bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Just about everyone who takes a stance on any topic has a message that stays relatively consistent. Pick any religion,sports team, political stance, favorite burger joint....and the same logic fits.
Welcome Guest!
Bart Ehrman
- Thread starter 1gr8bldr
- Start date
Just about everyone who takes a stance on any topic has a message that stays relatively consistent. Pick any religion,sports team, political stance, favorite burger joint....and the same logic fits.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
It depends on the topic at hand, sometimes I remain confused, a good example is baptism.
Similar theological backgrounds. Every sermon I have ever heard a Liberty graduate give was theologically consistent with other Liberty graduates. If the "mainstream" teaches one way, the "mainstream" will tend to believe that way.
I do not believe theological consistency amongst a group of people is evidence of being theologically correct. Thats why when folks say "lot's of folks see it this way," I dismiss the argument as that of majority and not to be considered(otherwise, we are left concurring that Obama was the correct choice).
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
I went through a period about 3 years ago where I read probably 250 books. One after the other. Most were the same ole thing. Hardly found any that were correct. Most, even though I stayed clear of the self improvement side, were merely directions on how to clean up the flesh. The flesh was not meant to be cleaned up but to be crucified. So I finially had enough and realized that I don't need anyone to teach me. Now I read the writings of the early church fathers mostly. It's very interesting to see the history of Christianty. The reason that I like Bart, even though I don't agree with alot of what he says, is that for the most part, he has no agenda, or should I say neutral. He does not bend reason to try to make something fit some preconceived traditional thinking. It's fresh air to me. Bart is a historian. He uses his vast knowledge of overwhelming amounts of writings from the first century and on to formulate what was going on at that time. This example is not from Bart, but I'll give it as to me it is so interesting. One letter we have is about a general who writes his superior about the hundreds of Christians who are coming forth wanting to be killed. Seems being killed has become popular. The general said "what I'm I to do with all of them" and he replied "don't they have cliffs they can jump off of". Now that's interesting to me. Something else that I discovered on my own but recently heard Bart also say is that the first Christians were called Athiest. The reason is that in that day Polythiesm was everywhere. Since Christians claimed to worship one God who had no image or required no sacrificial duties, they saw this as rebellious and called them athiest. Now that's interesting. This kind of thing is what you learn from Early Church history. Barts pointing out of variances in the NT are correct. Only a few are overstated. Ones like was Mary told to tell them to stay in Jerusalem or did she say go to Galilee? These differences do exist. It is what it is. It's not Bart bashing the bible, he is merely pointing out what every bible student will one day come across. By now, I have forgot my reason for responding
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
I agree with you, BIG TIME. These theological cemetarys, I mean seminarys, teach what it is that they believe. Most preachers I know that have graduated know nothing about church history. They are not knowledgable about anything except what they are told. They don't even know the arguments. It's like they are only replicating the same robot. They don't know that errors are in the bible, and especially don't know how to deal with them. They come out gun ho ready to regiritate some James Dobson whitewash. I'd better quit because of the way this will come across. Seriously though, this is the truth.
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
I know that this is hard to believe. But my faith is now stronger than ever. Knowing the opposition and the arguments is beneficial. I think I could convert Bart back if I could take him on a fishing trip
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
It's a misconception to think that Bart teaches against Christianity. His personal beliefs are not implied, he merely approaches his lectures as a historian
atlashunter
Senior Member
I know that this is hard to believe. But my faith is now stronger than ever. Knowing the opposition and the arguments is beneficial. I think I could convert Bart back if I could take him on a fishing trip
Maybe you could start a separate thread on that. I'm sure you know from his books that it was the problem of evil that caused him to lose his faith, not the errors in the bible. I'd like to be a fly on the wall listening to you discuss that issue with him.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
I wish somebody who understands the problem of evil would start a thread on it. I am too lazy to go back and read through all the threads I have heard y'all have had on it. I remember a little about it from philosophy, but did not study it in any great detail.
And I'm with gr8bldr, my faith was stronger when I started questioning everything. I do not know why so many are uncomfortable with questions.
And I'm with gr8bldr, my faith was stronger when I started questioning everything. I do not know why so many are uncomfortable with questions.
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
I'd stay away from that one. There is much about the Bible that Bart does not understand yet he knows the bible very well. I may have overstated that remark not thinking about his real reason that you have pointed out. I never go there. Another problem that Bart has is that if God inspired the scriptures, then why would he not see that what he inspired was protected from corruption. I was trying to recall just how he puts it???? refering to Barts other books that I have not read about the problem of, is it evil? or is it the problem of, I can't remember. Lets you and I invite Bart on a fishing trip. I'll supply the boat and the location. Well, maybe we should go where there ain't no fish so we can have more time to talk
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
I may one day read one of those books. I would assume that it will not be built upon the scriptures. Anybody know? Anybody read one of those?
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
Separate thread on "my faith being stronger"????
Huntinfool
Senior Member
I'm glad that your faith is stronger. But you and I 100% disagree on this. He claims to approach it as a historian. But it's very clear that the intent is to debunk much of what Christianity claims.
You even said so yourself in a round about way..."I think I could convert Bart back if I could take him on a fishing trip."
He doesn't need to be converted back if he's not approaching from the other bank. Now....I absolutely can't stand it when a pastor gets up at the pulpit and starts preaching against a particular book that someone has written. I agree that we need to know all sides if we are going to know why we believe what we believe. But, as I read your posts about Mr. Ehrman, they almost sound admiring as if he's a hero of yours. That concerns me deeply.
Huntinfool
Senior Member
In what sense were they not correct? What was your basis for making that determination. It's issue by issue isn't it?
Quite honestly, the "issue by issue" thing doesn't make any sense to me. If you take each issue independent of all others and make a dtermination one way or the other, you open yourself to inconsistency in belief. They are all so delicately interrelated, there is no way to honestly look at one independent of all the others....bit maybe that's for another day.
Ah....nevermind my first question. I think I see where you were going. I actually agree for the most part. But I find it hard to believe that you read 250 books by Christian authors and came away with very little other than "clean the flesh".
A very good thing to do.
...and THIS is what concerns me. How in the world do you come away with the possibility that he is independent in his thinknig. You're right. He doesn't regurgitate traditional thinking. But what he publishes IS very much "preconceived". It's just new and warpped in a different package. But it's most often an attack on the "traditional" and very much comes from preconceived ideas that already held before writing.
He is a historian...and he knows a lot about a lot of things. But he very clearly twists things to promote his version of truth. It's very clear in his writings.
Again...I know I'm not going to convince you that he approaches his works with an agenda. But I hope that you'll take a second looks as you're reading. It's there...and it's pretty up front.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
1gr8bldr, Why is it that even though you profess your faith in God and are pleased that your own beliefs have actually gotten stronger, you still get questioned by other Christians for not doing it EXACTLY as they would?
Don't read books outside of the faith and form your own thoughts, check with others first to see what and how you should feel about those books before you form your own opinion.
It is those pushy opinions that drive more people away from religion than help it grow.
It is bad when you are not allowed to form your own opinions.
Don't read books outside of the faith and form your own thoughts, check with others first to see what and how you should feel about those books before you form your own opinion.
It is those pushy opinions that drive more people away from religion than help it grow.
It is bad when you are not allowed to form your own opinions.
Huntinfool
Senior Member
bullethead, that's not what I did and you know it.
What I was addressing is the belief that Ehrman is somehow "unbiased" in his writings. I have no problem with any Christian reading what "the other side has to say".
Why in the world do you think I'm HERE all the time?
Absolutely, form your own opinions. But this belief that mainstream theology is some how biased and Ehrman is just a good honest and unbiased historian is ludicris...and I'm not talking rap.
Ehrman is extremely biased in his writings and approaches issues with the end goal of proving his intended point in mind.
"I don't believe 'X', so I am going to find historica evidence that ends up supporting my position and leave out the rest. I'm also going to twist facts so that they support what I'm trying to prove."
Kind of what you guys accuse the "mainstream" of doing all the time, right?
What I was addressing is the belief that Ehrman is somehow "unbiased" in his writings. I have no problem with any Christian reading what "the other side has to say".
Why in the world do you think I'm HERE all the time?
Absolutely, form your own opinions. But this belief that mainstream theology is some how biased and Ehrman is just a good honest and unbiased historian is ludicris...and I'm not talking rap.
Ehrman is extremely biased in his writings and approaches issues with the end goal of proving his intended point in mind.
"I don't believe 'X', so I am going to find historica evidence that ends up supporting my position and leave out the rest. I'm also going to twist facts so that they support what I'm trying to prove."
Kind of what you guys accuse the "mainstream" of doing all the time, right?
JB0704
I Gots Goats
I think that is the purpose behind any similar book. I think too much credibility is given to authors opinons and we should read each of them, atheist, christian, mainstream, etc. with an open mind. Now, they have studied the material more, and that gives them the credibility to be published, but as with pretty much anything, there is always another "angle," and the reader should seek truth.
Huntinfool
Senior Member
The problem is, though, that Ehrman presents himself as a simple unbiased historian and somehow people believe it. That is what makes him dangerous...not that what he writes conflicts with my beliefs.
Most authors at least admit where they are starting from.
Most authors at least admit where they are starting from.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Dangerous to WHO?
atlashunter
Senior Member
I was referring to the introductions in I believe both Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus. He does have a book about the problem of evil. I haven't listened to the entire book but it discusses quite a bit of scripture as it relates to the subject.
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
Hello Huntinfool. I appreciate your concern. I understand your thinking. For example, I do not want my wife or children to have long discussions with JW's. I can, because I know the arguments, both sides. Someone else, most likely does not and could be lured away. After they have studied both sides, then they are ready.
