# Sam Harris with Bart Ehrman



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

This was a great interview.


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

At about 17min in, Sam says the records of the miracles are hearsay.  Is this correct or a great exaggeration?


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

Bart at 18:

"People from inside a tradition evaluate probability differently than people outside of that tradition."  

True or false?


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

Around 19:

Bart says that people think that the fact that the Disciples were willing to be martyred is proof of their claims that they saw Jesus after his death.  I've never heard anyone wonder if martyrdom was kind of a thing that Bronze Age Middle Eastern men looked forward to for themselves.  Have they always admired martyrdom for ideology? Is it a new thing they do or has it been around for a while?  I think it's old.


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

32:31

Sam making a joke.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 5, 2018)

I listened to 80% of it


----------



## ambush80 (May 6, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I listened to 80% of it




What do you think?


----------



## hummerpoo (May 6, 2018)

I can't believe I listened to the whole thing.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 6, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What do you think?


It was nothing new to me. I have listened to alot of erhman, not recent, but in past years, before youtube was popular. The problem with listening to erhman is that 30% of his beginning is overlap from other lectures. I do understand this, his lectures at different places, him needing to set the stage. However, the overlap gets old. This was just a different format. If you have not heard much of erhman, then you may not know this. LOL, I could have answered those questions for erhman. I like Erhman. I find him refereshing, because unlike Christians, if the bible said the earth was flat, we would still be arguing over that. He does not force anything into scripture, refreshing unbiased. I do disagree with him on several interpretations where he uses this interpretation to derive at what I consider wrong outcomes. Example, Paul uses an analogy of known OT scripture to make a point about present times the church was facing. Erhman takes it as literal and goes off in the direction that the church is plagued with sexual immorality. However, Erhman, agree with him or not, would be the best sunday school teacher I have ever heard. His teaching brings to life the life and conflict of the early church. Christians hate him, for reason you can imagine, not knowing that he could teach them so much, if they were brave enough to disagree here and there. As far as "what do you think". It would need to be in regards to specifics. If you do ask specific, a time stamp of the point would be good so I could see the context


----------



## ambush80 (May 6, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I can't believe I listened to the whole thing.



Is Ehrman wrong about any of what he said.  Allot of it was new to me.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 6, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Is Ehrman wrong about any of what he said.  Allot of it was new to me.



I haven’t listened yet, but I am going to tomorrow. But I read this recently so I figured I would include it here. 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/jesus-before-the-gospels/


----------



## WaltL1 (May 7, 2018)

What a mess.
IF what he says is right then what he says is wrong.
IF what somebody else says is right then what both he and they say is wrong.
IF.....
IF.....
IF......
And round and round we go.
This is the end result of the work of an omni everything God?


----------



## hummerpoo (May 7, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Is Ehrman wrong about any of what he said.  Allot of it was new to me.



I'm sure that most, probably all, of Erdman's propositions can be supported (hopefully that's in the book, so that the strength can be evaluated); but the sufficiency of the support is dependent upon one's bent.

The only new thing, that I recall, was Erhman's comment concerning women in 1 Cor..  I don't recall having previously come across the idea that it was a late addition.

The reason "I can't believe I listened to the whole thing" is that which is opposed.  It's staw men to me.  I recognize the belief's that they describe, but don't recall any that are mine.


----------



## Israel (May 7, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> What a mess.
> IF what he says is right then what he says is wrong.
> IF what somebody else says is right then what both he and they say is wrong.
> IF.....
> ...


 
When everything among men is seen as such an irremediable "wash" (this one says this, then that one says that) there's something of an acute pain...isn't there?
A pressing? Sensing of a pressing? Pressure to "come" to some sort of resolution when this becomes unbearably...plain.
It appears the saying that "all men are right" is just not on the table...to be said. It's simply not an option. After all...it is the manifest evidence of that "wash" (contradicting men each voicing their stance) that causes this pressure.
No, I can't find any remedy in saying "all men are right". I can say it...but anytime I meet a man with whom I obviously disagree, can't even help myself _from knowing_...I disagree, something's gonna come as pressure against...undeniable pressure against, _that_ stance. "All men are right" gets broke down in a hurry.

If I say "all men are wrong" I adopt the cynics view...and to himself...it sounds...logical. (And it is always such a very inviting, for reasons unbeknownst to the cynic, position) "all men are wrong!" The cynic, till it is revealed to him...(and who knows if it may ever be...who can see how it could...ever be?) cannot even see his obvious, and completely untenable position. He's the man saying manifestly, "I know _this_ truth...'_all men _are wrong' " In order for that to be even remotely a "truth" he's self admitting "_I am_ not man".

There's so much more that might be said, but I am shut up.


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm sure that most, probably all, of Erdman's propositions can be supported (hopefully that's in the book, so that the strength can be evaluated); but the sufficiency of the support is dependent upon one's bent.
> 
> The only new thing, that I recall, was Erhman's comment concerning women in 1 Cor..  I don't recall having previously come across the idea that it was a late addition.
> 
> The reason "I can't believe I listened to the whole thing" is that which is opposed.  It's straw men to me.  I recognize the belief's that they describe, but don't recall any that are mine.



They claim that they're trying to be objective and find the truth.  That is what their bent is. What makes you think that's not what they're after?

Do you think Ehrman might have remained a Christian if he had never been charged with translating the Bible?


----------



## hummerpoo (May 7, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> They claim that they're trying to be objective and find the truth.  That is what their bent is. What makes you think that's not what they're after?


My intended reference was to the consumer, not the producer.




> Do you think Ehrman might have remained a Christian if he had never been charged with translating the Bible?


Your outside my paygrade/job description.


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> My intended reference was to the consumer, not the producer.
> 
> 
> 
> Your outside my paygrade/job description.



Would you recommend to a person interested in Christianity that they read Ehrman or listen to this podcast?


----------



## hummerpoo (May 7, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Would you recommend to a person interested in Christianity that they read Ehrman or listen to this podcast?



That would depend on the person and what I know of their interests and experiences.

>>>edit<<< Come to think of it, I have know trouble finding material to fill my needs (there is too much of it), I doubt that anyone who should read it would have any trouble finding it.   But the original still applies.


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> That would depend on the person and what I know of their interests and experiences.
> 
> >>>edit<<< Come to think of it, I have know trouble finding material to fill my needs (there is too much of it), I doubt that anyone who should read it would have any trouble finding it.   But the original still applies.



Me and you discussing this raised a thought in my mind.  We've got some church planters that moved in next door and I was thinking that I should share this podcast with them.  I'm pretty good friends with him and we often discuss the Bible, God and faith.  Then it occurred to me that I _didn't _want to share this with him.  I kind of like that they're differently minded than us.  They bring flavor to the block.  My other Jewish neighbors believe in ghosts and Karma and my other neighbor believes that certain gems have properties that effect physiology.  I don't seem to want to change their views for the same reasons; they make life interesting.  When pressed, they will all admit that they don't have any rational reasons for their beliefs, just feelings.  They know I'm a skeptic and an Atheist but they don't mind sharing their irrational beliefs with me.  

On second thought, I will share the podcast with him.  He can handle it and we might have some cool conversation about it.  I'm guessing he'll dismiss it or say that it's "out of his pay grade" like he does with challenges to his belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old, but we might have fun.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 7, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think Ehrman might have remained a Christian if he had never been charged with translating the Bible?


Erhman states often that his walk away from faith was suffering of good people and the bible, specifically, if God wrote it then why did he allow men to tamper with it, why not preserve it. And from there, it fell apart, but that was the initial struggle


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Erhman states often that his walk away from faith was suffering of good people and the bible, specifically, if God wrote it then why did he allow men to tamper with it, why not preserve it. And from there, it fell apart, but that was the initial struggle



That's right.  He mentioned so in the interview.  But from what I could tell, he remained Christian while he was finding all the errors as he did his translations, but his struggle with the problem of suffering eventually led him away from Christ.  But don't you think that the fact that he read through the Bible critically informed his view that the problem of suffering isn't completely answered by Christianity?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 7, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That's right.  He mentioned so in the interview.  But from what I could tell, he remained Christian while he was finding all the errors as he did his translations, but his struggle with the problem of suffering eventually led him away from Christ.  But don't you think that the fact that he read through the Bible critically informed his view that the problem of suffering isn't completely answered by Christianity?


I'm not sure at what point he walked away. I remember vaguely his lecture about the problem of suffering. I know he attended Moody bible institute. And your right, the problem of suffering is not solved in Christianity. Christians often claim, that car that just ran the red light, just missed me. God saved me from it. However, if God could have done that, he could have also removed the close call. I have seen people cured from cancer whom will say that it was purposed so they might gain compassion. I then think well, what about those who died. If you think God does it all for our good, then what about someone blinded, paralyzed, or worse, dead. They always try to justify it with their beliefs. Bart's view of suffering is broader than this, such as why do babies starve. Or a child raped, etc. If God created this, why does he allow it, as if he lost control of it. One will then play the devil card. Reasonable conversation starts to get frustrating. I honestly don't know the answer. And I can't use my personal experience of hardships or good times as a lens to look through when we are talking about the world in general. The biblical picture here is this. Our spiritual journey is exactly likened to the spiritual journey of the Israelite slaves. The NT lingo is based on this, whether translators realized it or not. When they faced times of testing, for their benefit, they grumbled among themselves, and asked "Is God among us or not?" Christians live in this world and are faced with the things of this world. Some will lose their faith in times of testing. Others will as Jesus did, tell themselves, he will never leave me or forsake me. Again, this is the biblical picture. I have and do declare this to myself from time to time as I face things. Not in words but in acknowledgment. Although I have not been paralyzed,  struck with blindness, starving, or a war refugee. So, I realize I have not been tested as some might have so I would never state that they should "just have faith". And I am uncomfortable saying that these things are a test. Because then, I would be blaming it on God directly. So, I'm rambling, showing that I have no clear insight on this.


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm not sure at what point he walked away. I remember vaguely his lecture about the problem of suffering. I know he attended Moody bible institute. And your right, the problem of suffering is not solved in Christianity. Christians often claim, that car that just ran the red light, just missed me. God saved me from it. However, if God could have done that, he could have also removed the close call. I have seen people cured from cancer whom will say that it was purposed so they might gain compassion. I then think well, what about those who died. If you think God does it all for our good, then what about someone blinded, paralyzed, or worse, dead. They always try to justify it with their beliefs. Bart's view of suffering is broader than this, such as why do babies starve. Or a child raped, etc. If God created this, why does he allow it, as if he lost control of it. One will then play the devil card. Reasonable conversation starts to get frustrating. I honestly don't know the answer. And I can't use my personal experience of hardships or good times as a lens to look through when we are talking about the world in general. The biblical picture here is this. Our spiritual journey is exactly likened to the spiritual journey of the Israelite slaves. The NT lingo is based on this, whether translators realized it or not. When they faced times of testing, for their benefit, they grumbled among themselves, and asked "Is God among us or not?" Christians live in this world and are faced with the things of this world. Some will lose their faith in times of testing. Others will as Jesus did, tell themselves, he will never leave me or forsake me. Again, this is the biblical picture. I have and do declare this to myself from time to time as I face things. Not in words but in acknowledgment. Although I have not been paralyzed,  struck with blindness, starving, or a war refugee. So, I realize I have not been tested as some might have so I would never state that they should "just have faith". And I am uncomfortable saying that these things are a test. Because then, I would be blaming it on God directly. So, I'm rambling, showing that I have no clear insight on this.



Your ramble sounds like the kind of internal dialogue of someone who's trying hard to sort something out.  I recognize it and appreciate it.  

I guess it really comes down to what one would prefer to believe; what brings them the most "grace".  Either there's someone at the helm and all this suffering is for a good purpose or there's no one at the helm and some are lucky and some aren't.  There's a movie called _The Exorcism of Mary Rose_ and at the end they say that she saw her suffering as her testament to God.  Her burden was to remain faithful even through her torment.  That would be her testimony.  I wonder if the source of her her relief might also have been the source of her suffering.  At the end of _Conan The Barbarian_ Conan prays to his God Crom to help in in the upcoming battle.  At the end of his prayer he says "But if you won't help me, then the "heck" with you".


----------

