# Bart Ehrman



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 20, 2011)

Just finished reading "Jesus Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman. I was wondering if anyone else had read any of his books. Only those firmly grounded should read such as this. My faith is firm so therefore I am not afraid to confront the issues head on. I expect that Ehrman is a respectable, logical person. I saw nothing misleading in how he pointed out so many bible contridictions. I was surprised that their were so many that I had not seen. The book covered lots of topics of which I found interesting but I will say that lots of his assumptions are based on misunderstanding. He takes simple sentences and pulls out extreme ideas as if it were truth. Trying to speculate what is going on using his own imagination. This I consider irresponsible as a historian.  I always see others opinions as interesting, I was just surprised that it seemed as though he presented it as truth.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 21, 2011)

Half way through his book "Lost Christanities", very interesting how they search for authenticity. Do not read his stuff if you think that the canon we have now is inspired. My interest, which I am hopeing to study and find in the remainder of the book, the fight over who is "orthodox".


----------



## atlashunter (May 7, 2011)

I have Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus in audiobook form. Makes for good listening during the commute. Beats the garbage on the radio. You said,



> He takes simple sentences and pulls out extreme ideas as if it were truth. Trying to speculate what is going on using his own imagination. This I consider irresponsible as a historian. I always see others opinions as interesting, I was just surprised that it seemed as though he presented it as truth.



I didn't get that from his books. It seemed to me he took great pains to ask the reader lots of questions without providing the answers although the questions might lead to a certain answer. I thought he exercised great caution in not drawing conclusions unless they could be drawn on fact. 

I just came across a new book of his about books of the bible that are forgeries.

Forged

I plan on checking that one out and also Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 7, 2011)

Extreme ideas out of simple sentences?? I heard that Sunday after Sunday... Let's not get started on that topic...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I have Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus in audiobook form. Makes for good listening during the commute. Beats the garbage on the radio. You said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Hey Atlas, My memory is not as good as it once was so I will scan over the book in hopes of finding the reason for those comments of mine. I recall that my thoughts were solid so I will try to recall so we can discuss it. I like Barts work although we have different outcomes, I think that for the most part that he is very logical, free from religious boundries. It is good to hear something"fresh" and not stagnated from religion. I got three of his books. 2 I finished and 1 that I lost interest in about half way through, mostly because they share the same context as the others. I will get back on this. Good to see something interesting around here


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 8, 2011)

Hello Atlashunter, I scanned through the book. Brought back some memories. First, as a historian, One should conclude his thoughts based on multiple sources rather than read the bible and make judgements based upon his interpertation of particular verse. A hypotesis would be an educated guess. This is not what historians do. I can't recall, but I will look further but He made some conclusions about what was going on during the 1st century based on strecthing some verses out of context. I will find some examples. Another conclusion, not so much falling under the role of a historian was his idea that Paul and Jesus preached two different gospels. While I agree with most of his thoughts on the bible, he need not strecth anything, otherwise he stands to lose credibility. He determined that Matthews gospel records Jesus message as a "do" gospel in direct opposition to Paul's saved by grace. He used the parable of the rich young ruler, specificly when Jesus responded to "what must I do" and Jesus said "Go sell everything". Kind of a long shot being that this is a parable meant to convict the man into admiting that he could not live up to the standards set by the religious, thus in need of another "way". I hope you see my point. His work is good enough to take out the questionable stuff and still have a best seller. I will try to find a good example of my original thoughts, but I don't wish to reread the book. I look foward to your input.


----------



## vowell462 (May 9, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Extreme ideas out of simple sentences?? I heard that Sunday after Sunday... Let's not get started on that topic...



LoL!


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2011)

Concerning Matthew I don't recall the exact part of his book (which book?) you are talking about but it sounds like he is contrasting the message from Matthew 5 where Jesus indicates not one jot or tittle of the law will change until all things are done and until heaven and earth pass away with Paul's message.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Concerning Matthew I don't recall the exact part of his book (which book?) you are talking about but it sounds like he is contrasting the message from Matthew 5 where Jesus indicates not one jot or tittle of the law will change until all things are done and until heaven and earth pass away with Paul's message.



Hey friend, It is Jesus interupted, pg 92.  Jesus preached in parables and their meaning are always in debate so this is not a good example. Got rained out of work today so maybe I will find time for a better example.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 15, 2011)

Hey Atlas, I took a few minutes to scan the book but did not find my points. It's been awhile since I read his books. I don't wish to reread them. So, I guess I don't have anymore to add to the conversation. If I can recall, It had more to do with his assessment of what was taking place at the time of writings based on a his interpretation of a single verse. But, I do agree with bulk of what he has to say, except, he said that no where except John's gospel did Jesus claim to be God. Being a critical historian thinker, I am surprised that he said this. Jesus only claimed to be the Son of God, not God the Son. I am shocked that he [Bart] made this claim.


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2011)

No worries. I do the same thing. Plus I only have the audio versions so I can't easily reference specific page numbers anyway.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I have Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus in *audiobook form*. Makes for good listening during the commute. Beats the garbage on the radio. You said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Erhman on audio? Where do I find this?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 14, 2011)

Downloaded mine off torrents but you can buy them. Just google which one you're looking for. Here is the one for Jesus Interrupted.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Jesus-Interrupted/Bart-D-Ehrman/e/9780061882654


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Downloaded mine off torrents but you can buy them. Just google which one you're looking for. Here is the one for Jesus Interrupted.
> 
> http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Jesus-Interrupted/Bart-D-Ehrman/e/9780061882654


 Hey thanks, Looks like I need to modernize


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 3, 2011)

Just downloaded Bart's "From Jesus to Constatine". 24x 30 minute lectures. Gonna be interesting


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2011)

Might have to check that out. Let us know what you think.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 4, 2011)

I have listened to 4 of 24 lectures. I don't agree with everything Bart assumes. Maybe not a good choice of words. I see where he gets some of his ideas, just don't agree. For example, Bart sounds as if Jesus just happened to be in Jerusalem right before his death as if it were bad timing on his part. I think he knows why but he makes it sound as if it were reverse engineered into the writing later. But so far, I have really enjoyed it. Really gets me thinking. Not so much what he is trying to prove, but the thought it pervokes. I know, I'm a terrible speller


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

1gr8bldr....

What other Christian authors are you reading right now?  You're just reading Ehrman for the "other perspective"....right?

You do read other, more mainstream, Christian authors don't you?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 5, 2011)

Not to answer for 1gr8bldr (I read all sides when I can), but I find that "mainstream" authors typically just restate the same positions they have heard repeatedly, that's why they are mainstream.  I do read them as well, but do not give them any more credibility because of their position in the mainstream.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

and when you read all sides...do you eventually fall out on one side or the other?

Why do you suppose their message is relatively consistent?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> and when you read all sides...do you eventually fall out on one side or the other?
> 
> Why do you suppose their message is relatively consistent?



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 (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> and when you read all sides...do you eventually fall out on one side or the other?



It depends on the topic at hand, sometimes I remain confused, a good example is baptism.




Huntinfool said:


> Why do you suppose their message is relatively consistent?



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 (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> 1gr8bldr....
> 
> What other Christian authors are you reading right now?  You're just reading Ehrman for the "other perspective"....right?
> 
> You do read other, more mainstream, Christian authors don't you?


 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 (Oct 5, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> It depends on the topic at hand, sometimes I remain confused, a good example is baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 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 (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> and when you read all sides...do you eventually fall out on one side or the other?
> 
> Why do you suppose their message is relatively consistent?


 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 (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> 1gr8bldr....
> 
> What other Christian authors are you reading right now?  You're just reading Ehrman for the "other perspective"....right?
> 
> You do read other, more mainstream, Christian authors don't you?


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 (Oct 5, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2011)

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.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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.


 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 (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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.



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 (Oct 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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.



Separate thread on "my faith being stronger"????


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

> 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



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 (Oct 6, 2011)

> 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.



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.



> 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.



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".



> Now I read the writings of the early church fathers mostly. It's very interesting to see the history of Christianty.



A very good thing to do.  



> 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.



...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.



> 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.



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 (Oct 6, 2011)

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.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 6, 2011)

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?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Ehrman is extremely biased in his writings and approaches issues with the end goal of proving his intended point in mind.



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 (Oct 6, 2011)

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.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> 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.



Dangerous to WHO?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 6, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> 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?



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 (Oct 6, 2011)

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.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Ehrman started as an evangelical christian...



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


----------



## bullethead (Oct 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> 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".
> 
> ...





> 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 (Oct 6, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


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



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


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2011)

Does it bother you any to do that?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 6, 2011)

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 (Oct 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2011)

> Dangerous to WHO?



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


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ....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 (Oct 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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



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

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


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 7, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> 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.



Actually there is a remarkable lack of accounts from multiple sources for the claims made. For instance there are events claimed in the gospels surrounding the crucifixion that are found recorded no where else. Earthquakes, darkness coming in the middle of the day, graves opening up and dead people walking out of them. Where are the extra-biblical accounts of these events?

If I have to assume a God in order to make an author seem credible... I'm not sure WHY someone would make that assumption unless they are simply trying to justify a preconception in which case what is the point? And if making such an assumption is not prone to leading one to error then we may just as well do the same for the miracle claims of other religions.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Actually there is a remarkable lack of accounts from multiple sources for the claims made. For instance there are events claimed in the gospels surrounding the crucifixion that are found recorded no where else. Earthquakes, darkness coming in the middle of the day, graves opening up and dead people walking out of them. Where are the extra-biblical accounts of these events?.



Not a lot of time to dig into this.  As far as specific events go, you are correct.  Big picture, as in, Jesus existing, I think is a pretty credible claim.  But to doubt his existence is tricky because there is plenty of evidence he was an actual person.  I understand doubting his deity (and all things associated, such as miracles), but that is part of the bigger picture.



atlashunter said:


> If I have to assume a God in order to make an author seem credible... I'm not sure WHY someone would make that assumption unless they are simply trying to justify a preconception in which case what is the point? And if making such an assumption is not prone to leading one to error then we may just as well do the same for the miracle claims of other religions.



You are looking at it backwards.  The claim is made possible if God exists.  If there is no element beyond the natural, than the only assumption is that everything is confined to natural laws, and the miracles are lies.  If something exists beyond the natural, than natural laws being defied are within reason.  Take one or the other.

Then, once you establish your view on that, you can take each claim on its merits.

I know it is possible to pick the Bible apart.  But, look at it from the perspective of possibilities.  How many possibilities are created in your mind if there is a God?  

I wish I had more time today.  This is a good conversation to have.  One can believe in Jesus and use logic in their system.  It all is a matter of which perspectuive you bring to the conversation.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 7, 2011)

I'm not sure why you think that is backwards from what I said. Yes if one assumes a god that opens up many possibilities. Of course. Why should anyone make that assumption and why should they make that assumption only about one particular god and one particular religion?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I'm not sure why you think that is backwards from what I said. Yes if one assumes a god that opens up many possibilities. Of course. Why should anyone make that assumption and why should they make that assumption only about one particular god and one particular religion?



It is backwards, and maybe I misread you, in that you said you have to assume a God in order to believe a claim.  I said the claim can't be true unless there is a God.  You are looking from claim to God, I am looking from God to claim. One is more credible in light of the other.  BEcause I believe in God, I will give the miracles a bit more chance than you will. Or, I was reading and typing too fast to consider it all, heck, I dunno........

There are books out there on all sides of the "which is the true God" debate, but the greater point is that until we have common ground on God's existence, debate over the variations of the form is going to get nowhere.

There was a thread not too long ago asking everybody to describe their ideal God.  For me, Jesus embodies what that would be from a logical perspective.  Am I putting my own spin on things, sure.  But, much like Epicurius can draw an "if-then" summary to conclude that there is no God, I can also draw an "if-then" summary to my conclusion.  Neither makes sense unless the "ifs" actually result in the "thens."  I can stand behind it loigically, but will never be able to give you the smoking gun you are looking for.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 7, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> It is backwards, and maybe I misread you, in that you said you have to assume a God in order to believe a claim.  I said the claim can't be true unless there is a God.  You are looking from claim to God, I am looking from God to claim. One is more credible in light of the other.  BEcause I believe in God, I will give the miracles a bit more chance than you will. Or, I was reading and typing too fast to consider it all, heck, I dunno........
> 
> There are books out there on all sides of the "which is the true God" debate, but the greater point is that until we have common ground on God's existence, debate over the variations of the form is going to get nowhere.
> 
> There was a thread not too long ago asking everybody to describe their ideal God.  For me, Jesus embodies what that would be from a logical perspective.  Am I putting my own spin on things, sure.  But, much like Epicurius can draw an "if-then" summary to conclude that there is no God, I can also draw an "if-then" summary to my conclusion.  Neither makes sense unless the "ifs" actually result in the "thens."  I can stand behind it loigically, but will never be able to give you the smoking gun you are looking for.



The part in red is what I was getting at. For someone like me that doesn't assume a god the miracle claims detract from the credibility of the authors. If I have to plug a god into the equation to increase the likelihood that those stories are true then my questions apply. The story of Mohammed riding the Buraq through the sky to Jerusalem and then ascending into the heavens becomes plausible if I assume that Allah is real. But why should anyone make that assumption and if they are going to why not do the same for other gods and miracle claims?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> It is backwards, and maybe I misread you, in that you said you have to assume a God in order to believe a claim.  I said the claim can't be true unless there is a God.  You are looking from claim to God, I am looking from God to claim. One is more credible in light of the other.  BEcause I believe in God, I will give the miracles a bit more chance than you will. Or, I was reading and typing too fast to consider it all, heck, I dunno........
> 
> There are books out there on all sides of the "which is the true God" debate, but the greater point is that until we have common ground on God's existence, debate over the variations of the form is going to get nowhere.
> 
> There was a thread not too long ago asking everybody to describe their ideal God.  For me, Jesus embodies what that would be from a logical perspective.  Am I putting my own spin on things, sure.  But, much like Epicurius can draw an "if-then" summary to conclude that there is no God, I can also draw an "if-then" summary to my conclusion.  Neither makes sense unless the "ifs" actually result in the "thens."  I can stand behind it loigically, but will never be able to give you the smoking gun you are looking for.



If the supernatural exists, then natural law need not apply. I get that.  Its a pretty big can of worms and raises so many questions.  

Ghosts?  Demons?  Magic?  Live in a fish for three days?  Where do you draw the line?  I guess for a believer, he/she has to use the mysterious "discernment power" to separate the "wheat from the chaff".   Too bad.  As I understand, is a special ability given to those who first allow that it exists.  That's plenty weird to me.

I'm not sure that you can call your deductions logical if you begin with an illogical assumption, that being that "the supernatural exists".  I'm no philosopher but I think that's how it works.

I am really curious as to how you decided on which supernatural claims to believe in and which ones to dismiss.

I'm not busting your chops about any of this.  You seem like a really thoughtful an intelligent person and it's just curious to me how you came to your conclusions.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 7, 2011)

> Where do you draw the line?



You don't.  Omnipotent means there is no line.



> I am really curious as to how you decided on which supernatural claims to believe in and which ones to dismiss.



Me too.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You don't.  Omnipotent means there is no line.



My "discernment" tells me that that position, which is unfounded and purely hypothetical, is dumb.  I don't know another word that better describes how I feel about it.




Huntinfool said:


> Me too.



So you're open to the notion of ghosties and goblins?  I would hate to live like that.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Perhaps that explains the miracle claims.



Or.. They were simple men with no knowledge of science who (Im gonna catch heck for this) spent a _good_ portion of their time hammered on wine and various drugs. 

After all, we didn't invent getting drunk or taking mind altering substances. Its very common in many uncivilized cultures. 

After all there were no politicians putting them in jail for life for simple possession back then, it wasn't taboo. I mean really, how much more would some folks you know drink or do drugs if they were deprived of their TIVO and interweb? Boooooring it would be.. Lets get our drink on!

For all we know Moses coulda been all hopped up on an opium,mead, wine cocktail when Lightning struck a bush.. Miracle? Miracle he didn't fall down the mountain!! Im jokin.. But I find it curious that it isn't mentioned more in the bible that folks were on stuff. I know it does mention it, but not to the extent I think folks back then were using.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The story of Mohammed riding the Buraq through the sky to Jerusalem and then ascending into the heavens becomes plausible if I assume that Allah is real. But why should anyone make that assumption and if they are going to why not do the same for other gods and miracle claims?



If you ever get real bored, and are up for a pretty decent comparison, here is a decent book:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Among-Other-Gods-Christian/dp/0849943272

Truthfully, we are all going to claim our God can kick their god's ---.  Otherwise, their god would be our God, right?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> If you ever get real bored, and are up for a pretty decent comparison, here is a decent book:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Among-Other-Gods-Christian/dp/0849943272
> 
> Truthfully, we are all going to claim our God can kick their god's ---.  Otherwise, their god would be our God, right?



Who wins the argument when one side says "Your God isn't real"?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I guess for a believer, he/she has to use the mysterious "discernment power" to separate the "wheat from the chaff".



That's what some folks claim, truth is, I have never seen anything beyond the natural.  I have no "special feeling" which let's me "know" that God exists.




ambush80 said:


> I'm not sure that you can call your deductions logical if you begin with an illogical assumption, that being that "the supernatural exists".



The existence of a God is no more illogical than the non-existence of a God.  Both are speculative assumptions about origins.  I tend to accept that matter and life do not have infinite qualities.



ambush80 said:


> I am really curious as to how you decided on which supernatural claims to believe in and which ones to dismiss.
> 
> I'm not busting your chops about any of this.  You seem like a really thoughtful an intelligent person and it's just curious to me how you came to your conclusions.



Thanks for asking.  I was raised Christian, so you know my bias up front.  But my Christian background got me to a point where I hated Christianity and questioned everything.  I wanted no part of faith.

Then I started wondering about life and the universe, stuff every goofy college kid thinks about.  I thought about how matter and energy combine to create a self replicating system.....life.  What causes us to be alive?  What is the difference between you, me, and a rock?  Energy?  How did that energy work with the matter to make a molecule which decided to start replicating?  How did it know to replicate, how did it contain the information necessary to replicate? 

You see, for me, it makes sense that it did not have that information.  It did not know anything.  It was given that "spark."  Where did that come from?  Other matter and energy?  Then, we must ask, where did the matter and energy originate?  Is it infinite?  Well, if matter is infinite we have just assigned supernatural properties to matter.  If supernatural exists, could that be "God?"  For me, that makes the most sense.

I could write a very long post, with a lot more detail, but that sums up why I think God is a logical conclusion.  I am sure you will see holes in my conclusion, but it is late, and I typed this very fast, so I might have missed a piece of the puzzle somewhere, but I have thought it through many times, and it makes sense to me.

There is no "intuition" involved.  And I appreciate your comments.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Who wins the argument when one side says "Your God isn't real"?



Whoever is right 

Jokes aside, I think an indian worshiping the sun and a man praying are both sending homage to the same God, or at the least, recognizing a higher power.  They just know him by different names and qualities.  As for those who think there are many Gods, lets see what the logic is.  I do not know much about polytheism.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 8, 2011)

> So you're open to the notion of ghosties and goblins? I would hate to live like that.



ghosties, goblins.....demons and demonic.  Whatever you want to call it.

Yes, I'm certain that they exist and are active.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 8, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ghosties, goblins.....demons and demonic.  Whatever you want to call it.
> 
> Yes, I'm certain that they exist and are active.



*BOO!*


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 10, 2011)

Just finished the 24 lectures. I really enjoyed them. Sadly, I did not learn that much since I have been studying this sort of thing for a while, but I have now found a good overview for my wife and kids to listen to. I will say that I would like to see it broken down even farther. More details. It is hard to cover everything from before Christ to late 3rd century in 12 hours. But to those who know nothing about church history, this is a good overview.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 12, 2011)

After going through 2 times now, I would say that I agree with 95% of what he says.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 12, 2011)

Is part of that 95% that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin and was not risen from death?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Is part of that 95% that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin and was not risen from death?



 He does not try to prove that Jesus did not raise from the dead. He only shows that we can't prove it. This is for those who say we can prove it. As a historian, everything is based on probability. Historians say what was most likely probable. But a miracle is defined as the most improbable, or else it's not a miracle. Bart explains how historians can not prove miracles. He never tries to prove anything beyond that. This is only against those who say we can prove it. Bart maintains the correct stance. That it is by faith. More after dinner


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 12, 2011)

I have never heard Bart take up the debate of the Virgin birth. If he did, I would suspect that he merely show the debate as to why there is a debate. He would show that the word for virgin is used in other places that don't imply virgin. That is why that debate exist. Not proff either way.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 12, 2011)

You have the wrong idea about Bart. 24 lectures and he did not in the least show any personal beliefs. As a matter of fact, while looking through the courses that he teaches while helping my son, who attends Chapel hill, decide what classes he will take, we saw where Bart gives an optional last day discourse on what he himself believes. He goes through the entire semester teaching about the Nt, and never reveals his personal beliefs. You know that these students are dying to know what it is that he believes yet his teaching does not reflect his own. And it is optional on the last day. I respect this very much


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 12, 2011)

The type of thing that I do disagree with is like the assumption that the Corinthian church has a "man with his fathers wife". This is only a phrase, similar to if I used the term "red herring".


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 13, 2011)

> You have the wrong idea about Bart.



Whether I do or not, he needs to be aware that his "work" is consistently used by athiesm as supporting "evidence" by an "insider".  He seems to be pretty much ok with that...borderline supportive...and that bothers me.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 20, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> After going through 2 times now, I would say that I agree with 95% of what he says.


 Change that to 85%. Some things Bart assumes to much based on to little.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Nov 16, 2011)

I am reading "Misquoting Jesus". Riveting stuff.

Bought the book in the Cathedral bookstore, and it's not shaken any faith I had. It has led me to simplify greatly what my faith is, which is what I personally think Jesus had in mind.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 16, 2011)

> It has led me to simplify greatly what my faith is, which is what I personally think Jesus had in mind.



In what way?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Nov 16, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> In what way?



Jesus distilled his faith down to some very simple and unambiguous principles.

"Do unto others as you would (in their position) have them do unto you".
"Love God, appreciate what you have and pay it forward"

He shook his head at people arguing over exactly how to tithe mint, rue and herbs. Or went looking and arguing over the letter of the law, losing the forest for the trees.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 16, 2011)

So, anything specific the Ehrman wrote that got you there?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Nov 16, 2011)

No, just saying that I was never one, as an Episcopal, to ascribe to the whole "The King James Bible is THE inerrant Word of God" nonsense.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 17, 2011)

10-4

I was reading this as Ehrman led me to simpler faith...



> It has led me to simplify greatly what my faith is


----------



## Greaserbilly (Nov 17, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> 10-4
> 
> I was reading this as Ehrman led me to simpler faith...



Led me in the sense that I was starting to try and overcomplicate it again with Bible Study. And confirmed why the church I belong to reads the Bible the way it does.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 17, 2011)

We probably do overcomplicate the Bible.  I hope, though, that you don't see the Bible as complicating your faith.

How does the church you attend "read the Bible"?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Nov 17, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> We probably do overcomplicate the Bible.  I hope, though, that you don't see the Bible as complicating your faith.
> 
> How does the church you attend "read the Bible"?



Seriously, but not literally.
Seriously enough to encourage, even to the degree of teaching the congregation Greek should it want to learn to really understand what's there.

In the words of the Anglican communion, everything necessary for salvation is in the Bible. But it does not require anyone to believe, nor does it, that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. The Bible itself makes no such claim. It is not the Qu'ran.


----------

