How can an agnositic believe that Paul wrote Galatians and still be agnostic?

okiemom79

Member
May 20, 2012
81
2
Oklahoma
✟15,211.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello everyone,
I have a few threads going because I am a new Christian so I am here asking many questions. I recently seen a video where an agnostic historian believes without a doubt that Paul wrote Galatians and he also says there are 1000's of other historians who do not doubt this as well. He believes that Jesus was in fact a real person in his time. Besides that I do not know much else because the video was not that long. I do not know why he is an agnostic. Since I am still reading the Bible and new to Christianity I do not understand how someone can believe that Paul literally wrote these things, that Jesus was a real person, and still have doubts? What is holding them back? Can they just not accept ALL the statements as facts? I am asking here because I know there are people much more educated in this than I am.
Thank you for your time.
 

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Hello everyone,
I have a few threads going because I am a new Christian so I am here asking many questions. I recently seen a video where an agnostic historian believes without a doubt that Paul wrote Galatians and he also says there are 1000's of other historians who do not doubt this as well. He believes that Jesus was in fact a real person in his time. Besides that I do not know much else because the video was not that long. I do not know why he is an agnostic. Since I am still reading the Bible and new to Christianity I do not understand how someone can believe that Paul literally wrote these things, that Jesus was a real person, and still have doubts? What is holding them back? Can they just not accept ALL the statements as facts? I am asking here because I know there are people much more educated in this than I am.
Thank you for your time.
They hold themselves back. They'll say that Jesus was a great teacher, a prophet, or whatever. But if you dive into it further, Jesus said that he was God.

So he was either God, or he was a liar or a lunatic.
 
Upvote 0

okiemom79

Member
May 20, 2012
81
2
Oklahoma
✟15,211.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why would an agnostic worry about whether Paul wrote Galatians or not?

Because he is a Historian I guess. :confused: I really don't know. The video is on you tube if you would like to see what I am talking about. I do not know the mans name, I ran across the video and it just made me wonder pretty much what you wondered too.
You can type in "Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming Evidence for Jesus' Existence...From an AGNOSTIC LIBERAL Scholar!"

I can not post links and stuff yet because I do not have enough posts.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Well, get posting, okiemom! Seriously, there are more atheists and agnostics that come to Christianity than vice-versa. I mean we all question, but questioning and denying are two distinctly different things...
 
Upvote 0

okiemom79

Member
May 20, 2012
81
2
Oklahoma
✟15,211.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, get posting, okiemom! Seriously, there are more atheists and agnostics that come to Christianity than vice-versa. I mean we all question, but questioning and denying are two distinctly different things...

lol well I do not want to just flood the forum with random posts. I post when I have a question that I would like answers to. But I put what to type into the search at youtube in my post above, ("Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming Evidence for Jesus' Existence...From an AGNOSTIC LIBERAL Scholar!")
 
Upvote 0

jlmagee

Junior Member
Apr 5, 2011
216
9
Arkansas
✟7,888.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hello everyone,
I have a few threads going because I am a new Christian so I am here asking many questions. I recently seen a video where an agnostic historian believes without a doubt that Paul wrote Galatians and he also says there are 1000's of other historians who do not doubt this as well. He believes that Jesus was in fact a real person in his time. Besides that I do not know much else because the video was not that long. I do not know why he is an agnostic. Since I am still reading the Bible and new to Christianity I do not understand how someone can believe that Paul literally wrote these things, that Jesus was a real person, and still have doubts? What is holding them back? Can they just not accept ALL the statements as facts? I am asking here because I know there are people much more educated in this than I am.
Thank you for your time.

I think you are speaking of the Bart Ehrman podcast with the Infidel Guy. I saw the video; it was taken from a longer podcast. Ehrman seemed embarrassed; Infidel Guy left totally speechless.

Ehrman was an evangelical scholar. He went to Moody and Wheaton, two reputable, evangelical institutions. He then pursued his doctorate at Princeton Theological Seminary where he ran into historical Two presuppositions from this group: 1) no miracles, 2) all writings about Jesus are of equal value. There are others but these get us to Ehrman's journey. As a New Testament historian, Ehrman testifies the evidence for the historicity of Jesus and Paul as author of Galatians is undeniably overwhelming.

Ehrman does not allow for the deity for Christ. He points to supposed discrepancies ignoring other evidence. This is how he turned toward agnosticism.

As far as what holds him back, I would point to another podcast on Tony Jones' website interviewing Ehrman. Jones would not let Ehrman just use pat answers like he uses during secular talk shows and interviews. At one point, Ehrman told Jones that Jones would have to write about something other than theology if he really wanted to sell books. Ehrman pointed out that his books sold because of the controversy stirred by his positions. Thus, Ehrman's stature requires that he remain agnostic, bordering on anti-theistic.

As for other agnostics, there is much more information put out in the secular marketplace disputing Christianity. The "evidence" makes it easy for them to resist the Holy Spirit as did Stephen's audience in Acts 7.
 
Upvote 0

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟15,460.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hello everyone,
I have a few threads going because I am a new Christian so I am here asking many questions. I recently seen a video where an agnostic historian believes without a doubt that Paul wrote Galatians and he also says there are 1000's of other historians who do not doubt this as well. He believes that Jesus was in fact a real person in his time. Besides that I do not know much else because the video was not that long. I do not know why he is an agnostic. Since I am still reading the Bible and new to Christianity I do not understand how someone can believe that Paul literally wrote these things, that Jesus was a real person, and still have doubts? What is holding them back? Can they just not accept ALL the statements as facts? I am asking here because I know there are people much more educated in this than I am.
Thank you for your time.

Not everyone considers the Gospels to be historically accurate. There is a belief among a group of people called the Jesus Seminar that Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke next and John last and that Mark comes the closest to being historically accurate. From there, they claim, the gospels get further removed from history until John when, they claim, none of it is actually historical.

Many Jews believe that Jesus was just a renegade rabbi and that the stories about him are exaggerated. The Talmud records an account of Jesus given by somebody that was assuming he was not divine.

Belief in the historical existence of Jesus does not necessitate belief in God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

okiemom79

Member
May 20, 2012
81
2
Oklahoma
✟15,211.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not everyone considers the Gospels to be historically accurate. There is a belief among a group of people called the Jesus Seminar that Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke next and John last and that Mark comes the closest to being historically accurate. From there, they claim, the gospels get further removed from history until John when, they claim, none of it is actually historical.

Many Jews believe that Jesus was just a renegade rabbi and that the stories about him are exaggerated. The Talmud records an account of Jesus given by somebody that was assuming he was not divine.

Belief in the historical existence of Jesus does not necessitate belief in God.
Well, I feel like something big happened back then. Why else would Christianity have taken off as it did and still be here today? Jesus's followers were waiting on what he said would happen (His Resurrection) I would think that if nothing at all were to have happened that he would have lost many, many of his followers and if a few stuck through they would have eventually died and Christianity with them. It can all be very overwhelming, especially since I am new to all this.
 
Upvote 0

jlmagee

Junior Member
Apr 5, 2011
216
9
Arkansas
✟7,888.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Lol not sure if it IS the same guy after looking. Tonyj (dot) net is the site. Please send me the guy you are talking about site if u do not mind :)

There are two different interviews. A longer version of the interview with Ehrman by Reginald v. Finley, The Infidel Guy, is on youtube Did Jesus Exist? - YouTube

It is longer.

The interview with Ehrman by Tony Jones is here: My Interview with Bart Ehrman - The New Christians

The second one is the one in which he describes why he became agnostic. In Jones final question, Ehrman gets very excited when Jones mentions Ehrman's appearance on Steve Colbert. Ehrman suggests he write on controversial issues.

Jones is pretty liberal. There are many other authors that I would recommend. I just mentioned this interview because he demonstrates how he likes the celebrity he gets from his lack of belief.
 
Upvote 0

okiemom79

Member
May 20, 2012
81
2
Oklahoma
✟15,211.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just mentioned this interview because he demonstrates how he likes the celebrity he gets from his lack of belief.

That does not surprise me one bit. What are your views on this guy? Do you think if his 'fame' were not an issue he would still be 'agnostic'?
 
Upvote 0

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟15,460.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Well, I feel like something big happened back then. Why else would Christianity have taken off as it did and still be here today?


I didn't ever say that was my belief. Actually it was at one time but I no longer hold that view. I'm a member of the Church today.

Jesus's followers were waiting on what he said would happen (His Resurrection) I would think that if nothing at all were to have happened that he would have lost many, many of his followers and if a few stuck through they would have eventually died and Christianity with them. It can all be very overwhelming, especially since I am new to all this.

Actually Jesus' followers were quite surprised to have found that he had risen.
 
Upvote 0

okiemom79

Member
May 20, 2012
81
2
Oklahoma
✟15,211.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I didn't ever say that was my belief. Actually it was at one time but I no longer hold that view. I'm a member of the Church today.

What belief was that? Sorry I am a little lost, I did not mean to imply u held a certain belief, sorry for the misunderstanding.



Actually Jesus' followers were quite surprised to have found that he had risen.

Do you think that ALL of them were surprised or perhaps just a few? I know I would have been surprised being one of them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟15,460.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
What belief was that? Sorry I am a little lost, I did not mean to imply u held a certain belief, sorry for the misunderstanding.

It was once my believe that Jesus existed by was not the son of God.

I, at one time, believed that Jesus was just a renegade rabbi and possibly failed messiah cultist. At the time, I was studying the history of 1st century Judaism and the first few centuries of Christianity and looking at it from the Jewish POV. I eventually came to change my mind and join the Christians.

Do you think that ALL of them were surprised or perhaps just a few? I know I would have been surprised being one of them.

All of them. Reading the text, I strongly get the impression that no one really fully understand the plan until after the resurrection.

Also, it goes entirely against every one of our natural inclinations to believe that someone can rise from the dead. Every single one of his followers could have understood and believed fully that Jesus would rise from the dead and each and every single one of them would still have been fully surprised that it actually happened. It can't be helped.
 
Upvote 0

WinBySurrender

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2011
3,670
155
.
✟4,924.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Do you think that ALL of them were surprised or perhaps just a few? I know I would have been surprised being one of them.
I think the reactions of Peter and John, who were the only disciples the Bible relates were actually at the tomb, speaks to that. The others were so thoroughly into hiding, thinking they were being hunted down for execution, that they wouldn't venture out of the house. Had they been convinced of the truth of the Resurrection beforehand, they would have been without fear in confronting the Temple officials, the Romans and the people with that truth, and would have encamped around the tomb awaiting the event.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
There are lots of agnostic positions, like there are lots of Christian position. I think Ehrman's makes the most sense. It's probably what I would believe if I weren't a Christian. Here's what I think a typical moderate agnostic would say: (Note that this is not what I actually believe.)

Jesus and Paul existed. But the Gospels and Paul's letters aren't completely accurate. There are lots of reasons that people can get things wrong, particularly when they weren't witnesses themselves and they're reporting something second-hand. But there are plenty of cases where people can get things wrong even when they saw them. Take a look at studies of faith-healers, e.g. Nolan's book "Healing." He documents pretty carefully cases where people thought they saw miracles but they really didn't. In some of his examples the healers were clever fakes, but in one case even the healer thought she was performing miracles. But she wasn't.

While many people think at least some of the Gospels were written by disciples, the Gospels don't claim it and there's no way to prove it. So a reasonable agnostic could believe that the Gospels are based on second- or third-hand information.

It's obvious that Christians experienced something after Jesus' death, but reasonable agnostics might think that it was some kind of subjective experience (i.e. a vision or dream) and not an actual resurrection. (But see N T Wright's defense of why the resurrection pretty much has to be real.) If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then he might be just like a lot of others who people thought were the Messiah but weren't.

Since Paul got most of his information about Jesus from Peter and other disciples, if they were wrong to believe that Jesus was really God, then Paul would not be to blame for getting it wrong. He certainly had some kind of experience personally, but again, people misinterpret experiences like that all the time. Not everyone who thinks God has spoken to them can be right.

William Lane Craig has an interesting comment about Ehrman. He thinks it's a mistake for Christians to say that Biblical inerrancy is essential for Christianity, although he believes it himself. Ehrman started out as an evangelical. Criag thinks Ehrman got in trouble when he started seeing evidence in his studies that the Bible isn't perfectly accurate, and he had no way to cope with that as a Christian.
 
Upvote 0

okiemom79

Member
May 20, 2012
81
2
Oklahoma
✟15,211.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are lots of agnostic positions, like there are lots of Christian position. I think Ehrman's makes the most sense. It's probably what I would believe if I weren't a Christian. Here's what I think a typical moderate agnostic would say: (Note that this is not what I actually believe.)

Jesus and Paul existed. But the Gospels and Paul's letters aren't completely accurate. There are lots of reasons that people can get things wrong, particularly when they weren't witnesses themselves and they're reporting something second-hand. But there are plenty of cases where people can get things wrong even when they saw them. Take a look at studies of faith-healers, e.g. Nolan's book "Healing." He documents pretty carefully cases where people thought they saw miracles but they really didn't. In some of his examples the healers were clever fakes, but in one case even the healer thought she was performing miracles. But she wasn't.

While many people think at least some of the Gospels were written by disciples, the Gospels don't claim it and there's no way to prove it. So a reasonable agnostic could believe that the Gospels are based on second- or third-hand information.

It's obvious that Christians experienced something after Jesus' death, but reasonable agnostics might think that it was some kind of subjective experience (i.e. a vision or dream) and not an actual resurrection. (But see N T Wright's defense of why the resurrection pretty much has to be real.) If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then he might be just like a lot of others who people thought were the Messiah but weren't.

Since Paul got most of his information about Jesus from Peter and other disciples, if they were wrong to believe that Jesus was really God, then Paul would not be to blame for getting it wrong. He certainly had some kind of experience personally, but again, people misinterpret experiences like that all the time. Not everyone who thinks God has spoken to them can be right.

William Lane Craig has an interesting comment about Ehrman. He thinks it's a mistake for Christians to say that Biblical inerrancy is essential for Christianity, although he believes it himself. Ehrman started out as an evangelical. Criag thinks Ehrman got in trouble when he started seeing evidence in his studies that the Bible isn't perfectly accurate, and he had no way to cope with that as a Christian.

Very interesting! I can see why someone would be agnostic (been there) It can be very confusing when we delve deep into it. One person can see or interpret things totally different from another. I will check into N T Wright's defense that you mentioned above. Thank you
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
There are lots of agnostic positions, like there are lots of Christian position. I think Ehrman's makes the most sense. It's probably what I would believe if I weren't a Christian. Here's what I think a typical moderate agnostic would say: (Note that this is not what I actually believe.)

Jesus and Paul existed. But the Gospels and Paul's letters aren't completely accurate. There are lots of reasons that people can get things wrong, particularly when they weren't witnesses themselves and they're reporting something second-hand. But there are plenty of cases where people can get things wrong even when they saw them. Take a look at studies of faith-healers, e.g. Nolan's book "Healing." He documents pretty carefully cases where people thought they saw miracles but they really didn't. In some of his examples the healers were clever fakes, but in one case even the healer thought she was performing miracles. But she wasn't.

While many people think at least some of the Gospels were written by disciples, the Gospels don't claim it and there's no way to prove it. So a reasonable agnostic could believe that the Gospels are based on second- or third-hand information.

It's obvious that Christians experienced something after Jesus' death, but reasonable agnostics might think that it was some kind of subjective experience (i.e. a vision or dream) and not an actual resurrection. (But see N T Wright's defense of why the resurrection pretty much has to be real.) If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then he might be just like a lot of others who people thought were the Messiah but weren't.

Since Paul got most of his information about Jesus from Peter and other disciples, if they were wrong to believe that Jesus was really God, then Paul would not be to blame for getting it wrong. He certainly had some kind of experience personally, but again, people misinterpret experiences like that all the time. Not everyone who thinks God has spoken to them can be right.

William Lane Craig has an interesting comment about Ehrman. He thinks it's a mistake for Christians to say that Biblical inerrancy is essential for Christianity, although he believes it himself. Ehrman started out as an evangelical. Criag thinks Ehrman got in trouble when he started seeing evidence in his studies that the Bible isn't perfectly accurate, and he had no way to cope with that as a Christian.


Hedric, I don't know where your role-play ends, so I need to ask, where's the close quote?

I'm pretty sure you don't believe that the Gospels and Epistles weren't completely accurate, because they are completely accurate in the context of what the writers wanted them to portray. Are they historical documents? Not as we understand historical documents. They, the Gospels, are an afterthought-after 30 years or so of teaching the teachings of Jesus, someone decided it was time to write them down.

What we have to prove who wrote the Gospels is the Early Church Fathers, who say definitively that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels, and that they wrote them in that order. The furthest removed the authors could have been is that they taught their disciples, who wrote down what they taught. Since there were no distractions, like internet, phones, television and radio, the disciples paid attention and got it right, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Regarding "some kind of subjective experience" we know that Jesus appeared to over 500 men at once. Group hypnosis, maybe? I don't think so...

Regarding how Paul got his information, it was not from Peter, it was from Jesus, on the road to Damascus, who gave Paul his information. And if you read Galatians, it was a long time between the time Paul was struck down on that road, and when Paul met Peter.

Regarding miracles and how God speaks to us, if we only want to believe that faith-healing or something extraordinary is a miracle, you're limiting God severely. Every breath we take is a miracle of God, every child conceived, the fact that the sun comes over the horizon. Regarding God speaking to us, he speaks to everyone, day in, day out, regardless whether you believe in Him or not. That's all about attitude, though.

Again, I'm probably speaking to that unknown, hypothetical agnostic, but even so, it's nice to be able to show said agnostic how weak his arguments really are. In a Christian way, of course.
 
Upvote 0