CrabCake said:
No, disgruntled meaning he has an axe to grind; he dislikes the movement, feels hurt by it, and is committed to speaking out against it (.his own admission). That's the very definition of an axe to grind; something you incorrectly claimed he doesn't have.
No longer believing in the god myth is far more basic - and logical - than "disgruntled."
Still a ridiculous characterization.
He read enough gibberish to know.. it was gibberish.
I am not "disgruntled" with Judaism. I am culturally still one and proud of it and it's history.
But by the time I was 17/18 I realized that it and other religions were total BS.
When you are in a tiny religion, that Realization comes quicker and more easily than when everyone for 1000 miles around and their whole lives are church-based.
And as I said, Unanswered...
What religion you are is 95% a Geographic/Cultural Accident of Birth, NOT any discernable truth.
Diving into/expertise in the Bhagvad Gita also won't give any real-world truth even though you are an [oooh] "insider".
If you have basic perspective, it's obviously rather comical.
What "facts"?
CrabCake said:
You're right. I was assuming a certain level of knowledge about him and about the field that you obviously do not have. I did, however, provide names of some of the experts who have rebutted his arguments.. You can disregard everything I say if you'd like as well, but you'd be making a mistake. I haven't made any statements at all that are a matter of opinion; everything I have stated is fact...
People don't "rebut" religious doctrine arguments.
There's virtually no archaelogy here, and not enough outside history.
Like tosca, a believer, you are confused about the the nature of this debate and divinity of Christ outside the bible. There is None.
So there can be no real "rebuttal".
CrabCake said:
There's nothing special about that link, it's just the first one that came up when I googled "ehrman how jesus became god criticism" (without the quotes). But it looks like a fine place to start and provides links to more in-depth articles.
It's a superb Resume by any standard, and equal to Your aforementioned Tyson's.
CrabCake said:
Truthfully, I don't know how you come to understand all of this as an outsider. As someone involved in that community, I take a lot of things for granted that someone breaking into it from the outside obviously can't (like the fact that Ehrman's work is a widely discredited fringe position)...
The 'logic'/Appeal to Authority Fallacy here being only believers can understand the debate.
Of course, looking at the Macro-view, there is No proof of the divinity of Christ outside the bible.
A bunch of people are arguing 'inside baseball' when there's No proof this particular game ever took place!
You have the illusion you/we are dealing with "refutable" "facts". We are dealing with the tea leaves of contradictory religious texts.
Sometimes an outsider's logical macro-view is better than that of a Believer's... Faith/BS.
CrabCake said:
You have a very naive world view if you really believe that people who are religious have an axe to grind while people who aren't don't.
Your axe IS that you believe.
As if there was any question after your illogical and hostile posts.
You are certain of UNcertainty. Blind Faith.
You are obviously unaware of this handicap in an objective discussion.
Thankfully, Ehrman has been de-programmed.
mbig said:
Again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
...
Looks alot Like Neal Degrasse Tyson to me.
Maybe More credentialed.
Acclaim Throughout his Field and beyond it, with 5 NYT Best Sellers to boot...
[....]
CrabCake said:
It seems you missed the point of that comparison. Let me try it again.
Neal Degrasse Tyson and Dr Oz are both experts in their field. The difference between listening to Neal Degrasse Tyson talking about black holes and Dr. Oz talking..
Ehrman is the author/editor of 28 books including three mainline textbooks, and other Standard Christian religious References accepted by the Mainstream body of Christianity. (unlike Oz)
and too many Publishing and Media MSM to re-mention. See my last, now cut short.
CrabCake said:
Now, that's not a judgment on my part. It's just a statement of fact. Bart Ehrman's views on this issue contradict the consensus within the professional community. Just like Dr. Oz' views on alternative medicine often contradict the medical community's views....
Of Course he contradicts the consensus: He is now a nonbeliever, unchained by a hypnotic faith, and bound to stir their Ire at challenging of their whole belief system/raison.
But again, unlike Oz (but like Tyson) he is an acknowldged expert by Mainstream Christian orgs and has written/edited many STANDARD and accepted Texts, and Chaired/Co-chaired many standard Orgs.