How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,335
Reaction score
850
Points
315
Startlingly, a lecture at the Atheist org.. Freedom From Religion Foundation/FFRF.. by one of thee most Renowned professor's of Religious Studies, Bart Ehrman.
One of the world's foremost experts on Christianity/NT.
Can't say he doesn't know his topic.
99% of the time he is invited to speak to religious groups.
But, as it turns out, he's an "Agnostic and an Atheist."
A good bit of the youtube on his 'new' book, 'How Jesus became God' [2014]
I've seen him several times on PBS'/other religious documentaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Bart D. Ehrman (1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.​
According to the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, he is one of North America's Leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 27 books, including three college textbooks.
He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers.​
Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.​
[.....]​



`
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,335
Reaction score
850
Points
315
An atheist who is an authority on Christianity.

That's like a vegetarian opining on a great cut of prime rib.

It's all a load of crap, isn't it.

Early life
Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas, and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973. He began studying the Bible, Biblical theology and Biblical languages at Moody Bible Institute,[1] where he earned the school's three-year diploma in 1976.[2]
He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelor's degree.
He received his Ph.D. (in 1985) and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.
Both baccalaureate and doctorate were conferred magna cum laude.[3]


Career
In Misquoting Jesus Ehrman tells how he was a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager.[1][4] He recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[1][4] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and to textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:[1]

I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years … I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text … If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?[1]
He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1][2][5]

Ehrman has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He was the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Ehrman currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents (E. J. Brill), co-editor-in-chief for the journal Vigiliae Christianae, and on several other editorial boards for journals and monographs.
Ehrman formerly served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press).


Ehrman speaks extensively throughout the United States and has participated in many public debates, including debates with William Lane Craig,[6] Dinesh D'Souza,[7] Mike Licona,[8] Craig A. Evans,[9] Daniel B. Wallace,[10] Richard Swinburne,[11] Peter J. Williams,[12] James White,[13] Darrell Bock,[14] Michael L. Brown,[15] and Robert M. Price.[16]

In 2006 he appeared on The Colbert Report[17] and The Daily Show,[18] to promote his book Misquoting Jesus, and in 2009 reappeared on The Colbert Report[19] with the release of Jesus, Interrupted. Ehrman has appeared on the History Channel, the National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E, Dateline NBC, CNN, and NPR's Fresh Air and his writings have been featured in Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post.

Works
Ehrman has written widely on issues of the New Testament and early Christianity at both an academic and popular level, much of it based on textual criticism of the New Testament. His thirty books include three college textbooks and six New York Times bestsellers: Misquoting Jesus,[20] Jesus, Interrupted,[21] God's Problem,[22] Forged,[23][24] How Jesus Became God,[25] and The Triumph of Christianity.[26] More than two million copies of his books have been sold, and his books have been translated into 27 languages.[27]

In The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Ehrman argues that there was a close relationship between the social history of early Christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging New Testament. He examines how early struggles between Christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected the transmission of the documents. Ehrman is often considered a pioneer in connecting the history of the early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and in coining such terms as "proto-orthodox Christianity".[28]

In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Ehrman agrees with Albert Schweitzer's thesis that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher and that his main message was that the end times was near, that God would shortly intervene to overthrow evil and establish his rule on Earth, and that Jesus and his disciples all believed these end time events would occur in their lifetimes.[29]

In Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, Ehrman expands on his list of ten historical and factual inaccuracies in Dan Brown's novel, previously incorporated in Dan Burstein's Secrets of the Code.[30]

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman introduces New Testament textual criticism. He outlines the development of New Testament manuscripts and the process and cause of manuscript errors in the New Testament.[31][32]

In Jesus, Interrupted, he describes the progress scholars have made in understanding the Bible over the past two hundred years and the results of their study, results which are often unknown among the population at large. In doing so, he highlights the diversity of views found in the New Testament, the existence of forged books in the New Testament which were written in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later, and his belief that Christian doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity were later inventions.[33][34] Though, he has changed his mind on several issues, most notably, the divinity of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.[35][36]

In Forged, Ehrman posits some New Testament books are literary forgeries and shows how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers—and how it was condemned in the ancient world as fraudulent and illicit.[37] His scholarly book, Forgery and Counterforgery, is an advanced look at the practice of forgery in the NT and early Christian literature. It makes a case for considering falsely attributed or pseudepigraphic books in the New Testament and early Christian literature "forgery", looks at why certain New Testament and early Christian works are considered forged, and describes the broader phenomenon of pseudepigraphy in the Greco-Roman world.[38]

In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, defending the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely fictitious being.[39]

The 2014 release of How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee examines the historical Jesus, who according to Ehrman neither thought of himself as God nor claimed to be God, and proffers how he came to be thought of as the incarnation of God himself.[40]

In Jesus Before the Gospels, he examines the early Christian oral tradition and its role in shaping the stories about Jesus that we encounter in the New Testament.[41]

In The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World, he notes that from the diversity of Christianity "throughout the first four Christian centuries", eventually only one form of Christianity, Nicene Christianity, became dominant under the rule of the Roman Emperor Constantine and his successors.[42]

In Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, he examines the historical development of the concepts of the afterlife throughout Greek, Jewish, and early Christian cultures, and how they eventually converged into the modern concepts of Heaven and Hell that modern Christians believe in.

Reception
Ehrman has been the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.[3]

Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known".
Wallace argues, however, that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct." For example, Wallace asserts that Ehrman himself acknowledges the vast majority of textual variants are minor, but his popular writing and speaking sometimes makes the sheer number of them appear to be a major problem for getting to the original New Testament text.[43]

Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is widely used at American colleges and universities.[44][45]
The textbook holds to a traditional interpretation of the Gospel of Thomas in the context of second-century Christian Gnosticism, a view that has been criticized by Elaine Pagels.[46]


.......
 
Last edited:

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
73,987
Reaction score
5,183
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,335
Reaction score
850
Points
315
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
He was looking for the truth
That's why he went back and studied in the original language of the texts.
Did you ever get interested in the truth, or just swallow?
IOW, if you were brought up a Hindu, THAT'S what you'd believe. Right?


`

`
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
73,987
Reaction score
5,183
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
He was looking for the truth
That's why he went back and studied in the original language of the texts.
Did you ever get interested in the truth, or just swallow?
IOW, if you were brought up a Hindu, THAT'S what you'd believe. Right?


`

`
Sure he was. That's what all wolves in sheep's clothing say.

I never made a career out of my deceit.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,645
Reaction score
1,338
Points
245
Location
Virginia
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
73,987
Reaction score
5,183
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).
No. I didn’t make it up. I deduced it from his actions.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,645
Reaction score
1,338
Points
245
Location
Virginia
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).
No. I didn’t make it up. I deduced it from his actions.
Really? Which of his actions?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
73,987
Reaction score
5,183
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).
No. I didn’t make it up. I deduced it from his actions.
Really? Which of his actions?
That he was drawn to study textual criticisms. It’s not a surprise he made a career out of it.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,645
Reaction score
1,338
Points
245
Location
Virginia
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).
No. I didn’t make it up. I deduced it from his actions.
Really? Which of his actions?
That he was drawn to study textual criticisms. It’s not a surprise he made a career out of it.
No, it's no surprise he made a career out of it. It's also no surprise you'd jump to the conclusion that no one would read and try to understand the history and context of the Bible unless they didn't believe in it.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
73,987
Reaction score
5,183
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).
No. I didn’t make it up. I deduced it from his actions.
Really? Which of his actions?
That he was drawn to study textual criticisms. It’s not a surprise he made a career out of it.
No, it's no surprise he made a career out of it. It's also no surprise you'd jump to the conclusion that no one would read and try to understand the history and context of the Bible unless they didn't believe in it.
It's not a surprise that an atheist would read the Bible and not understand it. It's also not a surprise that an atheist would think that God could be found from reading the Bible. Nor is it a surprise that an atheist would conclude that God doesn't exist from reading the Bible. God isn't a book. God is a relationship to be entered into. You aren't going to get that from a book.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,645
Reaction score
1,338
Points
245
Location
Virginia
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).
No. I didn’t make it up. I deduced it from his actions.
Really? Which of his actions?
That he was drawn to study textual criticisms. It’s not a surprise he made a career out of it.
No, it's no surprise he made a career out of it. It's also no surprise you'd jump to the conclusion that no one would read and try to understand the history and context of the Bible unless they didn't believe in it.
It's not a surprise that an atheist would read the Bible and not understand it. It's also not a surprise that an atheist would think that God could be found from reading the Bible. Nor is it a surprise that an atheist would conclude that God doesn't exist from reading the Bible. God isn't a book. God is a relationship to be entered into. You aren't going to get that from a book.
If you're talking about me, you may (or may not) be right. If you're talking about Ehrman you're completely wrong, and you don't seem to care that you are. Ehrman was a devout Christian when he began his studies and remained a believer for many years after that.

My opinion is that only an atheist could read the Bible and understand it since he brings nothing to it and injects nothing into it.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
73,987
Reaction score
5,183
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.
Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).
No. I didn’t make it up. I deduced it from his actions.
Really? Which of his actions?
That he was drawn to study textual criticisms. It’s not a surprise he made a career out of it.
No, it's no surprise he made a career out of it. It's also no surprise you'd jump to the conclusion that no one would read and try to understand the history and context of the Bible unless they didn't believe in it.
It's not a surprise that an atheist would read the Bible and not understand it. It's also not a surprise that an atheist would think that God could be found from reading the Bible. Nor is it a surprise that an atheist would conclude that God doesn't exist from reading the Bible. God isn't a book. God is a relationship to be entered into. You aren't going to get that from a book.
If you're talking about me, you may (or may not) be right. If you're talking about Ehrman you're completely wrong, and you don't seem to care that you are. Ehrman was a devout Christian when he began his studies and remained a believer for many years after that.

My opinion is that only an atheist could read the Bible and understand it since he brings nothing to it and injects nothing into it.
If he was devout his belief would have been based upon a relationship with the Creator of existence not with a relationship with words in a book. So clearly he was not devout. Apparently he is like every other atheist in that he is unable to reconcile how bad things can happen to good people.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,645
Reaction score
1,338
Points
245
Location
Virginia
If you're talking about me, you may (or may not) be right. If you're talking about Ehrman you're completely wrong, and you don't seem to care that you are. Ehrman was a devout Christian when he began his studies and remained a believer for many years after that.

My opinion is that only an atheist could read the Bible and understand it since he brings nothing to it and injects nothing into it.
If he was devout his belief would have been based upon a relationship with the Creator of existence not with a relationship with words in a book. So clearly he was not devout. Apparently he is like every other atheist in that he is unable to reconcile how bad things can happen to good people.
Maybe you can look into a man's heart, I can't.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
73,987
Reaction score
5,183
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
If you're talking about me, you may (or may not) be right. If you're talking about Ehrman you're completely wrong, and you don't seem to care that you are. Ehrman was a devout Christian when he began his studies and remained a believer for many years after that.

My opinion is that only an atheist could read the Bible and understand it since he brings nothing to it and injects nothing into it.
If he was devout his belief would have been based upon a relationship with the Creator of existence not with a relationship with words in a book. So clearly he was not devout. Apparently he is like every other atheist in that he is unable to reconcile how bad things can happen to good people.
Maybe you can look into a man's heart, I can't.
I don't need to look into his heart to know that he turned away from God because of words in a book. You are in the same boat.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top