.

[StTruth]

Ehrman's books are very interesting. The one on the New Testament has lots of pics including a photo of a nail in an ankle bone of someone crucified in Roman times. It's poignant and helps the reader to understand the reality of the suffering our Lord went through. Ehrman has no intention of destroying the church. He defends the historicity of Jesus and dismisses allegations against Christ as I've mentioned in the earlier post.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

I have no Idea why Matthew is being bashed at this point in time yet no one knows who the two disciples were because if I read John and Matthew, it seems they all witnessed the same thing but at different times. Matthew may have witnessed the sending of instructions while John may only have seen how Jesus went on to climb a donkey. In fact, the perfect evidence of the apostles sharing what they witnessed is just the number of Mary's at Jesus' crucifixion. So it shouldn't mean they lied they were just being honest on what they saw!

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[StTruth]

Doe you imagine the Devil wears a red suit with horns and a tail? How would one intent on the destruction of the church present himself?

You have repeatedly stated that you are young, so that might excuse your carelessness in choice of Ehrman as your guide, when he clearly states that he is not a Christian, but I suspect there is something else going on.

You keep calling Ehrman my guide but I'm only guided by ideas that are true. I don't just take Ehrman's words. I read the other great scholars too and the problems with the canon of scriptures that I have discovered have nothing to do with Ehrman. They come from FF Bruce, a most revered Christian scholar whom you won't dare to insult.

You have too much of the conspiracy mentality and it shows when you insult Ehrman and call him the devil. Ehrman's books are used in seminaries. I've written what the back cover says. So these seminaries are fooled into accepting the Devil's book whereas you are wiser than all the professors of theology?

I don't want to argue with you but we must be reasonable and stop the name calling. All I know is our Lord tells me that I can identify a true Christian by his love. I have to remind myself that those who do not show love aren't really Christians and I'm quoting Jesus. Ehrman has more love than many who profess to be Christians, don't you think?

 

[Linet Kihonge]

True Brian, in fact, Matthew was the only one who heard of the Parable of two sons, otherwise, the others either weren't there when it was told or Matthew had a sharper memory on all the things that happened!

 

[StTruth]

Yes. If there were intentionally trying to deceive, there writings would have been rehearsed, and identical.

No scholar has ever suggested that the evangelists intended to deceive anyone or were in cahoots. Most scholars accept that St Mark was the first and some material from it was copied into St Matthew and St Luke. Scholars also talk about a text called Q. But nobody ever says there was collusion or intent to deceive.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[StTruth]

You are making the classic Liberal blunder of thinking that the truth is unloving. There is nothing more loving than truth. A lie many feel better, but that feeling is fleeting. The truth may hurt, but it's healing pain.

No seminary that I know would use Ehrman's books. You must be referring to seminaries which have long ago cast God out in favor of German skeptics.

Are you referring to, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? By F. F. BRUCE, 1943? If so, what in the text leads you to the conclusion that Bruce and Ehrman are in agreement?

I do make the distinction between those who are in error, and those who are active engaged in the work of Satan (the father of lies). ehrman is the later. Firstly, the man is not a Christian, so why would anyone look to him if they want to come to a better understanding of Christ and His word?

The point that I am trying to make to you is that you welcome Ehman's teaching with open, and un-skeptical arms, yet you are critical of holy scripture. In short, you don't scrutinize Herman's words the way you do scripture.

Hi thatbrian,

I must say you sound very harsh and not the sort I'd be comfortable with but I'm sure you are a good person.

The book you mentioned is the one that FF Bruce replies as if all is hunky-dory. But his more scholastic book called The Canon of Scripture is the one that opened my eyes to the reality of the Bible. Certainly not the inerrant word of God. It's still the word of God but God allows human errors and even contradictions. The church acts as a filter for the Bible and what it distils is the word of God. This is my more mature understanding of the Bible after reading FF Bruce's The Canon of Scripture and Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament. Previously I thought every word in the Bible was God's word which would make any error or criticism of the Bible offensive and unacceptable.

I don't know what you mean about German seminaries but the praise for Ehrman comes from the US. It says his book is the "standard text for introductory New Testament courses". And you made me sound like I went out of my way to choose the devil.

I must admit I get a little uneasy whenever you respond because you are so strong in your language and so quick in your condemnation. You don't just condemn Ehrman but you grill me for reading his book. Now I've shown you his book is a standard text for introductory NT courses you ask about German seminaries as if they were heretical or something. Anyway the praise came from the US.

I really hope you can tone down your angry and accusing tone. I've seen how harsh arguments on CF can be and I don't want to get embroiled in it. And I haven't even done anything wrong except quoting scholars but obviously you hate one of them but how was I to know?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

It's still the word of God but God allows human errors and even contradictions

This is what that's sounding abrasive to those who believe in the word as the inerrant word of GOD. The scripture is infallible may be not using the same words or the same experiences but the truth is always told. If I look at the Bible from a Spiritual perspective it's one voice of the LORD, in that he said, "Don't in Leviticus 4," He still said don't in the "Epistles." So the God of Israel is the same Yesterday, Today and forever more. Now the gospels, were first witness accounts on the life of Jesus as the Shepherd or Master of the Jews. Matthew shared his account with Jesus, the same for Luke, Mark and John. Did they all say the same things? No. But does it mean, the scripture is contradictory? No because at the End of the Day, Jesus rode on a Donkey, there was Mary mother of Jesus and other Marys at the crucifixion. So if I combined all the scriptures or all the gospels I will come up with how Jesus actually ended up on a donkey and how everyone was happy to have met him personally!

I will say this again, the numbering of the Bible verses/books/etc distorted the perception of God and made man as the author of the Word and not the Spirit of TRUTH!

 

[StTruth]

This sounds like it comes directly from the lips of Ehrman, and it's quite arrogant.



German skeptics, not German seminaries. German, "scholars" of the 18th and 19th centuries. Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, and Rudolf Bultmann are examples.



That's a very broad statement.



First, you might be reading too much into my "tone". Second, the apostle Paul had quite choice words for the "circumcision group" in the nook of Galatians, if you recall. A love for the flock, and a hatred of all that would confuse and harm her, is what motivated him.

I have a recommendation for a scholar for you to read. He was trained at Princeton, and then went on to found Westminster Seminary in Pennsylvania.

Thank you very much for your recommendation but I will listen to Jesus as to who his true disciple is. He is the one who has love. Let me use my Lord's criterion and compare you with the one who recommended Bart Ehrman to me. He is a Venerable Archdeacon of my church and a most gentle and loving priest. I've never heard a harsh word from him and he doesn't malign anyone or say vicious things. I once handed him his stole but I couldn't stop laughing because of a joke my silly friend made. My vicar saw it and took me aside and chided me. He stopped my vicar and said he was sure I loved Jesus and wouldn't fool around when handling sacred things in the future. That had more impact on me than anything my vicar could've said. There are many examples of his love that Jesus talks about.

It was he who introduced me to all the scholars. He gave me my first Ehrman book on the feast day of the saint I'm named after. He said I was more mature and could understand the book better. It's very thick and at first I only looked at the pics. Then I started reading it and it made a lot of sense. I read it because the giver was such a kind and loving person. I realised that real Christianity is not cold and unloving. It's not about narrow doctrines to divide the flock and alienate some people for not believing in our own narrow views. It's about love and tolerance and not saying spiteful things even when someone is wrong to us.

I want to be like my archdeacon. You can say nasty things about me but I won't retaliate. Ive seen how bitter the quarrels can be in CF. It's actually all due to human ego. That's not what Jesus teaches. Some take delight in putting down others and showing how learned and clever they are. I don't see that as Christian.

Thanks for your recommendation but I prefer the way of gentleness and love. I believe that is real Christianity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you very much for your recommendation but I will listen to Jesus as to who his true disciple is. He is the one who has love. Let me use my Lord's criterion and compare you with the one who recommended Bart Ehrman to me. He is a Venerable Archdeacon of my church and a most gentle and loving priest. I've never heard a harsh word from him and he doesn't malign anyone or say vicious things. I once handed him his stole but I couldn't stop laughing because of a joke my silly friend made. My vicar saw it and took me aside and chided me. He stopped my vicar and said he was sure I loved Jesus and wouldn't fool around when handling sacred things in the future. That had more impact on me than anything my vicar could've said. There are many examples of his love that Jesus talks about.

It was he who introduced me to all the scholars. He gave me my first Ehrman book on the feast day of the saint I'm named after. He said I was more mature and could understand the book better. It's very thick and at first I only looked at the pics. Then I started reading it and it made a lot of sense. I read it because the giver was such a kind and loving person. I realised that real Christianity is not cold and unloving. It's not about narrow doctrines to divide the flock and alienate some people for not believing in our own narrow views. It's about love and tolerance and not saying spiteful things even when someone is wrong to us.

I want to be like my archdeacon. You can say nasty things about me but I won't retaliate. Ive seen how bitter the quarrels can be in CF. It's actually all due to human ego. That's not what Jesus teaches. Some take delight in putting down others and showing how learned and clever they are. I don't see that as Christian.

Thanks for your recommendation but I prefer the way of gentleness and love. I believe that is real Christianity.

So, how do you take Paul's "snap" at the Galatians? Was he wrong for doing so? And how about Jesus' clearing of the Temple? Was he "wrong" for doing so?

 

[redleghunter]

Hi redleghuntrr

Yes I did mention that it was sad Ehrman lost his faith. But his scholarship is independent of his faith. I've already shown instances of his honesty.

People all go through phases and Ehrman may any time come back to the faith. It's a phase he's going through. I know a boy who served at the altar with me and he always has his phases. One day he's Christian and the next day he's an atheist. We chatted just recently and he's now a fundamentalist. But give him 3 months and he'll be something else quite different.

I wouldn't set too much store on Ehrman's current faith. What's important is his knowledge and scholarship.

Cheers

StTruth

I invite you to read the hyperlink in the article I posted in my last reply to you. Honesty in scholarship includes admitting passages that disagree with your thesis. The scholars responding to Ehrman point out instances where he ignores several data points. You may want to take a look at that.

Thanks

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ehrman's books are very interesting. The one on the New Testament has lots of pics including a photo of a nail in an ankle bone of someone crucified in Roman times. It's poignant and helps the reader to understand the reality of the suffering our Lord went through. Ehrman has no intention of destroying the church. He defends the historicity of Jesus and dismisses allegations against Christ as I've mentioned in the earlier post.

I don't think there's anything wrong with reading Ehrman, or any other similar books. The problem is in "only" reading Ehrman, or any similar books.

I've got some of Ehrman's books, and I also have books by those who address (and contradict) some of Ehrman's conclusions. My point is this: we should be reading more current authors other than those from the "old school"; F.F. Bruce is great, but being that he's dead, we can't know what his response (or corrections) would be regarding Ehrman's ideas.

2PhiloVoid

 

[redleghunter]

Hi thatbrian

As I have explained just one post above yours it's the facts that a person says that's important. I also read FF Bruce, Metzger and Leon Morris but you only zoom in on Ehrman. It's wrong to say Ehrman is bent on destroying the church. That's an awful thing to say. I've read a lot of Ehrman. His books are easier for someone my level and I know he loves the church.

I would recommend sticking with Bruce and Metzger if you are looking for classics on textual criticism. The warning label should always be that before delving into textual criticism the student should already have a deep knowledge of Holy Scriptures and have read them cover to cover several times. If not, it is quite easy to be swayed by an author's opinion when one does not have their own in the first place. Probably what the vicar was getting on about with you.

A recommendation for a very good expository preacher theologian I recommend John MacArthur. You can find his sermons on podcast and in writing at gty.org

The reason many (including me) have addressed you about Ehrman in such a firm way is twofold. First he has denied the Deity of Jesus Christ to the point of writing an entire book about it. Second, every atheist on CF quotes Ehrman as their sole source and tout that he left the faith. If you are of the mind you want an unbiased opinion to test your apologetics abilities, Ehrman is far from unbiased. Just by the title of his books he is looking for a splash on the NYTs best seller's list. Atheists and agnostics buy his books to perpetuate their hatred of Christians on sites as this one and others. So don't be surprised for the reactions you received thus far.

Lastly, I don't know where you are in your walk with Jesus Christ. You have expressed some academic views/opinions but the Christian faith is more than dusty manuscripts and Harvard or Princeton theological recluses. Theologians serve their purpose in the Body of Christ. I have a few friends who are theologians. One a well established theologian. However, based on some of your comments you might want to look at what a pastor (vicar in your case?) has to offer to teach and instruct in matters of righteousness.

 

[redleghunter]

"Quite simply excellent; this text has become the standard text for introductory New Testament courses."

I'm sure it is. For two purposes. First for secular universities which refuse to teach from more orthodox texts; second in Christian universities to debate against.

 

[redleghunter]

I have no Idea why Matthew is being bashed at this point in time yet no one knows who the two disciples were because if I read John and Matthew, it seems they all witnessed the same thing but at different times. Matthew may have witnessed the sending of instructions while John may only have seen how Jesus went on to climb a donkey. In fact, the perfect evidence of the apostles sharing what they witnessed is just the number of Mary's at Jesus' crucifixion. So it shouldn't mean they lied they were just being honest on what they saw!

Indeed and as we put the pieces of the 'mosaic' together like a puzzle we come away in awe on how detailed the accounts are when combined. Did Matthew have to mention the two donkeys? No, but the prophecy was of the King riding a foal. A foal without the Jenny (mother) within the first 6 months is not recommended (I posted a link to proper foal raising). Knowing such a detail would be important to a culture which knew you don't separate them, Matthew shows the two being led to Christ. To mostly modern urbanites this makes no sense but when you look at the historical context it makes perfect sense.

 

[redleghunter]

Firstly, the man is not a Christian, so why would anyone look to him if they want to come to a better understanding of Christ and His word?

That's a good point about Ehrman. You don't show up to a baseball game with a football bat.

 

[redleghunter]

The book you mentioned is the one that FF Bruce replies as if all is hunky-dory. But his more scholastic book called The Canon of Scripture is the one that opened my eyes to the reality of the Bible. Certainly not the inerrant word of God. It's still the word of God but God allows human errors and even contradictions. The church acts as a filter for the Bible and what it distils is the word of God. This is my more mature understanding of the Bible after reading FF Bruce's The Canon of Scripture and Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament. Previously I thought every word in the Bible was God's word which would make any error or criticism of the Bible offensive and unacceptable.

I think I know the issue you may be facing.

It seems you may have a misunderstanding of Biblical inerrancy. You are delving into texts of theologians who know the definitions as they have studied the material. Here are some aids in looking at the basics of what truly is Biblical inerrancy:


http://www.theopedia.com/inerrancy

http://www.apologetics315.com/2008/02/case-for-biblical-inerrancy.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/why-we-believe-the-bible-part-1