Top Biblical Scholar Bart D. Ehrman Leaves Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ln-S7ZraUc&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]


His analysis and explanation.

Didn't that happen years ago?

My seeing the video just happened minutes ago so I'm posting now.

Sort of like watching Star Trek Enterprise for me? I wasn't watching television at the time because my stepdad was too busy looking for excuses to be a jerk. But since I haven't seen the series, with only a couple exceptions when I lived in a motel for a few months while employed for Wal-Fart and McDingleberry's simultaneously, the series is rather "new" to me.

Oh, by the way Anthony Flew, as long as this is an argument by individual example of an expert leaving the ideology for which they are an expert in.

Ah, yes... The Democratic People's Republic of Chapel Hill. Why they'd even HAVE religious studies at the university there is beyond my comprehension.

Ehrman leaving Christianity in that context is no surprise. That's a matter of academic pressure, especially given the scholastic climate of the area. I believe a true Christian can't legitimately "leave" the faith. If Ehrman really felt some kind of weakness in his faith, it would have been better for him to abandon his post at the DPRCH in favor of safer territory. Obviously his faith wasn't really that well-grounded in the first place. "Christians" like that aren't really Christians at all and never were.

Then you are denying his explicit reasons for declaring that there are so many conflicting versions of the Bible that it can no longer be accepted as reliable. You are attacking the man and the institutions instead of his declared reasons for losing his faith.
That is invalid.

Correction:

I did my homework on Ehrman's background and how he came to some of his conclusions. He had his mind made up by the time he left Princeton.

The problem with Ehrman's "criticism" about the NT is that he views everything in strictly black-and-white terms. The original words that were penned to become the NT would certainly have been inspired. What Ehrman does is take a very choice few--indeed, typically the worst case scenarios--and makes up his mind about the ENTIRE text of the Bible based on those few passages.

It is WELL KNOWN, in fact, that the last 12 verses of Mark were most likely not originally part of the text. Same thing with John 7:53-8:11. Many Christians love these stories, which is part of the reason they are still in the Bible at all, but any decent translation will point out the fact that these stories were added later on.

But his indication he was a devoted Christian before he did intense studies of the various versions of the Bible and something in his discoveries made him lose his faith seems reasonable. Are you claiming without evidence that he never was a devoted Christian?

His reasoning for leaving would be of more importance than if he were devout. If his reasoning is based off of a few choice, cherry-picked, quotations, then we might do the same with statistical samplings. Let's go to a Star Trek convention and ask how many of the Star Trek experts think there is life on other planets. Or go to a lot of Hindus and ask them what their favorite condiments for hamburgers are.

His statement indicated he found great personal social difficulties with his decision. Are you claiming he's insincere? Why would he leave if it were a mere trivial matter?

By their fruits ye shall know them.

ruveyn

Congratulations to Mr. Ehrman on his recovery.

It seems odd that he didn't figure this out BEFORE he started his PhD work.

So, in the South, you actually have a tiny island of rationality in an ocean of ignorant snake handlers?

Most colleges and universities would have some sort of religious studies classes, as part of their humanities programs. And, the classes would seek to examine religion objectively. It wouldn't be about brainwashing people into being "saved."

I was more interested in the reasons he gave rather than simply getting into a no true scotsman feedback loop.

Ehrman's views of Biblical inerrancy are hardly objective.

Basically though, AngelRho, you are arguing that a person's faith is invalid at a given point in time due to what hasn't happened at that point in time. As such, if you accept that as the mark of belief vs unbelief, you also have to accept that nobody can know whether they have saving faith or not. The reason being that the knowledge emerged from facts that did not exist at the time that one considered oneself a believer.

That being said, there is a real smell of illegitimacy with this notion, as it becomes a matter where empirical confirmation cannot exist, but rather then seems like a dogmatized revision of reality. After all, the Christian bible upholds this notion:
* That believers can be distinguished by their works

However, from what we see with ex-believers, they were indistinguishable. So, it seems to me, that there are basically two different doctrines here that have to conflict here. There is also a third doctrine, that a person can know whether they are saved or not, and this too seems to conflict. So, really, what we find is 3 different doctrines and 2 of them contradict the third based upon what we observe. It seems to me that what we end up having to consider either the doctrine of perseverance non-essential to Christianity, or we have to consider the other two doctrines (which are stated in places) non-essential, or we have to consider Christianity disproved again. Now, I will gladly take up my position to argue the two doctrines conflicting with the doctrine of perseverance and how in practice it is undeniable that they do conflict, and it is up to others to decide how they will react to this argument.