"Much simpler to say...

[HitchSlap]

...it's a mistake."

Maybe the parsimonious answer is the best one.

 

[Tree of Life]

 

[HitchSlap]

Love your avatar. Reminds me of these...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

When you cite Richard Carrier to advance the myth argument, Christians want a "real" historian that believes Jesus existed. Throw Bart Ehrman at them, and suddenly they have nothing to say.

 

[HitchSlap]

When you cite Richard Carrier to advance the myth argument, Christians want a "real" historian that believes Jesus existed. Throw Bart Ehrman at them, and suddenly they have nothing to say.

Right.

Unfortunately for them, Carrier is a "real" historian, with a doctorate from Columbia in ancient history. It's why his book On the Historicity of Jesus hasn't been refuted by anybody with relevant degrees.

 

[Silmarien]

Right.

Unfortunately for them, Carrier is a "real" historian, with a doctorate from Columbia in ancient history. It's why his book On the Historicity of Jesus hasn't been refuted by anybody with relevant degrees.

On Richard Carrier’s Doubts| <xhtml:span xml:lang="en">A Response to Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt</xhtml:span>   »  Brill Online

Larry Hurtado hasn't read the entire book, but he has comments on Mythicism here: Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars

Frankly, it seems that most people with the relevant degrees don't want to read 700 pages of a fringe theory that nobody takes seriously.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

...it's a mistake."

Maybe the parsimonious answer is the best one.

Sure. Why not? It's not as if biblical inspiration is dependent upon the superfluous notion of biblical inerrancy. To me, it makes MORE sense to say that if God is withholding decisive information from humanity [and He is...], and even from His own Church [which He also is ...], then the various accounts through which early Christians attempted to explicate God's work in Christ would have been expressed in ways that are, dare I say, laced not only with human techniques, but also with human inefficiencies. Hence, they are less than perfect. [Oh well!]

It also seems to me that the recognition of an imperfect Bible will only come as a surprise, or maybe as a shock, to those who have been indoctrinated to expect a perfect one. So, some Christians will be disappointed to find out the Bible isn't inerrant—and some of them will even be tempted to drop their faith like a lead weight into the mud. And that's too bad, especially if we keep in mind that a lot of current skeptics and atheists are also former Christians who've simply come out of, and jettisoned, the ideas of their former fundamentalistic church leaders who hold to the idea of an inerrant Bible. The upshot of this is that it's also no wonder that a number of these spiritually disgruntled people often seek to target and dismantle the Christian fundamentalist's mantra about a perfect Bible, as if doing so will somehow sink the whole Christian enterprise in one swift stroke (e.g. John Loftus, Bart Ehrman, Hugh Hefner and Richard Carrier, etc., etc., ...)

 

[Tree of Life]

When you cite Richard Carrier to advance the myth argument, Christians want a "real" historian that believes Jesus existed. Throw Bart Ehrman at them, and suddenly they have nothing to say.

Bart is not an historian.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Bart is not an historian.

So... are you saying that we should value Dr. Carrier's opinions on history higher?

 

[Silmarien]

The upshot of this is that it's also no wonder that a number of these spiritually disgruntled people often seek to target and dismantle the Christian fundamentalist's mantra about a perfect Bible, as if doing so will somehow sink the whole Christian enterprise in one swift stroke (e.g. John Loftus, Bart Ehrman, Hugh Hefner and Richard Carrier, etc., etc., ...)

I don't think it's entirely fair to put Ehrman in the same category as the others. I'd classify him with the theological liberals instead--he may have eventually lost his faith, but he's not really an anti-theistic crusader. I've never gotten the impression that he doesn't respect Christianity, even if the Problem of Evil is too big a barrier for him. He also apparently mostly teaches evangelicals in his college courses, so it's not really surprising that inerrancy is always on his mind.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think it's entirely fair to put Ehrman in the same category as the others. I'd classify him with the theological liberals instead--he may have eventually lost his faith, but he's not really an anti-theistic crusader. I've never gotten the impression that he doesn't respect Christianity, even if the Problem of Evil is too big a barrier for him. He also apparently mostly teaches evangelicals in his college courses, so it's not really surprising that inerrancy is always on his mind.

Granted, Ehrman's attitude is a bit more constructive and less acerbic than the typical apostate, but being that he just keeps churning out book after book, many of which are best sellers, I'd say he's one of the more popularly received apostates around and has been responsible for a lot of the spiritual damage being done presently in and around the Christian Church (of all denominations). If I knew he was merely pulling the rug out from under Christian Inerrantists, then I'd probably feel like I've get less of a bone to pick with him. But, since he's so influential right now, I've lumped him in with the others.

On the other hand, I guess he is different than those like Russell, Hefner, or Carrier (or even Marx) because I don't see him extolling the ... *ahem* ... virtues of polyamory. And that is always a plus to the good, I guess.

 

[Tree of Life]

So... are you saying that we should value Dr. Carrier's opinions on history higher?

I'm sure that Carrier is fine in his field of expertise.

 

[Liza B.]

...it's a mistake."

Maybe the parsimonious answer is the best one.

The problem with Bart Ehrman and so many like him is one of scale. I find this to be the case with so many what I call "detail men". They find a few little details that may be out of whack or contradictory, and so cannot see all the many ways in which the entire Bible hangs together.

It is worse than throwing out the baby with the bathwater--it's is throwing away a seashore of diamonds for a few grains of sand. But that is their prerogative. God made it so.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The problem with Bart Ehrman and so many like him is one of scale. I find this to be the case with so many what I call "detail men". They find a few little details that may be out of whack or contradictory, and so cannot see all the many ways in which the entire Bible hangs together.

It is worse than throwing out the baby with the bathwater--it's is throwing away a seashore of diamonds for a few grains of sand. But that is their prerogative. God made it so.

How does the Bible hang together? Everyone reads only a few portions of a few books here and there. I don't see anyone reading the parts like Judges 19, Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7, or the entire book of Song of Solomon.

 

[Liza B.]

How does the Bible hang together? Everyone reads only a few portions of a few books here and there. I don't see anyone reading the parts like Judges 19, Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7, or the entire book of Song of Solomon.

I've read the entire Bible cover to cover twice through; Song of Solomon I don't know how many times, and Judges, Ezra and Nehemiah more than twice, I know that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I've read the entire Bible cover to cover twice through; Song of Solomon I don't know how many times, and Judges, Ezra and Nehemiah more than twice, I know that.

Do you think they fit with the overall message of the Bible?

 

[Liza B.]

Do you think they fit with the overall message of the Bible?

There is no part of the Bible that "Doesn't fit" with the overall message of the Bible if you understand God--or begin to understand Him, best as we are able.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There is no part of the Bible that "Doesn't fit" with the overall message of the Bible if you understand God--or begin to understand Him, best as we are able.

You're under no obligation to answer if you don't want to, but we'd all prefer if you would either give a straight answer or just say you don't know how those parts fit... the above serves no one.

 

[jacks]

I've read the entire Bible as I think most Christians have; (it is much easier than War and Peace and held my attention much more than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...yawn). It does "fit together" as a theological work. However, the Bible should not be judged on the accuracy of it's information as if it is a textbook on science, history or archeology, etc. Rather it should be judged on what it has to say about purpose of life, the meaning of the world we live in and the the reality that lies beyond it.

 

[Liza B.]

You're under no obligation to answer if you don't want to, but we'd all prefer if you would either give a straight answer or just say you don't know how those parts fit... the above serves no one.

You have to be more specific if you want specific answers. What parts of those chapters and books don't fit with the overall message of the Bible, in your opinion?