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

[Root of Jesse]

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.



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.

The apostles and disciples did not know what to expect, at all. In fact, some of them shrugged their shoulders, hung their heads and went back to fishing. Other versions say they huddled in the Upper Room in fear until they were touched by the Holy Spirit. Jesus even explained what it meant to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. It all happened so fast, they didn't know what hit them, or how to react.

 

[jlmagee]

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'?

I respect Ehrman as a scholar, but I feel he ignores evidence that contradicts his position on many topics. I give Daniel B. Wallace from the Center for the Study of New Manuscripts much more credibility on the subject. There is a synopsis of a debate between the two here:

Review of Debate between Daniel B. Wallace and Bart D. Ehrman - CSNTM

Ehrman's fame and position at UNC Chapel Hill at least help to cement his agnostic position. (In his circles, it just sounds so much more intellectual.) In reality, Ehrman does not back off on positions that side him with Christianity though. Interviews such as that you mention in your OP and specials debunking the DaVinci Code demonstrated that Ehrman does not just jump on any bandwagon. So, I would have to say that "agnostic" is his truly felt position.

 

[lesliedellow]

They can believe that Jesus was a real person - all atheists with their head screwed on do - and they can believe that Paul wrote Galatians.

That does not necessarily mean that they share Paul's beliefs, or that they believe Jesus to be divine.

 

[mjintellichristian]

Yeah, it's a heart issue. Knowing something is one thing, wanting to know is another.

Following Jesus means acknowledging Him as Lord of your life. It means you have to leave your old lifestyle behind. A lot of people don't want to do that.

Also, atheists really believe in God. The fact that they talk about it so much, shows that it's a topic that really bothers them. What happens with those people often times, is they had some sort of an emotional trauma in life, and they're angry at God for it.

You can't really prove Christianity scientifically or historically, no matter how many facts you throw at them, until people want to accept what Christianity stands for.