.

[redleghunter]

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.

Thanks for the book recommendation. Have not read that one and will.

 

[PapaZoom]

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

He is not going through a phase. That is just silly. You're right that he's a smart man but that alone doesn't mean his views are correct. This is an interesting piece he's written and it doesn't show me a man going through a phase. It shows me a man that desperately tried to hold on to his faith but couldn't. http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2008/04/why-suffering-is-gods-problem.html

 

[PapaZoom]

Why are you so intent on maligning Ehrman? I have his book on the New Testament and much of my ideas come from it. The back of the book says "Quite simply excellent; this text has become the standard text for introductory New Testament courses." Does this sound like someone who wants to destroy the Church, our Lord's bride?

Ehrman no longer believes in the Christian message. His own words.

 

[PapaZoom]

You do know that Ehrman is agnostic and proclaimed he is no longer a Christian?

There are thousands of scholars who can read the original languages. Ehrman is not the only one.
He is on record denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Here's something on Ehrman from his peers:

http://m.christianpost.com/news/the...god-with-book-on-how-god-became-jesus-118486/

Michael F. Bird is a leading academic on New Testament studies and Christian Theology. He is Lecturer in Theology at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. Here's the book which is less than ten dollars Kindle:
How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature---A Response to Bart Ehrman
Why anyone would pick Ehrman to read when there are so many other scholars to pick. He's not the only apple in the bunch. And unlike Ehrman, many other scholars from which to choose have held fast to their faith.

 

[StTruth]

Hi,

I don't want to appear ungrateful for the good intention or seem impervious to the advice given. I understand now that many of you belong to a different tradition of the Church. When I say 'different', I don't mean bad. The Body of Christ is varied and the foot cannot say to the hand that it's better or the other way round. Every tradition has its strengths and it's the diversity within the church that strengthens it.

For some Christians, questioning the Bible or the canon is considered offensive and inappropriate. In my church tradition, it's slightly different. We are always warned that we are not bibliolaters and we should be careful about placing the Bible too much on the pedestal which is where Christ belongs.

PapaZoom, I just noticed this tag in all your posts:

God cannot commit an immoral act.
Genocide is an immoral act.
Therefore God cannot commit genocide.​

Do you believe the Flood of Noah's time to be a real event that wiped out all of creation except what were on the ark or do you believe as do most of my priests that the Flood never took place in history? I agree with the priests of my church of course. Such a view would of course exonerate God from a charge of having committed genocide, don't you agree?

It's not for me to criticise other people's church traditions. Like I've said, Christianity is truly diverse and I'm glad for the diversity. But not everyone is tolerant of people with differing views. It's pride if we think we are always right and others must be wrong. It's intolerance if we insist those that differ from us must necessarily be non-Christians. Some of you mentioned Jesus overturning the tables of moneychangers and those who did business in the church. I know some modern churches have priests who sell their sermons in CDs and their books too and they set up stalls outside the church. My church doesn't do that. We don't trade in the house of God. You probably hate my archdeacon because he introduced me to Ehrman. But he would never sell CDs of his own; he probably doesn't have any CDs of his sermons. So, your example of Jesus overturning the tables is not applicable. It's only applicable if you use Jesus' deeds wrongly and extrapolate it to something it doesn't address.

Redleghunter, I have looked at some of your links on biblical inerrancy. What I find is rather unsettling (at least to me alone). There are things like the Lausanne Covenant of 1974, etc. They are all things cooked up by men in the 20th century. I thought the Church should only stick to Creeds that are constructed in the first few centuries of the establishment of the church. Surely these modern 'covenants' or whatever you might choose to call them have no validity in the Christian church? If I follow the Creeds and the Liturgy of the early church, why should I give any notice to modern inventions? I haven't read all the links but biblical inerrancy sounds pretty new-fangled to me.

The priests of my church do not read many things in the Bible literally and they have warned me particularly about fundamentalist Christians who see everything literally. Many of them reside in the US. I'm not criticising these people who, as i have said, are lovely Christians who are following their own traditions but my vicar in particular has warned me that they tend to be very loud and pushy. They believe theirs is the only truth in the Church and they don't like people who don't have the same literal understanding. They believe in a 10,000 year old earth (in fact the whole universe!!!) and they believe Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. And I think they believe in a real worldwide Flood in Noah's time as a real incident but I think PapaZoom obviously doesn't share that belief.

Again, I'm not saying believing in all that is wrong. It's perfectly legitimate for anyone to believe these things and I for one would respect them for their beliefs. But the problem is, so my vicar says, they will drag you through hot coals for not believing in these things as they do.

I hope none of you is this intolerant?

 

[Linet Kihonge]

We'll never drag you through hot coals for not believing these things, but it has to be done if the Scripture is viewed as debatable. Actually, if you meet Christians you meet the "JEWS!" Stiff-necked, hot, and fierce when it comes to the Talmudic texts and the Law! It's a genetic thingi once you become CHRISTIAN!

 

[StTruth]

We'll never drag you through hot coals for not believing these things, but it has to be done if the Scripture is viewed as debatable. Actually, if you meet Christians you meet the JEWS! Stiff-necked, hot, and fierce when it comes to the Talmudic texts and the Law! It's a genetic thingi once you become CHRISTIAN!

You mean it's a genetic thing once you become a Baptist? You forget that outside the US, Baptists are an extremely small minority.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

The walk of the Israelites was the Walk of the LORD
The Walk of the Apostles was the walk of the Spirit of Truth.

But they were Jews, were Jews of the Word of the Lord or Not?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[Deadworm]

St. Truth,

It seems advisable to provide a brief academic background to help you understand my perspective. Like Bart Ehrman, I'm a Princeton Seminary Alumnus (MDiv). I also have a ThD from Harvard in NT, Christian Origins, and Intertestamental Judaism. At Princeton I had the privilege of studying under Bruce Metzger, one of the greatest Text Critics of the 20th century.

Ehrman is the best current popularizer of NT scholarship. He writes clearly and engagingly. His recent work on pseudonymity contains valuable material. His NT Introduction is widely used in secular unviersities and liberal seminaries. I doubt that any theologically conservative seminaries would use it. Ehrman is a disillusioned evangelical-turned-skeptic and that bias greatly colors his presentation.

Why should this matter? Well, NT scholars speak confidently from the perspective of the schools of thought they represent. The liberal ones seldom try to do justice to theologically conservative perspectives. A certain amount of brainwashing about falsely assumed sure findings of modern scholarship is inevitable. Of course, the opposite is true of conservative evangelical NT Introductions.

I prefer the middle-of-the-road approach in Jesuit Raymond Brown's lengthy "Introduction to the NT (1996)." His Introduction is so long because he provides a uniquely broad array of perspectives on the key issues and, more importantly, the rationales behind them. Mastery of his Introduction will help you find your own authentic theological voice, as opposed to being the unwitting puppet of a particular theological Ghetto. He creates intellectual space for the serious NT student to make critical assessments and choices, thus minimizing the danger of subtle brain-washing.

I'd also recommend that you take the theological luminary approach to NT scholarship. By that I mean take one of the best NT middle-of-the-road NT scholars and then master his major books to give you an anchor for exploring the major issues at a very high level. N. T. Wright is widely respected by conservatives, but I find his writing style hard to read and his latest book dreadful. Instead, I'd recommend any book by J. D. G. Dunn, especially his book, "Christology in the Making." But don't take my word for it. Go to a decent academic library and browse his works.

As for Bible commentaries, I would not buy any by series. Use book reviews to determine the best authors on each NT book; and again, if possible, see if your find and browse each commentary at a college or seminary library. There is merit in the old cliché: you are what you read. You don't need an Ivy League education to become a real scholar; you just need to discover the key books that will best stimulate your critical faculties and excite you about the quest for advanced spiritual knowledge.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[samir]

Hi samir,

Thanks for your post. I mentioned four names. I suppose nobody will have a quarrel with FF Bruce, Bruce Metzger and Leon Morris who are the top scholars Christendom has and is proud of. You said you did a search on the scholars and you must have seen that the first 3 have sterling credentials. One of them is even the translator of our RSV Bible.

Bart Ehrman is a scholar, first and foremost. He's a renowned historian, particularly of church history. He has studied in Moody Bible Institute and in Princeton (under Bruce Metzger) and he is (I believe) the only person alive today who has read every available texts in the period of early Christianity in the ORIGINAL TONGUE. This amazing scholar is au fait with Koine Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Aramaic and just about any language used by the early Christians.

And he is HONEST. That's the one quality I like even though I'm sad that he lost his faith while at Princeton even though he joined these seminaries because of his zeal for God and his love for the Bible. As he puts it, Moody is where "Bible" is their middle name.

I'll give you a few examples of his honesty. He has argued with the Jesus deniers. These are people (usually atheists) who argue that Jesus never existed. They have quite compelling arguments and I was almost swayed by them when I was younger but thanks to the good Bart Ehrman who argues for the existence of a historical Jesus, I firmly believe that my Lord existed in history too.

Next is the so-called secret Gospel of Mark. Ehrman takes the position after examining the evidence that it's to be dismissed. He did that after he had lost his faith. You see, many Christians I know are unable to be this objective. They can only see arguments in favour of their faith as valid. Everything else is looked upon as wrong from the very word go. But Ehrman is not like that. Even though some scholars have argued that the secret Gospel of Mark is real and Jesus had an affair with the naked young man in linen cloth (mentioned in St Mark), Ehrman dismissed the whole thing as a fabrication. I agree with Ehrman that it's a fabrication and our Lord didn't do those things. But you see, it's Ehrman's honesty that is so appealing. That's what a true scholar should be like.

It's the same with FF Bruce who's such a respected and loved scholar. Every Christian loves him. Bruce Metzger has the same stature even though he's hated by some fundamentalists after he wrote the RSV translation of the Bible. I read in Christianity Today that many fundamentalists in the US burnt the RSV in their church lawns. And Metzger said that we've come a long way from Tyndale; we now burn the translation and not the translator. Such a gracious Christian. The reason why they hated Metzger was he decided to be honest in his translation. It's again the almah-parthenos problem. So, he translated Isaiah, "And a young woman shall be with child..." instead of "virgin" and fundamentalists were incensed.

FF Bruce is no different. This great scholar (like most scholars) divide his readership up. In his books for the masses, such as "Is the New Testament Reliable?" he always answers the question with a resounding, YES! But in his more scholastic works, he sounds very different. In The Canon of Scripture, he goes through every little detail and it really rocked my childhood understanding of the Bible as if the 66 books (if we leave out the Apocrypha) were specifically chosen by God. It's not like that at all. The method was quite shoddy and at times shocking. In the end, Bruce asks if the canon should be revised. Questions are raised whether some of the books in the New Testament ought to be removed and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas (which was considered highly authoritative but the early church) should be included. But Bruce gave the opinion that the canon should not be changed and he talked about the adverse consequence of such a change. Wow!!! I asked myself what happened to his HUGE YES when he wrote "Is the New Testament Reliable"?

These scholars in their honest scholarship have helped me to revise my original view of the Bible. But that doesn't mean I've lost my faith. I just see things differently now or if I may quote St Paul, when I was a child, I spake as a child. I've thrown away all past childishness. Everyone says I don't sound like my age because I want to be truthful, clear-minded and perfectly honest and I don't like childishness which is why I was so upset when I first thought CF was confining me to the Teens section. And I want to treat the Bible like these great scholars do - with honesty and diligence.

So, if Ehrman is writing a book about how early Christians invented stories of Jesus, it's not wrong of him. The subject matter should not be a taboo; rather, we should always see if a text or a claim is true of false. A pious book may be pious but false and untruthful.

Cheers,

StTruth

I don't know any scholars and never cared much about their opinions. I looked up Ehrman first and it sounded like he was one of those liberals who twists and distorts the evidence to make it say what he wants it to say. I'm not saying he's unreliable just because he's not a Christian. If he's honest and looks at the evidence objectively I don't have a problem but from what little I've read about him I doubt that's what he did. I'd like to see his reasoning for his claim the apostles invented stories about Jesus to see whether there is any evidence and not just lots of opinions and baseless conclusions.

 

[Deadworm]

St. Truth,

Another approach to mastering the NT is to consult your burning historical or theological questions, and decide to write a thesis on a topic related to those questions. Forget for the moment about whether the thesis is written to satisfy some program requirement. The quality of your research will be greatly affected by your passion for the issues. But first consult a trained academician about your choice. Why? Because you want to select a topic which will force you to master a variety of critical tools and skills.

When I first arrived at Harvard for my doctoral work, I realized that I needrf to master the early church fathers. So I began to read them, but soon found this so boring and retained a disappointingly small amount of what I read. Later when I had taken some doctoral seminars, I developed burning questions to pose to those same church fathers. Those questions transformed my level of interest and memory retention because I was now reading for a selective purpose. The right research project inspired by your burning questions will help you achieve mastery of NT scholarship as a whole far more quickly than a simple purpose to study it all.

And what might the best burning questions be? Here are just 7 suggestions:
(1) The Shape of Christian Theology before Paul in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Elsewhere
(2) A Historical Critique of the Catholic Doctrine of Apostolic Succession as a Guarantor of Doctrinal Orthodoxy
(3) How the Early Church Lost Much of its Spiritual Power:
Here you might focus on the cause of the decline in the use of the charisms of the Holy Spirit, and this might lead you to exploring how the bestowal of the Holy Spirit became more a matter of doctrine and procedure (e. g. a bishop laying on hands) than a matter of a remembered experience of divine power.
(4) The History and Criteria for the Selection of our NT Canonical Books as Opposed the Rejected Books
(5) Biographies of Revered Figures: The Literary Genre of Gospels and How that Genre Affects Content and Meaning
(6) How Archaeology Affects Our Understanding of Jesus and Paul
(7) Or something more controversial like: How and Why the Early Church Abandoned its Prior Belief in the Possibility of postmortem salvation of the Damned

 

[PapaZoom]

St. Truth,

It seems advisable to provide a brief academic background to help you understand my perspective. Like Bart Ehrman, I'm a Princeton Seminary Alumnus (MDiv). I also have a ThD from Harvard in NT, Christian Origins, and Intertestamental Judaism. At Princeton I had the privilege of studying under Bruce Metzger, one of the greatest Text Critics of the 20th century.

Ehrman is the best current popularizer of NT scholarship. He writes clearly and engagingly. His recent work on pseudonymity contains valuable material. His NT Introduction is widely used in secular unviersities and liberal seminaries. I doubt that any theologically conservative seminaries would use it. Ehrman is a disillusioned evangelical-turned-skeptic and that bias greatly colors his presentation.

Why should this matter? Well, NT scholars speak confidently from the perspective of the schools of thought they represent. The liberal ones seldom try to do justice to theologically conservative perspectives. A certain amount of brainwashing about falsely assumed sure findings of modern scholarship is inevitable. Of course, the opposite is true of conservative evangelical NT Introductions.

I prefer the middle-of-the-road approach in Jesuit Raymond Brown's lengthy "Introduction to the NT (1996)." His Introduction is so long because he provides a uniquely broad array of perspectives on the key issues and, more importantly, the rationales behind them. Mastery of his Introduction will help you find your own authentic theological voice, as opposed to being the unwitting puppet of a particular theological Ghetto. He creates intellectual space for the serious NT student to make critical assessments and choices, thus minimizing the danger of subtle brain-washing.

I'd also recommend that you take the theological luminary approach to NT scholarship. By that I mean take one of the best NT middle-of-the-road NT scholars and then master his major books to give you an anchor for exploring the major issues at a very high level. N. T. Wright is widely respected by conservatives, but I find his writing style hard to read and his latest book dreadful. Instead, I'd recommend any book by J. D. G. Dunn, especially his book, "Christology in the Making." But don't take my word for it. Go to a decent academic library and browse his works.

As for Bible commentaries, I would not buy any by series. Use book reviews to determine the best authors on each NT book; and again, if possible, see if your find and browse each commentary at a college or seminary library. There is merit in the old cliché: you are what you read. You don't need an Ivy League education to become a real scholar; you just need to discover the key books that will best stimulate your critical faculties and excite you about the quest for advanced spiritual knowledge.

Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation

This book looks interesting. I check Dunn at Amazon and one of his books went for over 1200$! But then after looking more, a current publication of the same book was around 30 dollars. Christology in the Making has about 4 different publishing dates (or release dates) and the newest release is only 32 dollars. So if anyone is looking into buying one of his books, do some searching. The same book can be very expensive or well within the range of an average book. At Christianbook.com the same book was 80 dollars but the newer addition at amazon was only 32. Just an FYI as I find price differences quite interesting. The internet, one stop shopping to find the best deals at one's fingertips!

 

[StTruth]

St. Truth,

Another approach to mastering the NT is to consult your burning historical or theological questions, and decide to write a thesis on a topic related to those questions. Forget for the moment about whether the thesis is written to satisfy some program requirement. The quality of your research will be greatly affected by your passion for the issues. But first consult a trained academician about your choice. Why? Because you want to select a topic which will force you to master a variety of critical tools and skills.

When I first arrived at Harvard for my doctoral work, I realized that I needrf to master the early church fathers. So I began to read them, but soon found this so boring and retained a disappointingly small amount of what I read. Later when I had taken some doctoral seminars, I developed burning questions to pose to those same church fathers. Those questions transformed my level of interest and memory retention because I was now reading for a selective purpose. The right research project inspired by your burning questions will help you achieve mastery of NT scholarship as a whole far more quickly than a simple purpose to study it all.

And what might the best burning questions be? Here are just 7 suggestions:
(1) The Shape of Christian Theology before Paul in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Elsewhere
(2) A Historical Critique of the Catholic Doctrine of Apostolic Succession as a Guarantor of Doctrinal Orthodoxy
(3) How the Early Church Lost Much of its Spiritual Power:
Here you might focus on the cause of the decline in the use of the charisms of the Holy Spirit, and this might lead you to exploring how the bestowal of the Holy Spirit became more a matter of doctrine and procedure (e. g. a bishop laying on hands) than a matter of a remembered experience of divine power.
(4) The History and Criteria for the Selection of our NT Canonical Books as Opposed the Rejected Books
(5) Biographies of Revered Figures: The Literary Genre of Gospels and How that Genre Affects Content and Meaning
(6) How Archaeology Affects Our Understanding of Jesus and Paul
(7) Or something more controversial like: How and Why the Early Church Abandoned its Prior Belief in the Possibility of postmortem salvation of the Damned

Hi Deadworm,

I'm impressed with your academic credentials. That you studied under Bruce Metzger makes you very similar to Bart Ehrman. Bruce Metzger's book The Canon of the New Testament is extremely good. But even if I discount Ehrman's works totally as the other people seem so jaundiced against Ehrman, that book of Metzger is enough to make ANY rational person stop believing in the biblical inerrancy stuff they talked about. I cannot believe that you have the same simplistic belief that these people have. The canon of the Bible is itself fraught with so many problems that it's impossible for someone as learned as you to be so ignorant as the rest of the chaps here. Somehow, I'm persuaded you can't be like them.

Metzger did not treat Ehrman the way thatbrian treats him, calling him the Devil and other such names that merely reflect on thatbrian's poor scholarship. In fact, Metzger even wrote a book with Ehrman. I believe it's some highly cool and authoritative book which Bible translators use or something learned like that.

I'm amused at your suggestion that I should write a research project. You probably thought I was a theological student at a university. The reality is I'm not that cool. I'm a student but the common humble kind, the kind that one cannot hope to boast about. But a lot of your burning questions are pretty interesting and many of them are questions that seem to militate against the simple-minded person's version of Christianity. For example, after reading that book by Metzger and FF Bruce's The Canon of Scripture, my idea of the Bible was no longer the same as my formerly uninformed concept. The magic in the Bible was gone. I realised that even the inclusion of books like Hebrews was based on a mistake. A large part of the church thought it was a Pauline work and the rest knew it was not. But they kept it because so many Christians had grown to love it. There was also one reason that influenced the decision to choose it over the Shepherd of Hermas. The Shepherd was written by someone still living then whereas Hebrews was anonymous. That I thought was a poor reason. The other was something I didn't know at all - it seems Shepherd gave one more chance to the person who had backed down from the faith but Hebrews gave no chance and they picked Hebrews because they were strict folks then, the martyrdom welcoming kind. Then there are problems with Revelation and the Catholic epistles. Martin Luther even had a second tier of canonicity. I mean there was so much meat in these two books alone to rock the childish faith of any boy and naturally my view of the Bible transformed immediately. At first I thought I should be an atheist but that was even more childish. Then I realised that it was because I had a childish understanding of faith initially and now I had a more mature understanding.

Metzger and Bruce (in those two books) also answered a question in my mind all along. How did Judas die? I've read the works of really dishonest apologists who say that he hanged himself, the rope broke and he fell on sharp rocks and so his belly burst. Even as a much younger boy, I couldn't believe that kind of rubbish. It was so obvious to me that these apologists will spin any fanciful tale just so they could reconcile irreconcilable discrepancies in the Bible. It was after reading those two books that I understood that there was a legend in the early church that Judas grew and grew after betraying Jesus until he became enormously fat so that if he walked on the street, carriages could not pass through. He continued to grow until his belly burst and he died. So that was the legend that was incorporated in one of the biblical texts. There are so many interesting nuggets in these two books. The people on CF are wrong to think it's only Bart Ehrman who says shocking things. They are bent on maligning Ehrman only because he's lost his faith but they dare not say a word about FF Bruce and Metzger who are such respected giants in the field of theology. I've read on Christianity Today a writeup about Metzger after he died. It seems when fundamentalist Americans were burning his RSV on church lawns, he said that we had come a long way since Tyndale; we no longer burn the translator but the translation. He even had a sense of humour when madmen were up in arms against him. What an amazing man!

What you have said about Ehrman is reasonable and probably true. At least you are too educated, learned and knowledgeable to call him the Devil as thatbrian did. But I like Ehrman's books because he writes very well and he engages the reader. FF Bruce and Metzger are more stuffy and you keep having to look at the footnotes and they refer to Greek words, etc. Metzger refers a lot to manuscripts and codices which can be quite a pain. But Ehrman reaches out to anyone irrespective of age or educational level. And Ehrman informs and teaches the person. Apparently, Ehrman's wife is a literature professor so I suppose he learns the art of writing from her because he really writes so well. After my archdeacon gave me Ehrman's New Testament, I was so intrigued that I borrowed some other Ehrman's books such as Misquoting Jesus which is a NYT bestseller, and Lost Christianities which is a most fascinating book. Some of his books read like a detective story. And how ever much anyone may hate him, I don't think he tells lies in his books. He may highlight certain things which accord with his current position but he doesn't lie outright. At least I don't think so.

I've a feeling your book recommendation is going to be too learned and stuffy. I prefer books that are more like Ehrman's. Ehrman's books are actually exciting. He makes the Bible real for me and I get transported to the time of Jesus. Like I've said earlier, his New Testament has a lot of pictures and one of them is a photo of a nail in an ankle bone taken from a crucified prisoner.

Maybe you should write a book. If you do, I'll read it for sure. Make it more like Ehrman's books which are more fun. And it's easier to get into the bestseller list.

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[civilwarbuff]

I cannot believe that you have the same simplistic belief that these people have.

You mean simplistic like this:
Mat_19:13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people,
Mat_19:14 but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
Maybe simplifying beliefs is not such a bad thing, you think?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't know any scholars and never cared much about their opinions. I looked up Ehrman first and it sounded like he was one of those liberals who twists and distorts the evidence to make it say what he wants it to say. I'm not saying he's unreliable just because he's not a Christian. If he's honest and looks at the evidence objectively I don't have a problem but from what little I've read about him I doubt that's what he did. I'd like to see his reasoning for his claim the apostles invented stories about Jesus to see whether there is any evidence and not just lots of opinions and baseless conclusions.

Remember what Yhwh said about man's wisdom -- the best of it.
Yhwh said it is foolishness, "bunk".

Jesus Praised Yhwh for "hiding knowledge of salvation from the educated"
and "revealing it to babes"
because this is Yhwh's GOOD PLEASURE SO TO DO.
AND
this is still what He does.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You mean simplistic like this:
Mat_19:13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people,
Mat_19:14 but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
Maybe simplifying beliefs is not such a bad thing, you think?

Good!
and
"UNless you become as little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven".....

Pretty reliable source ! (NEVER, never, NEVER WRONG) (ever!)

 

[Deadworm]

St. Truth, I am a published scholar, but prefer to keep my identity a secret. 2 responses to your post:
(a) There are 2 contradictory traditions about Judas's suicide, but the legend you describe evolved from the corresponding biblical account, not vice versa.

(b) Stop peddling that "I'm not that cool" humble student crap! About 6 years ago, I was asked by a janitor, a retired architect, a male nursing student, and a retired engineer to do the type of Bible study that a good seminary might offer. I was reluctant to do so, but I complied. I taught them just enough Greek to use dictionaries and grammars with profit; and I demonstrated why no Bible translation can adequately substitute for a knowledge of Greek. We focused on controversial texts that raise important methodological questions and I taught them how to apply those methods.

(1) The janitor got a full free ride through Princeton's MDiv, program, was appointed to the new Dead Sea Scroll retranslation committee (using high-powered microscopes and computers to fill in smudged and damaged texts), is a cited editor of a book on the scrolls. He was granted a fellowship to participate in an archaeological dig at Bethsaida, where Jesus recruited up to 5 of His 12 disciples. He preferred to pastor a UMC church in Florida.

(2) The retired architect volunteered to serve on the Bethsaida dig and found that his architectural training was invaluable for identifying buried building structures; so he helped make some major exciting discoveries and lectured and published on these. His tunnel discoveries got him an invitation to search for the lost 100 foot tunnel dug by Nazi Jewish prisoners to escape death after they were forced to dig up and burn 70,000 shot Jewish corpses in Vilnius, Lithuania. Nova is doing a documentary on this architects's work which will air next year. The tunnel is sure to be a treasured Holocaust memorial that is a major tourist attraction.

(3) The male nurse got his BA and is now a 2nd year student with a full free ride at Candler School of Theology at Emory. He has read much of Ehrman and is a highly regarded student, who is a voracious reader. He wants to write several scholarly books and we often discuss prospective topics.

(4) The retired engineer said, "I'm too old to go to seminary." So he in I (retired) play cards with elderly shut-ins and lonely people, one of whom taught Julia Childs how to cook, used to have lunch with Gandhi, and was married to a tennis referee who had verbal brawls with John McEnroe!

3 out of 4 scholarly success stories ain't that bad! So what literary project are you going to embrace that will abolish the modern scholarly consensus on some important issue?

 

[StTruth]

St. Truth, I am a published scholar, but prefer to keep my identity a secret. 2 responses to your post:
(a) There are 2 contradictory traditions about Judas's suicide, but the legend you describe evolved from the corresponding biblical account, not vice versa.

(b) Stop peddling that "I'm not that cool" humble student crap! About 6 years ago, I was asked by a janitor, a retired architect, a male nursing student, and a retired engineer to do the type of Bible study that a good seminary might offer. I was reluctant to do so, but I complied. I taught them just enough Greek to use dictionaries and grammars with profit; and I demonstrated why no Bible translation can adequately substitute for a knowledge of Greek. We focused on controversial texts that raise important methodological questions and I taught them how to apply those methods.

(1) The janitor got a full free ride through Princeton's MDiv, program, was appointed to the new Dead Sea Scroll retranslation committee (using high-powered microscopes and computers to fill in smudged and damaged texts), is a cited editor of a book on the scrolls. He was granted a fellowship to participate in an archaeological dig at Bethsaida, where Jesus recruited up to 5 of His 12 disciples. He preferred to pastor a UMC church in Florida.

(2) The retired architect volunteered to serve on the Bethsaida dig and found that his architectural training was invaluable for identifying buried building structures; so he helped make some major exciting discoveries and lectured and published on these. His tunnel discoveries got him an invitation to search for the lost 100 foot tunnel dug by Nazi Jewish prisoners to escape death after they were forced to dig up and burn 70,000 shot Jewish corpses in Vilnius, Lithuania. Nova is doing a documentary on this architects's work which will air next year. The tunnel is sure to be a treasured Holocaust memorial that is a major tourist attraction.

(3) The male nurse got his BA and is now a 2nd year student with a full free ride at Candler School of Theology at Emory. He has read much of Ehrman and is a highly regarded student, who is a voracious reader. He wants to write several scholarly books and we often discuss prospective topics.

(4) The retired engineer said, "I'm too old to go to seminary." So he in I (retired) play cards with elderly shut-ins and lonely people, one of whom taught Julia Childs how to cook, used to have lunch with Gandhi, and was married to a tennis referee who had verbal brawls with John McEnroe!

3 out of 4 scholarly success stories ain't that bad! So what literary project are you going to embrace that will abolish the modern scholarly consensus on some important issue?

Hi Deadworm,

Again, I'm very impressed. I have no doubt you must be the most qualified person in the whole of CF. I might as well be honest and reveal the truth about myself. I'm still in school, what Americans would call High School. I know most people think I'm much older and that thrills me and they find it hard to believe that I'll only be 17 end of this year. As one of my dad's friends says, I'm really an adult trapped in a teenager's body. When I first joined CF, I was quite unhappy because I couldn't post anywhere except the teens section and I thought that's where they'd put me and I couldn't change my year of birth in the settings and i asked an Admin to change it for me but he wouldn't. I thought it'd be terrible to have to spend all my time on CF with other teenagers who can only talk about piffling things. But then suddenly I could post in most areas so it's now OK.

Although I like to read a lot and find out more about my faith and the Bible, I am allergic to writing assignments. A few years ago, I studied Latin and although I'm not good at it, I understand declensions and conjugations. So last year, I tried to learn Koine Greek but Greek is really all Greek to me. It's much more difficult than Latin which is already insurmountably difficult. My knowledge of declensions and conjugations help but still, it's too tough a language. I think I know myself very well. I'm not the scholarly kind nor am I the diligent kind of person. I prefer to read simpler books but I prefer the simple books to have nice chunks of facts and good argument and Ehrman's books are just right for me. And I assure you I'm not alone. Most people aren't so scholarly either and Ehrman's books are accessible to all of us. I've tried reading Leon Morris' commentary on the Gospel of John and I almost died. While the section on whether John wrote John is very interesting, the actual commentary of each of the verses in John can be trying; he really goes into such terrible detail over just a small section of a verse in the Bible. But if I bother to force myself to sit down and read his book, it is quite memorable. To this day I remember what Leon Morris says about John 1:1. He seems to argue that while 'and the word was God' (which is actually "kai theos en o logos") can be legitimately read by people who try to diminish Jesus's Godhead (as the JWs do), the use of the accusative case instead of the dative case for 'and the word was with God' ("kai o logos pros ton theon" as opposed to "kai o logos para theos") does argue for Jesus' Godhead. I mean, can you imagine a self-respecting teenager reading this? LOL. Now, you know why I would gravitate towards Ehrman. And it's not because I had some demonic agenda to pick the "Devil" out of so many scholars as thatbrian accuses me of.

I understand your desire to be anonymous but you are an asset to have in CF because how many scholars are there? Most of the people seem to be fundamentalists who get upset the moment I raise any doubt about the Bible and they begin to speculate that I might have some nefarious agenda and accuse me of things I didn't even think of in the first place. They expect me to be a pious altar boy with my hands clasped in prayerful posture and my lips saying "Credo" to every simplistic thing they believe in.

Cheers,

StTruth