Bart Ehrman article

[WaltL1]

You’re most likely correct.

On a serious note, I always get something out of reading your post - that one was just hard to pass up without throwing a little sarcasm in

I'll be honest, 90% of Israel's posts go straight over my head. It generally takes me days to decipher them. But the 10% I can figure out always has some really good stuff that makes the effort worthwhile.

 

[gordon 2]

Scripture relates in many narratives The Error of the need to know ( making good sense of what is to know ie: wisdom or seeking wisdom) as prerequisite to the need to live as if knowledge must beget "real" living. Therefore seeking in scripture as if it was a source to give knowledge, above all else, is not correct according to scripture. What scripture teaches above all else is that life and the common need of living must be the motivations to making sense or getting wholesome meaning of what scripture teaches.

If wisely God does not make sense as we read scripture --than perhaps our motivation ( our optic) is incorrectly calibrated and making sense of God or making things clear are impossible or at least cause for nervous insecurity or anxiety.
'
'The appeal of scripture is not a call to the all in all or as one in wisdom, but it is a call to the all in all in a life synonymous with love. Is spirituality's appeal that man be wise or that it love or at least be compassionate? The motivation to best understand the purpose of scripture must be in seeking life and not so much wisdom. Wisdom is full of rabbit holes, human life naturally fights for its day in the sun.
'
'If God is impossible because scripture makes him impossible than our motivation in reading scripture or knowing God might be questionable.


" Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Ask yourself why should one man get rocks when he asks and another gets grapes? I suggest that a possible answer is that one man's motivation was to acquire knowledge, to understand and another's was to live most fully.



-------------------

Many remarkable philosophers are not believers. It seems that rigorous thinking has its zenith that God might appear a man made creation or a fabrication made within man's nature. Add this to the ways of reading scripture that seem in error to me as I have indicated and a man can sink in unbelief or misunderstanding.

On the other hand there is a witness in the Jesus narrative that God can both be within and without man or that possibly God and man are not poles apart but our motivation-optics might make this seem so-- even to the point of denying the pole said God. Wisdom as man can know it just might dismiss God out of life-- but life as man can know it might just re-invite Him in.

' Perhaps too simply: When we seek wisdom we seek to understand ourselves, when we seek life we include an creator or spirit outside and part of ourselves.

 

[Spotlite]

I'll be honest, 90% of Israel's posts go straight over my head. It generally takes me days to decipher them. But the 10% I can figure out always has some really good stuff that makes the effort worthwhile.

I’m going home and trying to decipher this tax headache lol.

I just gave someone’s stimulus check back to the IRS.

I’m not about to go start buying stuff to pay taxes on to have enough deductions lol.

 

[bullethead]

I wasn't asking a question.
It was more of a muttered expression along the lines of a head tilt towards the two seemingly contradictory quotes depending upon whether or not Izzy was asking Walt's opinion with the question or if Izzy did not know the answer to the question.

 

[Spotlite]

My friend, have you ever hit the pause button long enough to ponder why you are spending so much of your time fighting against someone who you believe isn’t there?
If you are completely convinced Jesus Christ isn’t who He said he was/is and the Bible isn’t the living word of God, what’s the point of anything at all?

You have to consider more than just that ^^^^
Christianity has a great impact on everything that we are (history / future) as a society regardless if you’re a believer or a non believer.

If the shoe was turned, you and I would be asking / searching / questioning the Muslims about Allah.

 

[Israel]

Confuse'us say:

"If a man is not content if found to be speaking only to himself, he surely has no right to speak to anyone else.

First reconcile with that which knows and can disclose if one is...only speaking to one's self."

I had no hope nor expectation of answer in the question about intellectual honesty/dishonesty...nor was it particularly addressed to Walt as I didn't post anything of reply with quote of former conversation. It was "just a question". But I am glad he was willing to field it...and found a lot of help (toward clarity) in his answer.

Confuse'us also say perhaps nothing less than this name has been so rightly earned and applied.

 

[hummerpoo]

Just my take.

I think "intellectual dishonesty" is lying to yourself.

If one knows that what he are saying will not hold up under close scrutiny, which we often see of in politics, and elsewhere, when something is advocated knowing that only an infinitesimal portion of the hearers, to whom it is targeted, will investigate, or will even care if it is true if it sounds good to them; that is a lie.

If one is aware that he has not sufficiently informed himself to advocate for the position taken, or has utilized information that he has not identified as insufficiently investigated; that is "intellectual dishonesty".

It is my opinion that a large portion of what we read and hear, and a large portion of what we write and say, in this life, qualifies for one of these categories. Just look at my opening sentence, it disqualifies all that I have said from being reliable.

 

[bullethead]

Just a question.

Is intellectual dishonesty different than any other form of dishonesty=not honest=liar?

Confuse'us state it is a question, then Confuse'us ask question.

I had no hope nor expectation of answer in the question about intellectual honesty/dishonesty

Confuse'us now state that he no expect answer.

Confuse'us Confuse Us

 

[Israel]

To ask a question without the presumption it is a worthy question...and therefore need be answered by anyone else just because it is posited...just my take...is something I am only beginning to learn. Who has any right of expectation of any other (no more nor less) free agent...that because he asks a question it must be answered...he must be...answered? If answer is given...it is a given thing, but it's only a fool who thinks the compelling to respond is made his own. If I am free to ask...what bond can I cast to force answer? My freedom is all contingent upon it being real, and that for any. It is not "made true" by my believing it, the truth "of it" is what causes me to believe...liberty is there. He is. Jesus is Lord.

To be set free to be ignored is a great freedom indeed. Especially a man as me...who has so long operated from "my being deserves answer." And all the churning and striving that has accompanied such to manifest testimony...that being was/is not enough. There was always something sought to modify...to prop up as it were...not seeing how "propped up" my being already is/was.

If a "being" is not content to be without its own addition of qualifier "successful being", "smart/intelligent being", "pious or devout being", even "being able to provoke or compel to answer" of whatever form to itself finds appealing...by seeking so it is only seeking to nullify itself by trying to prove itself, to itself...as such. Men who oppose themselves...and in all unable to either see or say with any conviction "I am what I am by the grace of God".

I used to think that was reserved for the far advanced, the adept, the inner of the inner circle...who have by such efforts have ascended to such, when it is merely the man who somewhere along the descent off his mountain of pride...simply finds it. God knows it might be found in taking the only true..step, half step, quarter step...or mere seeing with intent (as a given thing) to step down off the dun* heap upon which he stands in himself. God knows. And it may well be the only thing first given that even initiates any following "true motions". No step...required. Just seeing a thing given. That cannot be mistaken for a thing produced by the man from demand.

Having seen something of the Lord's patience toward a thing (such as myself) in ignoring questions so long overlooked, yet given to be as gift when found in my own process of picking and choosing upon what I might focus to assure my standing (God being gentle toward my own processes...but not without an unyielding firmness to intent of salvation) like a thing come across when rummaging for things of utility...a more useful thing is found than could have been previously considered.

A question:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

What a question!

Lord, you know.

Why?

Teach me if you will to. And may I have stillness please...to hear?

He is easily entreated.

 

[bullethead]

To ask a question without the presumption it is a worthy question...and therefore need be answered by anyone else just because it is posited...just my take...is something I am only beginning to learn. Who has any right of expectation of any other (no more nor less) free agent...that because he asks a question it must be answered...he must be...answered? If answer is given...it is a given thing, but it's only a fool who thinks the compelling to respond is made his own. If I am free to ask...what bond can I cast to force answer? My freedom is all contingent upon it being real, and that for any. It is not "made true" by my believing it, the truth "of it" is what causes me to believe...liberty is there. He is. Jesus is Lord.

To be set free to be ignored is a great freedom indeed. Especially a man as me...who has so long operated from "my being deserves answer." And all the churning and striving that has accompanied such to manifest testimony...that being was/is not enough. There was always something sought to modify...to prop up as it were...not seeing how "propped up" my being already is/was.

If a "being" is not content to be without its own addition of qualifier "successful being", "smart/intelligent being", "pious or devout being", even "being able to provoke or compel to answer" of whatever form to itself finds appealing...by seeking so it is only seeking to nullify itself by trying to prove itself, to itself...as such. Men who oppose themselves...and in all unable to either see or say with any conviction "I am what I am by the grace of God".

I used to think that was reserved for the far advanced, the adept, the inner of the inner circle...who have by such efforts have ascended to such, when it is merely the man who somewhere along the descent off his mountain of pride...simply finds it. God knows it might be found in taking the only true..step, half step, quarter step...or mere seeing with intent (as a given thing) to step down off the dun* heap upon which he stands in himself. God knows. And it may well be the only thing first given that even initiates any following "true motions". No step...required. Just seeing a thing given. That cannot be mistaken for a thing produced by the man from demand.

Having seen something of the Lord's patience toward a thing (such as myself) in ignoring questions so long overlooked, yet given to be as gift when found in my own process of picking and choosing upon what I might focus to assure my standing (God being gentle toward my own processes...but not without an unyielding firmness to intent of salvation) like a thing come across when rummaging for things of utility...a more useful thing is found than could have been previously considered.

A question:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

What a question!

Lord, you know.

Why?

Teach me if you will to. And may I have stillness please...to hear?

He is easily entreated.

Makes sense if you are alone, or in a place not geared towards asking and answering questions as part of the subject being discussed. You may be right if a person was asking questions at the DMV about cake recipes etc.
But when you are in a place designed for discussion the asking and answering of questions is part of the dialog. It is encouraged and expected.
If you are in school you would expect questions to be asked and answered regardless of presumption.
A dumb question is one that is not asked.
But none of this has anything to do with why I replied "well....".
I replied "well..." because it was an opening to insert a funny reply after linking two of your quotes which to me were contradictory together.

In the words of Sgt Hulka, Lighten up Francis.

 

[WaltL1]

Makes sense if you are alone, or in a place not geared towards asking and answering questions as part of the subject being discussed. You may be right if a person was asking questions at the DMV about cake recipes etc.
But when you are in a place designed for discussion the asking and answering of questions is part of the dialog. It is encouraged and expected.
If you are in school you would expect questions to be asked and answered regardless of presumption.
A dumb question is one that is not asked.
But none of this has anything to do with why I replied "well....".
I replied "well..." because it was an opening to insert a funny reply after linking two of your quotes which to me were contradictory together.

In the words of Sgt Hulka, Lighten up Francis.

 

[1gr8bldr]

I have not gone through every post, yet. The bigger question I see is why do peopl

From:https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-04-04/christians-heaven-****-soul
(Replace the **** with the double hockey stix in the link)

"Billions of Christians around the world believe that on Easter, Jesus was raised from the dead and taken up to heaven to live with God. They also believe that when they die, their own souls will go to heaven. The great irony is that this is not at all what Jesus himself believed.

It's been awhile since I read Erhman's books, however, what comes to mind, first and foremost, of all that I have forgotten about his books is that bart is misrepresented on most levels. Mostly by one liners distributed by those who have not read his work. Being a believing apologist that I am, I have to know the arguments rather than simply say that he is incorrect.

In 90% of cases, given the context, Erhman is correct in the context of which he states something. Bart never states what he believes. Ever. He simply as a historian, as historians do, he states what he derives is going on, based on the limited but broad sources of info, from the time period he is referring to, and he gives us that information, as history, that we may never have known, had it not been for someone, whom is paid by someone, an organization, etc, giving him the means to devote his time, to dig deep enough, to actually get all the pertinent info.

One of Erhman books, he actually , as a historian, built the case, that Jesus did exist, and was not a mystical figure. We have to remember that although Bart has made his living from these books and the opposite attraction to them, he is in no way trying to recruit disbelief.

 

[Israel]

Just my take.

I think "intellectual dishonesty" is lying to yourself.

If one knows that what he are saying will not hold up under close scrutiny, which we often see of in politics, and elsewhere, when something is advocated knowing that only an infinitesimal portion of the hearers, to whom it is targeted, will investigate, or will even care if it is true if it sounds good to them; that is a lie.

If one is aware that he has not sufficiently informed himself to advocate for the position taken, or has utilized information that he has not identified as insufficiently investigated; that is "intellectual dishonesty".

It is my opinion that a large portion of what we read and hear, and a large portion of what we write and say, in this life, qualifies for one of these categories. Just look at my opening sentence, it disqualifies all that I have said from being reliable.

Of the many scriptures that come to mind...and the myriad that do not as readily...(but are surely there, as you, or one might say for the investigating if one "even care") your thoughts provoke me to consideration of at least these.

"Let God be true and every man a liar" (In its exquisite context)

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

And Jesus' testimony of Satan's seeking Him (Jesus) out to provocation:

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.


Under duress a man will say most anything to save his skin, as men "under the influence"... drunk with whatever power they have presumed is theirs to exert to extraction from others strive toward bringing another into their own condemnation. The prince of this world could not cause Jesus to fear, to be ashamed, duplicitous, nor abandon the word of truth for which he was being tried and tested; for the mercy and grace in the gospel.

If mercy has anything in it made subject to demand or demand-able by anything of earned nature, we know it then cannot be mercy. And if the grace of God has not appeared in manifestation to all men

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Then Paul's claim of being an:

apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior...

is not true. Bringing all and everything else he had said into question, and rightly, of being mere fabrication...product of intellectual dishonesty. Claiming an intelligence in knowledge of things put forth as to his having, that are not. As there is true intelligence...for a time there is false, one eternal, one not and caught and trapped by time:

Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.




And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

It is in all how the evil one seeks to bring into question "Hath God said...?" which for his purpose is not the establishing of reminder...but doubt. More dishonesty under some guise of legitimacy in speaking. Yet, how this all has worked, and works perfectly to God's eternal purpose however, for the revelation of Jesus Christ...( a question)

Are we all not to be assured?

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...is as completed in moment in that same moment as "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" manifested in these last days for us. A something as there from the beginning which for God's purpose another thing was given to see only (the first man of earth) for such time and till such time, ...that the glories of the second man of heaven (of whom is testified)

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Be revealed.

A difference.

And it is only because I know what I see in a man claiming "no reliability of himself"

it disqualifies all that I have said from being reliable.

italics mine

regardless of words said, I have faith to speak with you. For I hear in the testimony against oneself as the true speaker...the knowledge of the One who is.

Even if I only be found...speaking of myself...and even to only myself. The faith found in the love of Christ...covers much. Faith is all and only...legitimacy for speech among men. To the even covering of lawlessness when discovered so.

You see inequity? Discrepancy? Difference? That's as good a start as any.

We who see the difference between the man of heaven and the man of earth...have found that as good a start as any, knowing such sight of difference is a gift.

I see you brother, no less as I see Paul. Not due to any even miraculous claim of conversion (though I do not find him false in that at all of his road to Damascus)...but because in following his words I see a different working. A working that compels agreement by not denying experience.

Flattery which God knows I have loved to no immunity requires the most skilled physician. I see Him in visit to your house also and you as as one who unashamedly opens the door.

Those whom I love I rebuke and chasten. It is a terrible thing to fear rebuke and chastening in excess of longing for the manifestation of His love.

Christ knows all the difference between "I must know you as you say you are"...and "I demand you prove yourself."

 

[bullethead]

Perfect Example

 

[WaltL1]

I have not gone through every post, yet. The bigger question I see is why do peopl
It's been awhile since I read Erhman's books, however, what comes to mind, first and foremost, of all that I have forgotten about his books is that bart is misrepresented on most levels. Mostly by one liners distributed by those who have not read his work. Being a believing apologist that I am, I have to know the arguments rather than simply say that he is incorrect.

In 90% of cases, given the context, Erhman is correct in the context of which he states something. Bart never states what he believes. Ever. He simply as a historian, as historians do, he states what he derives is going on, based on the limited but broad sources of info, from the time period he is referring to, and he gives us that information, as history, that we may never have known, had it not been for someone, whom is paid by someone, an organization, etc, giving him the means to devote his time, to dig deep enough, to actually get all the pertinent info.

One of Erhman books, he actually , as a historian, built the case, that Jesus did exist, and was not a mystical figure. We have to remember that although Bart has made his living from these books and the opposite attraction to them, he is in no way trying to recruit disbelief.

Howdy blder, good to see you jump in again!

 

[1gr8bldr]

="WaltL1, post: 12824593, member: 27957"]Howdy blder, good to see you jump in again![/QUOTE]I refrain as much as I can. LOL, had a long streak going there

 

[Israel]

Does anyone know who said/wrote this:

For this assignment I have been asked to argue the following thesis: The New Testament Gospels are not a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. In particular, they provide no convincing evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

This thesis sounds terribly negative, but I want to start on a very positive note. Let me say here at the outset that I consider the Gospels of the New Testament to be four of the most beautiful, powerful, moving, and inspiring books ever written. I love the Gospels. Their stories of Jesus’s words and deeds have always been and always will be near and dear to me. Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life, and I encourage others to do likewise. For me they are the most important books in our civilization and for my own life.

 

[WaltL1]

Does anyone know who said/wrote this:

For this assignment I have been asked to argue the following thesis: The New Testament Gospels are not a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. In particular, they provide no convincing evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

This thesis sounds terribly negative, but I want to start on a very positive note. Let me say here at the outset that I consider the Gospels of the New Testament to be four of the most beautiful, powerful, moving, and inspiring books ever written. I love the Gospels. Their stories of Jesus’s words and deeds have always been and always will be near and dear to me. Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life, and I encourage others to do likewise. For me they are the most important books in our civilization and for my own life.

Full disclosure - I didt know until about 5 minutes ago. Provides a good perspective though.

 

[Israel]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[WaltL1]

Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life,

I like that ^ statement. No dependency on whether its fact or fiction. No "to believe this you must believe that". No "if you believe this is right you must believe that is wrong" etc.
Wish it was "all" left that simple.