Posted on 05/15/2009 12:18:43 PM PDT by JoeProBono
Just so you know, Bart Ehrman says he's not the anti-Christ. Bart Ehrman says most of the New Testament is a forgery but it's still an important body of work. Bart Ehrman says most of the New Testament is a forgery but it's still an important body of work. He says he's not trying to destroy your faith. He's not trying to bash the Bible. And, though his mother no longer talks to him about religion, Ehrman says some of his best friends are Christian. Ehrman, a best-selling author and a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is a biblical sleuth whose investigations make some people very angry. Like the fictional Robert Langdon character played by actor Tom Hanks in the movie "Angels & Demons," he delves into the past to challenge some of Christianity's central claims. In Ehrman's latest book, "Jesus, Interrupted," he concludes: Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said. At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries. Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
He as sent up for blasphemy — and being a threat to the Empire and the Jewish religious establishment and to Herod. (The latter was the real offense in their eyes. They didn’t really care about alleged blasphemy. That was an excuse.)
Yes, I already ansered this. He was crucified and resurrected to overcome death, then he told us to do even greater things. There are numerous quotes where he says that he expects us to do as he did.
So he thinks he proves the Gospel According to John is a so-called forgery? Or does the earlier apply to the manuscripts, not to the followers? Pick up the blue copyediting phone, please.
Two Kid’s Dad: “The simple fact that there are apocryphal texts that the church voted out of the bible would seem to be a form of validation that the bible is a book by men and not the true and infallible word of a supreme being.”
Nevadan: You are mistaken. The apocryphal books of which you speak were never formally recognized by all Christians as being a part of the Bible. The books that were finalized into the Old and New Testaments occured over a long period of time. In regard to the New Testament, it was the Church leadership that decided which books NOT to INCLUDE as scripture. Their reasons for which books were included and which were rejected had to do with authenticity, historical accuracy, and whether or not the book(s) in question were regarded as “scripture” by the Church Fathers, Apostles, and the Church as a whole over a long, tested period of time. The Christian era apocryphal books that were rejected (i.e. Gospel of Thomsas, Judas, etc.) were written 200-400 years after the time of Jesus. They were composed by Gnostic Christians. Gnostics believed in all sorts of heretical ideas - such as Jesus never actually existed, or He was never really human. Their doctrinal ideas were rejected by the early church because their beliefs ran counter to established, historical Christian teachings.
The fact that the apocryphal books were written hundreds of years after the events especially cast them in a bad light with obvious questionable “authenticity”. Whereas the hundreds and thousands of New Testament manuscripts we have for the books that are included in the New Testament (such as the four Gospels and the letters of Paul, Peter, John, Jude, Hebrews, etc.) range anywhere from 50 to 100 years of when they were originally composed.
This is quite amazing considering that the existing copies we have of many “secular” ancient texts, such as Caesar’s Commentaries, are anywhere from 700 to 1000 years from the time the originals were composed.
There are several excellent books that deal with all of the questions and subjects you brought up. One thought, though, if one, for sake of argument, admits that there may be a God who is omnipotent and all powerful, then isn’t it possible that He could flood the world and get rid of the water? Couldn’t He also cause a virgin, since He created human beings to begin with, to be pregnant?
Just because one can come up with a theory as to how something occured doesn’t mean that that IS how it occured (i.e. all the 9/11 conspiracy theories).
As to your issue with God about Job - you need to read the whole book very carefully. I think you are looking at the book in a very superficial way. You will find one of the key issues of the book is that it was both God and Job’s integrety that were at stake. God had said Job was a good and faithful servant to Him. Satan claimed that Job really did not love God or truly honor Him. Satan accused Job of only honoring God because of all the blessings and protections he had received from God. If these blessings and protections were removed - Satan claimed that Job would not only turn away from God, but the he would even curse God. You may ask, “Why would God feel the need to prove to Satan that he was wrong about Job?”. To be honest, I don’t really know the whole answer to that. But, apparantly God felt this was an important enough issue to prove not only His integrity - but also that of Job’s - to His creation.
You must also understand that the book of Job is part of the “wisdom” literature of the Old Testament. It’s purpose was to tackle some tough questions. Such as - why do good people suffer? There are other “wisdom” books, such as Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. All of these books try to grapple with how to live a Godly life in a hostile and oftentimes Godless world.
In ancient times, and even today by some people, it was believed that anyone who suffered some kind of tragedy or catastrophe in their life, that it must be because they had “sinned” in some way. Even the disciples once asked Jesus what sin a blind man had done in order that he was made to be blind. Jesus said that it wasn’t because of any sin, but that God’s glory could be shown in the healing of this man. Jesus didn’t quite answer the question completely which means there are just some things that we will never completely understand. God just doesn’t tell us everything.
In closing, you’ve asked some good questions. I wish I were competent enough to answer them completely, but there are excellent books out there that delve into all these issues if you will search them out. There are online Bible study and Biblical reference materials (often free). I encourage you, if you are genuinely seeking answeres, to look them up. On the other hand, if you are not truly looking for answers, then nothing I or anyone else can say to you will matter.
I don’t speak for Professor Ehrma, but based on the book of his I read, I think he means the earliest available mauscripts.
CNN mistake, then.
Depends on the situation. I’d guess Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek and maybe even some Latin if he were a typical citizen of the day.
True, he likely spoke Aramaic, Hebrew when teaching, and the NT is written in Greek, but the writers also knew both languages and we’re with him at the time he spoke them (well except maybe for Luke). There’d be less translation error there, not to mention less problem with cultural metaphors, historical context, worldview, etc.
Between the originals and today’s Bible, sure there are errors, but you can go back to very old documents that are very close to the originals in chronology. I don’t see how this guy can honestly attest the Bible to be not true if he’s had this much study under his belt.
No, they were almost certainly NOT with him.
“The #1 requirement for all professors of religious studies is that they not be religious.”
That is not entirely true. In fact, I knew one professor of religious studies who made himself a pest by pointing out the fallacies of ecumenism, at a time when ecumenism was all the rage. This made a lot of people uncomfortable, because it pointed out that if a religion is right, other religions are not, and the majority of people are therefore “wrong”.
However, it is also not up to people to determine what it means to be right or wrong in their religion. It might mean everything, and to be wrong means to be damned; or it might be much of a muchness, as far as heaven is concerned.
But it is not up to people to decide, one way or another. The worst thing that people could do, in his mind, was to try and “blend” religions together. This is because while if it didn’t matter, then it wouldn’t matter; but in all other alternatives, it would be worse for you if you did.
So, in the final analysis, he said if you are religious, then have faith in your religion. If you do not have faith in your religion, then find another religion in which you have faith. But don’t think you can hedge your bets by mixing and matching.
One of many.
ping
It is not possible to have a discussion with you about something that you will not define. So, have a wonderful evening.
Did I ever say God was limited? Why are you asking me such a question?
In the end he’ll be debunked, not that I need to defend the Bible, because God or His Word don’t need my defense, but He’s going to find out some day how wrong he is..
Actually, Higher Criticism starts with a presumption, then filters every “analysis” through that. You might not like the fact such analyses are premised on bias and thus inherently flawed, but this is contrary to objective historical documentary analysis. Dig a little.
Matthew, Mark, and John weren’t with him?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.