You have asked some good questions here: “Why were the heretical books considered heretical?” I’ll suggest some responses below but first we need to note that you have been reading Bart Ehrman who has moved from being an evangelical Christian to an agnostic.
Therefore, his book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) is promoting his agnostic thesis about early Christianity. Here’s a brief critique of Jesus, Interrupted by Ben Witherington III. Part of what Witherington writes is:I suggest that you also read scholarly books such as:
I guess you have never read the book. The entire last chapter is devoted to the author making it clear that even with a historical understanding of the bible, faith is still possible. He also makes it clear that his view of the bible (a product of man alone) has nothing to do with his agnosticism and I actually have one of his other books "God's Problem" and why he made the shift from Christianity to agnosticism packed for vacation (lol, I little light reading on the beach).
Good points and my position is the absence of a historical understanding means sincere faith is questionable. (unless of course access to the information is not feasible.). Too many american Christians are lazy in that respect which is why some groups repeat misinformation and lack respect from their audience.
Originally Posted by Matthewj1985
I guess you have never read the book. The entire last chapter is devoted to the author making it clear that even with a historical understanding of the bible, faith is still possible. He also makes it clear that his view of the bible (a product of man alone) has nothing to do with his agnosticism and I actually have one of his other books "God's Problem" and why he made the shift from Christianity to agnosticism packed for vacation (lol, I little light reading on the beach).
[Craig] Evans is a scholar in the same way mall cops are considered "law enforcement." The christian right lacks substance so it often creates these pseudo-scholars to give the appearance of reliable information when most of the time they are really just trying to sell cotton candy umbrellas.
You provide not one piece of evidence, but engage in the use of an ad hominem logical fallacy. We can't have a logical discussion when you stoop to such tactics.
I guess you have never read the book. The entire last chapter is devoted to the author making it clear that even with a historical understanding of the bible, faith is still possible. He also makes it clear that his view of the bible (a product of man alone) has nothing to do with his agnosticism and I actually have one of his other books "God's Problem" and why he made the shift from Christianity to agnosticism packed for vacation (lol, I little light reading on the beach).
I have not read the book because I am too busy writing my doctoral dissertation (PhD) on another author of heterodoxy, John Dominic Crossan. However, from what you have said about Bart Ehrman and what I have read about his scholarship, he does not seem to be using the criteria of historical verification to determine the authenticity/reliability of a historical document and then accepting what that reliable historical document states.
In the reliable historical document, the Bible, it clearly states that the Bible is more than a human book (contra Ehrman): "All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV). "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" (Psalm 119:160)
When we go to that reliable historical document, it tells us how human beings were involved in producing Scripture that was "breathed out by God": "No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter. 1:20-21 ESV).
The evidence was edited out during the purposeful editing of my post when it was quoted. Kind of silly to complain about components for a discussion while selectively ignoring what others post. If my posts aren't respectfully quoted then don't expect a response.
Originally Posted by OzSpen
RealDeal,
You provide not one piece of evidence, but engage in the use of an ad hominem logical fallacy. We can't have a logical discussion when you stoop to such tactics.
You provide not one piece of evidence, but engage in the use of an ad hominem logical fallacy. We can't have a logical discussion when you stoop to such tactics.
Oz - RD has a point which you should not ignore but recognise. Many agencies have their own so-called 'think tanks' which publish all sorts of material with the object of influencing any debate in their favour. Another term is 'lobbyist' - and I understand Capitol Hill has something like 11,000 of them on hand at any one time - all pushing particular agenda.
The sad fact is with all the shouting going on the voice of reason is largely silenced - which I think is the point RD is making.
__________________ Not all those who wander are lost
... the criteria of historical verification to determine the authenticity/reliability of a historical document and then accepting what that reliable historical document states.
When we go to that reliable historical document, it tells us how human beings were involved in producing Scripture that was "breathed out by God"
Hmmmm...... How can you have 'historical verification' if you are claiming particular pieces of history as 'God breathed'?
__________________ Not all those who wander are lost
This is an example of theological beliefs being masqueraded as scholarship. The first stage was to throw out a set of criteria, the second is to claim interpretations and texts are judged by those standards, the third stage is to ignore those standards, the fourth is to deny the standards are arbitrarily applied, and the last stage is to dismiss information based mainly on the speaker instead of addressing contents. (Ie. Gospel of Thomas)
The esv is a text specifically marketed to conservatives thus it will contain translations based not on intellectual honesty but rather a specific ideology that is largely at odds with many of Jesus ' teachings.
A decent example is the 2 Tim. verse being cited. The first problem is the circular logic of trying to use the bible to prove the bible is true and the second is claiming that is correct by interpreting"breathed" as "dictation."
I also find it a bit ironic that Evans is cited as a scholar and even he doesn't claim that interpretation :
Matthew,
I have not read the book because I am too busy writing my doctoral dissertation (PhD) on another author of heterodoxy, John Dominic Crossan. However, from what you have said about Bart Ehrman and what I have read about his scholarship, he does not seem to be using the criteria of historical verification to determine the authenticity/reliability of a historical document and then accepting what that reliable historical document states.
In the reliable historical document, the Bible, it clearly states that the Bible is more than a human book (contra Ehrman): "All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV). "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" (Psalm 119:160)
When we go to that reliable historical document, it tells us how human beings were involved in producing Scripture that was "breathed out by God": "No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter. 1:20-21 ESV).
That's pretty much my point but I'm taking it a step further to claim some groups are being outright deceptive by claiming their conclusions are the product of historical scholarship when really that's just a smoke screen to proselytize.
Originally Posted by wayseer
Oz - RD has a point which you should not ignore but recognise. Many agencies have their own so-called 'think tanks' which publish all sorts of material with the object of influencing any debate in their favour. Another term is 'lobbyist' - and I understand Capitol Hill has something like 11,000 of them on hand at any one time - all pushing particular agenda.
The sad fact is with all the shouting going on the voice of reason is largely silenced - which I think is the point RD is making.
Good points and my position is the absence of a historical understanding means sincere faith is questionable. (unless of course access to the information is not feasible.). Too many american Christians are lazy in that respect which is why some groups repeat misinformation and lack respect from their audience.
Ehrman actually mentions something funny about this that he does in his class. On the first day he asks his students "Who thinks the bible is the inspired word of the creator of the universe", almost all hands shoot up. He the asks "who has read one of the Harry Potter books or the Da Vinci Code" to which many hands go up. He then asks "Who has read the bible cover to cover" to which very few hands go up. He then asks "if you really do think you have the inspired word of God at your fingertips why the heck would you not read it"?
Linear Mode
