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

[ding]

Freedom From Religion Foundation/FFRF

Now that's a euphemism.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Then I don't know where you're getting your information since he says exactly the opposite. According to him, the words in the book didn't turn him from God. But I guess you know better.

 

[ding]

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.

Then I don't know where you're getting your information since he says exactly the opposite. According to him, the words in the book didn't turn him from God. But I guess you know better.

Really? He believed what was written then he didn't believe what was written. How is that not because of words in a book as opposed to a relationship with the Creator of existence?

 

[bottlecap]

Christianity could not be any simpler.

There is a great, great Chasm between the Righteous of the LORD GOD and humans.

The LORD intervened in the affairs of mankind to create a Righteous Pathway to HIM.

HE sent his SON, JESUS, to redeem mankind.

JESUS would take the Sins of the World upon Himself.

An individual enters into a Blood Covenant with JESUS, becoming one entity(body of CHRIST), so one's sins are now owed by JESUS, thereby making HIS sacrifice at Calgary a legal payment of your sins.

And the great Chasm between a man or woman and the LORD GOD is entirely gone.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Then I don't know where you're getting your information since he says exactly the opposite. According to him, the words in the book didn't turn him from God. But I guess you know better.

Really? He believed what was written then he didn't believe what was written. How is that not because of words in a book as opposed to a relationship with the Creator of existence?

He had a relationship with the Creator of existence then he didn't have a relationship with the Creator of existence. The book had nothing to do with it. It was human suffering he couldn't wrap his head around, not what was written in some book.

 

[ding]

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.

Then I don't know where you're getting your information since he says exactly the opposite. According to him, the words in the book didn't turn him from God. But I guess you know better.

Really? He believed what was written then he didn't believe what was written. How is that not because of words in a book as opposed to a relationship with the Creator of existence?

He had a relationship with the Creator of existence then he didn't have a relationship with the Creator of existence. The book had nothing to do with it. It was human suffering he couldn't wrap his head around, not what was written in some book.

Doesn't sound that way to me.

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.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Then I don't know where you're getting your information since he says exactly the opposite. According to him, the words in the book didn't turn him from God. But I guess you know better.

Really? He believed what was written then he didn't believe what was written. How is that not because of words in a book as opposed to a relationship with the Creator of existence?

He had a relationship with the Creator of existence then he didn't have a relationship with the Creator of existence. The book had nothing to do with it. It was human suffering he couldn't wrap his head around, not what was written in some book.

Doesn't sound that way to me.

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.

It doesn't sound that way to you because you don't know what textual criticism is:

tex·tu·al crit·i·cism

the process of attempting to ascertain the original wording of a text.​

I would think that for somehow who believes the Bible is the word of God, they'd want to know what those words are.

 

[esalla]

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.​

[.....]​

`

LOL I thank the Lord God that your rambles make no sense to me

 

[LittleNipper]

Here are the shortcomings of EHRMAN Mathematically:

 

[jwoodie]

"Agnostic Atheist" is an oxymoron.

 

[ding]

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.

Then I don't know where you're getting your information since he says exactly the opposite. According to him, the words in the book didn't turn him from God. But I guess you know better.

Really? He believed what was written then he didn't believe what was written. How is that not because of words in a book as opposed to a relationship with the Creator of existence?

He had a relationship with the Creator of existence then he didn't have a relationship with the Creator of existence. The book had nothing to do with it. It was human suffering he couldn't wrap his head around, not what was written in some book.

Doesn't sound that way to me.

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.

It doesn't sound that way to you because you don't know what textual criticism is:

tex·tu·al crit·i·cism

the process of attempting to ascertain the original wording of a text.​

I would think that for somehow who believes the Bible is the word of God, they'd want to know what those words are.

So again... He believed what was written then he didn't believe what was written. Words in a book as opposed to a relationship with the Creator.

 

[abu afak]

LOL I thank the Lord God that your rambles make no sense to me

What doesn't make sense to you?
The Bio of Ehrman?

It's very odd (actually reassuring!) having a Voodoo religious freak who believes in the supernatural tell me my facts don't make sense to his 'lord God'!

The irony is lost due to your indoctrination.

`

 

[esalla]

LOL I thank the Lord God that your rambles make no sense to me

What doesn't make sense to you?
The Bio of Ehrman?

It's very odd (actually reassuring!) having a Voodoo religious freak who believes in the supernatural tell me my facts don't make sense to his 'lord God'!

The irony is lost due to your indoctrination.

`

Lol enjoy your voodoo chicken heads

 

[james bond]

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.

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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]


.......

Bart Ehrman was a believer at one time, but one who became an unbeliever. I don't think he was a genuine believer in the first place. In the Bible, the Apostle John directly addresses the issue of professing believers who seem to become unbelievers. Some false teachers, who had appeared to be true believers at one time, were troubling the church. He explains, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”

Although those who departed the faith had appeared to be genuine, John makes it clear that they had never actually been “of us”; one of the marks of a believer is that he “continues with us.” People may be able to “fake it” for a while, but they cannot sustain the part forever. The truth will eventually outlast their fakery. First John 3:9 says, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.” A genuine believer is kept from falling into continuous sin because he has been born of God -- God keeps him safe.

The opinion that Ehrman is crap is right.

 

[abu afak]

Bart Ehrman was a believer at one time..
Although those who departed the faith had appeared to be genuine, John makes it clear that they had never actually been “of us”; one of the marks of a believer is that he “continues with us.” People may be able to “fake it” for a while, but they cannot sustain the part forever. The truth will eventually outlast their fakery. First John 3:9 says, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.” A genuine believer is kept from falling into continuous sin because he has been born of God -- God keeps him safe.

The opinion that Ehrman is crap is right.

Circular Reasoning
CIRCULAR REASONING
circulus in demonstrando
......

Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.​

This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.​

......​

Example #2:​

​

The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.​

Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​

​

This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000.​

Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate.​

You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.”​

Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​

`

 

[james bond]

He had a relationship with the Creator of existence then he didn't have a relationship with the Creator of existence. The book had nothing to do with it. It was human suffering he couldn't wrap his head around, not what was written in some book.

He's only one Bible scholar. I would think almost all do not become agnostic atheist. Basically, he's saying one cannot know about the presence of a deity due to no faith and then he claims to be an atheist due to faith in no God/gods. He sounds like a confused scholar.

 

[james bond]

Bart Ehrman was a believer at one time..
Although those who departed the faith had appeared to be genuine, John makes it clear that they had never actually been “of us”; one of the marks of a believer is that he “continues with us.” People may be able to “fake it” for a while, but they cannot sustain the part forever. The truth will eventually outlast their fakery. First John 3:9 says, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.” A genuine believer is kept from falling into continuous sin because he has been born of God -- God keeps him safe.

The opinion that Ehrman is crap is right.

Circular Reasoning
CIRCULAR REASONING
circulus in demonstrando
......

Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.​

This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.​

......​

Example #2:​

​

The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.​

Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.​

​

This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000.​

Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate.​

You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.”​

Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​

`

You would easily accept this false reasoning, but we have Jesus' apostles and followers who have backed up what are the inspired word of God and even the different writers confirm each other in that the entire work is unified. We have interactions between humans and God. God and Moses starts off the Bible and from it comes God's word of his authority and power. There are no contradictions in it until we got the Antibible of evolution; The Antibible mysteriously contradicts everything that is word of God. Does Ehrman discuss reading the Antibible?

 

[ESay]

HE sent his SON, JESUS, to redeem mankind.

So, God and 'his son' aren't the same and 'the son' is subjugated to 'the father'.

 

[alang1216]

"Agnostic Atheist" is an oxymoron.

That is just what I consider myself. How was the universe created? I don't know, maybe there is a creator, maybe there isn't. That makes me agnostic. Is there a God that parted the Red Sea or came to earth to die for our sins? Those I'm 100% sure are false. That makes me an atheist. Ehrman explains himself differently but that is mine.

 

[alang1216]

He had a relationship with the Creator of existence then he didn't have a relationship with the Creator of existence. The book had nothing to do with it. It was human suffering he couldn't wrap his head around, not what was written in some book.

He's only one Bible scholar. I would think almost all do not become agnostic atheist. Basically, he's saying one cannot know about the presence of a deity due to no faith and then he claims to be an atheist due to faith in no God/gods. He sounds like a confused scholar.

I think he'd agree with the former but not the latter. Although you've managed to confuse me.