Bart Ehrman

[atlashunter]

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.

Ehrman started as an evangelical christian...

 

[1gr8bldr]

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.

That should be interesting. I'm afraid I would be at a lose of words because most can't explain this. We are all so opinionated, but this topic humbles me

 

[1gr8bldr]

Ehrman started as an evangelical christian...

If I recall, he now considers himself agnostic?????

 

[bullethead]

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?

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.

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".

...and THIS is what concerns me. How in the world do you come away with the possibility that he is independent in his thinknig.

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.

You were saying..........

 

[atlashunter]

If I recall, he now considers himself agnostic?????

That's correct but he didn't start there.

 

[1gr8bldr]

That's correct but he didn't start there.

Yea, I knew that he was raised Christian. I can't remember his story. If I recall, the problem of evil was the main reason. I think I do like most Christians do when it comes to pointing out the errors, I just ignore the problem as if it does not exist. That's what I do when it comes to the problem of evil. Helps me to understand the error issue. I simply don't know how to deal with it.

 

[atlashunter]

Does it bother you any to do that?

 

[JB0704]

The problem with the problem of evil is that it is a series of "if-then" conclusions which are not provable, they are assumptions based on what our perception must be.....that's how I am viewing it currently. A + B does not have to equal C. We spin it, and reason it, but we cannot know it (yes I do see the irony).

My take on dealing with things that don't make sense is that I go back to the logic which, for me, concludes God does exist. In my reasoning, it trumps the arguments to the contrary, and I have spent a lot of time pondering over it to where my intellectual curiosity is satisfied.

I am new to the problem of evil, but don't think it is insurmountable from a believers perspective. Either you accept the conclusions or not. Ehrman is a very intelligent man, and I am sure his logic is sound from where he stands, while I am not in his league intelligence-wise, I would consider my logic to be sound as well.

 

[1gr8bldr]

Does it bother you any to do that?

I honestly have never give it much thought. I should "man up" and face it head on. After I finish Bart's lectures, I will do it. I'll get one of those books and ponder what he has to say. I honestly don't expect that I will have the answer.

 

[Huntinfool]

Dangerous to WHO?

The reader who takes what he says at face value because he's "just an unbiased historian".

 

[JB0704]

The reader who takes what he says at face value because he's "just an unbiased historian".

I agree, the writer's perspective plays a large role in the interpretation of the reading. One must have to understand the bias. This goes for any book one reads.

 

[atlashunter]

What was the bias of the men who wrote and compiled the bible?

 

[JB0704]

What was the bias of the men who wrote and compiled the bible?

As far as the NT is concerned, they were Messianic Jews attempting to completely revolutionize their culture, and the world, based on the teachings of a man they believed was the son of God. That definitely should play into the interpretation of the NT. It gives insight into a lot of their teachings and perspectives, particularly when you consider the new inclusion of gentiles to what had been previously an exclusive belief system.

 

[JB0704]

What was the bias of the men who wrote and compiled the bible?

Any time you read the Bible it should be understood that the author is trying to convince you of something.

 

[1gr8bldr]

The reader who takes what he says at face value because he's "just an unbiased historian".

Hello Huntinfool. I think that you would be pleasantly surprised if you realized just how interesting Bart is. You have the wrong idea. As of right now, I have listened to 7 of Bart's lectures. Those so far could be said in any church I've ever been in. As a matter of fact, I suspect that 99% of the hearers would say that he is by far the best teacher they have ever heard. This meaning that he is not teaching against, but is rather teaching what the bible says. These 24 lectures, I downloaded for $35. I wish you would get these. It will change your mind.

 

[atlashunter]

Any time you read the Bible it should be understood that the author is trying to convince you of something.

Perhaps that explains the miracle claims.

 

[JB0704]

Perhaps that explains the miracle claims.

....perhaps.....

If you believed the miracle claims, would you believe in Jesus? It kind-of all goes back to that, doesn't it?

 

[atlashunter]

....perhaps.....

If you believed the miracle claims, would you believe in Jesus? It kind-of all goes back to that, doesn't it?

Well I did at one time so I guess I would have to say yes. It does make it easier to believe someone is a god if they can defy the laws of nature although on reflection the one doesn't necessarily prove the other. But I do think that is the intent of the miracle stories.

Does the fact that these claims are made by people that we know are trying to convince us of something add to their credibility or detract from it?

 

[JB0704]

Does the fact that these claims are made by people that we know are trying to convince us of something add to their credibility or detract from it?

Both. And the side a person falls on determines which perspective they take.....again, if you can't comprehend a God, then you are clearly going to assume this is a fraud. But, there are more than one ways of looking at it......

From a religious perspective, it would appear to detract from the credibility. One would only assume that a person would fabricate whatever to get folks to believe in a certain system. That system could be used as a control mechanism, and, in the case of Jesus, it was used in that way eventually.....but not by the authors of the NT.....

From a historical observation, it adds credibility. You have similar accounts from multiple sources. So, if we apply the same standards to these events that we apply to much of ancient history, we are left to believe the events possibly did happen.

 

[Huntinfool]

You were saying..........

I have no idea what this means.......................

(other than I put more periods at the end of my post!)