so well stroked you would not even bother to check his quote. This guy is an empty con man who is falling before the "word of God" brought to you by the 'drich' just like every single one of you have in the past.
“The problem then with Jesus is that he cannot be removed from his time and transplanted into our own without simply creating him anew”
“[P]eople need to use their intelligence to evaluate what they find to be true and untrue in the Bible. This is how we need to live life generally. Everything we hear and see we need to evaluate—whether the inspiring writings of the Bible or the inspiring writings of Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, or George Eliot, of Ghandi, Desmond Tutu, or the Dalai Lama.” Stroking the ego's of you 'smart' people again meaning it seems like you are about to get another 'bible fact that you should not look too closly at"
BS! the idea of Christ is no different that teaching any other historical figure. Rome caesar the egyptians the pharaohs the greece the ancient chinese all can be taught without blasters light sabers and millennial falcons. Meaning we do not have to add anything to the teach of Christ to bring him to us... As it is the holy Spirit something mr erhman never had... is what brings us to Christ.
(which says a lot about the 'trueness of his christianity)
“In terms of the historical record, I should also point out that there is no account in any ancient source whatsoever about King Herod slaughtering children in or around Bethlehem, or anyplace else. No other author, biblical or otherwise, mentions this event. Is it, like John's account of Jesus' death, a detail made up by Matthew in order to make some kind of theological point?”
IS erham the dumbest person on the planet or does he think you all are? why the F's would herod tell on himself? Could you imagine your the king of the region and you hear another potential king is born so you have all the children killed in your kingdom... Here's the problem with herod's 'kingship..'
(that erham the bible scholar does not know or hopes you are too f-ing lazy/stupid to look up)
Herod's kingship was more like how the queen is queen of england now, with no real power apart from rome.. (which is why herod turn jesus over to pilate to be executed rather than giving the order... do you get it? if he does not have the power to execute Jesus one man then why or who gave him power to kill thousands of babies?!?!) I know it hurts your brain but let that sink in a little more...
So, now.. imagine the queen of england murders all of the girls in london under 2... do you think she would write a memo and sent it up to parlment because she heard there was another queen born to the masses???? or try and blame a plague or sids if asked?
So why the F, would herod or any of his people or anyone else who wanted herod in power (remember he was the great builder of jerusalem as he rebuilt the temple and a great many things that gave the jews pride that the conquering romans and others tore down.) why would he tell the real king The great caesar of Rome he had killed and maybe planted the seeds of insurrection in these people?!?!?!?
He wouldn't. as such a thing would require imperial support. this could have meant his head most definatly his crown!!! but ehrman would have you think killing 10's of thousands of babies is just a requisition away from a man like herod the puppet king. all he needed was the paper work..
But you where just fluffed by erhman so it must be true right? no need to look up the power structure of rome or gain any understanding of herod outside of what you currently think the word 'king' means!
“Different authors have different points of view. You can't just say, 'I believe in the Bible.”
stroking the atheist sentiment again.. I can say I believe in the bible because what I found in it is true.
“Traditionally in Christian circles, Judas in fact has been associated with Jews. Of being traitors, avaricious, who in fact, betray Jesus, who are Christ-killers. And this portrayal of Judas of course also leads then to horrendous acts of anti-Semitism through the centuries.”
in traditional white circles slaves were owned... does that mean all white people are guilty now of owning those specific slaves?
https://www.inspiringquotes.us/author/69...t-d-ehrman
very little content almost NO scholarship involved just alot of personal conjecture that strokes the egos of people who frequent this type of web site. Sorry to say your 'hero' is just another huckster looking to sell books by helping you poop on God.
Good post.
OF course some academics are dishonest. The worst single case I can remember is the guy who said vaccines cause autism. He falsified his results, and his dishonesty was accepted by the crackpot fringe, and has almost certainly cost lives.
Then there are some who are either intentionally dishonest or suffering from cognitive dissonance. EG some scientists working for big business and of course, Biblical scholars of all stripes.
However, those examples do not invalidate either scientific or scholarly method, because they are exceptions rather than the norm.. IMO to claim otherwise is pig ignorant, paranoid or as you have said, trolling.
When a person makes any claim he has the burden of proof. So when some fool makes an absurd claim he can be told to put up or shut up. Unfortunately, I"ve never run across a Christian apologist capable of doing that
IF trolling is the problem , I'm am confident the moderators will act.
PS. A gentle suggestion; for maximum credibility, perhaps try to avoid reductio ad Hitler (Godwin's Law)iIt's only an informal observation a bloke called Godwin made about internet arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
