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

mbig · Dec 29, 2015

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.
[.....]

CrabCake · Dec 30, 2015

mbig said:
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.

I think it's important to note that, within the community of New Testament scholars, the particular re-interpretation of history promoted by Ehrman in this talk* is not mainstream. These particular views have, in fact, faced some fairly devastating and thorough rebuttals from the likes of: N.T. Wright, Larry Hurtado, David Capes, and Craig Evans, all of whom are also considered among the world's foremost experts on New Testament Christianity and several of whom have also been called "among the most renowned" in the field.

So, while you are correct when citing the fact that Ehrman is a genuine New Testament scholar; it's important that people who listen to this understand what they are listening to. They are not listening to a New Testament scholar who is explaining the current state of research in the field or expounding on widely accepted ideas within that field. They are listening to a New Testament scholar pushing a pet theory that has been widely panned by the vast majority of his contemporaries.

*I have not actually watched/listened to the youtube video in question. I am assuming it won't hold anything new to someone already familiar with Ehrman's work.

mbig · Dec 30, 2015

CrabCake said:
I think it's important to note that, within the community of New Testament scholars, the particular re-interpretation of history promoted by Ehrman in this talk* is not mainstream. These particular views have, in fact, faced some fairly devastating and thorough rebuttals from the likes of: N.T. Wright, Larry Hurtado, David Capes, and Craig Evans, all of whom are also considered among the world's foremost experts on New Testament Christianity and several of whom have also been called "among the most renowned" in the field.

So, while you are correct when citing the fact that Ehrman is a genuine New Testament scholar; it's important that people who listen to this understand what they are listening to. They are not listening to a New Testament scholar who is explaining the current state of research in the field or expounding on widely accepted ideas within that field. They are listening to a New Testament scholar pushing a pet theory that has been widely panned by the vast majority of his contemporaries.

*I have not actually watched/listened to the youtube video in question. I am assuming it won't hold anything new to someone already familiar with Ehrman's work.

As one of the small minority of Atheist/Agnostics in his field, Ehrman, has no Axe to Grind/Nor god to defend, and is free to pursue the facts where they take him. And he certainly has as many of the facts as anyone.
So I doubt his ideas, even if quite well reasoned, will ever be Mainstream among among those/most whose livelihood depends staying religious, and who are Not free to do so.

Though *I know little-to-Nothing about the NT*, I doubt his ideas have "faced some fairly devastating and thorough rebuttals", as much as strong "disagreement" from the majority of Religious.. Religious scholars.
Because we may not be talking as much 'history' here, as logical conclusions from what is at least in part myth/legend/devotionalism. Again, I think as one of the few non-religious he has the advantage in credibility.

The talk and short questions session, is surprising in it's criticisms/suggestions to Atheists/Agnostics as well.

I saw several of the Religious posters here start watching and then Vanish after/into '20 minute' inactivity zone.
I was expecting them to come out firing about an hour later, but... silence.
Thanks for your response with what you see as the context of his remarks.

CrabCake · Dec 30, 2015

mbig said:
As one of the small minority of Atheist/Agnostics in his field, Ehrman, has no Axe to Grind/Nor god to defend, and is free to pursue the facts where they take him.

That is incorrect. As an atheist who consistently speaks out against evangelicalism and admits to being disgruntled at the fundamentalism he came from, he does indeed have an axe to grind as his work consistently shows. His material written for lay people (not as much his professional work) is consistently designed to push an atheist/agnostic agenda. He is more partisan about this than many of his contemporaries (both religious and atheist).

In addition, it's important to note that his contemporaries who have widely panned this theory include both Christians and other agnostics in the fiield.

mbig said:
And he certainly has as many of the facts as anyone.
So I doubt his ideas, even if quite well reasoned, will ever be Mainstream among among those/most whose livelihood depends staying religious, and who are Not free to do so.

You speak as if New Testament scholars need to be religious and he's some kine of lone wolf. This isn't the case. The non-religious scholars in the field, as well as the liberal Christians (two groups that would have no theological problem with his idea) have panned it as well. His idea isn't bad because of some theological implications, it's bad because it doesn't seem to match the evidence.

mbig said:
Though *I know little-to-Nothing about the NT*, I doubt his ideas have "faced some fairly devastating and thorough rebuttals", as much as strong "disagreement" from the majority of Religious.. Religious scholars.
Because we may not be talking as much 'history' here, as logical conclusions from what is at least in part myth/legend/devotionalism. Again, I think as one of the few non-religious he has the advantage in credibility.

No, it has in fact received quite devastating and thorough rebuttals. The problem is that this isn't a matter of philosophy but of history. Ehrman is an expert in textual criticism and form criticism, where he has made genuine contributions to the field. He is not an expert in history and has made no contributions to that field. Thus, in this work he strayed far from his field of expertise and found himself firmly (and correctly) rebutted by people who really are experts in that field. In this work, he builds a house of cards upon misunderstandings of history and culture that others have since corrected him on, causing the whole house of cards to collapse. His theory requires the existence of a world of myth that others have shown probably never existed. He also makes considerable blunders on which he rests large parts of his theory, regarding for example the second temple understanding of the term "son of man", or the christology of Paul. Wisely, he marketed this book to lay people and continues to market those ideas to lay people as a sort of apology of atheism because in an academic setting it just doesn't work.

mbig said:
I saw several of the Religious posters here start watching and then Vanish after/into '20 minute' inactivity zone.
I was expecting them to come out firing about an hour later, but... silence.
Thanks for your response with what you see as the context of his remarks.

I think it's great that people watch this. The more people think about Jesus, the better.

However, it's important that when people watch this they realize what type of discussion they are seeing. Many people might imagine this is like watching someone like Neal Degrasse Tyson expound on science. They might think they are getting reliable information widely accepted to be factual in an entertaining, engaging format that helps them understand the current state of scientific research in that field. If you don't know any better, that's what you might think you are watching. Instead, this is more like watching Dr. Oz describe alternative medicine treatments; yes, he's a genuine doctor of some renown who does teach at one of the most prestigious universities, but he's not giving you the current state of research in his field, he's pushing fringe beliefs that are widely panned within his industry.

Casper · Dec 30, 2015

mbig said:
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.
[.....]

NO ONE has Freedom FROM Religion, period. Don't like it, too bad.

mbig · Dec 30, 2015

CrabCake said:
That is incorrect. As an atheist who consistently speaks out against evangelicalism and admits to being disgruntled at the fundamentalism he came from, he does indeed have an axe to grind as his work consistently shows. His material written for lay people (not as much his professional work) is consistently designed to push an atheist/agnostic agenda. He is more partisan about this than many of his contemporaries (both religious and atheist).

"Disgruntled" meaning he found out 2+2=4 instead of, as most, Never freeing themselves from the Inborn Indoctrination.
There is NO Christitianity without that Indoctrination.
What religion you are is 95% a Geographic/Cultural Accident of Birth than CANNOT be discerned independendly.
Maybe, while studying, he noticed there are other 'gods.'

Crab Cake said:
You speak as if New Testament scholars need to be religious and he's some kine of lone wolf. This isn't the case. The non-religious scholars in the field, as well as the liberal Christians (two groups that would have no theological problem with his idea) have panned it as well...contributions to the field. He is not an expert in history and has made no contributions to that field. Thus, in this work he strayed.. His theory requires the existence of a world of myth.....

You have provided NO sources for your Claims about his [lack] of historical knowledge (!), or the nature of those who have "panned/rebutted" him.
ZIP.

CrabCake said:
I think it's great that people watch this. The more people think about Jesus, the better.

Well, your Axe to Grind IS out of the bag.
So we can put your Undocumented claims/hostility into perspective.

CrabCake said:
However, it's important that when people watch this they realize what type of discussion they are seeing. Many people might imagine this is like watching someone like Neal Degrasse Tyson expound on science. They might think they are getting reliable information widely accepted to be factual in an entertaining, engaging format that helps them understand the current state of scientific research in that field. If you don't know any better, that's what you might think you are watching. Instead, this is more like watching Dr. Oz..

Again:

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.
[.....]
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.[3]

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).[3]

Ehrman speaks extensively throughout the United States and has participated in many public debates, including debates with William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'Souza, Mike Licona, Craig A. Evans, Daniel B. Wallace, Richard Swinburne, Peter J. Williams, James White, Darrell Bock and Michael L. Brown.

In 2006 and 2009 he appeared on The Colbert Report,[4][5] as well as The Daily Show,[6] to promote his books Misquoting Jesus, and Jesus, Interrupted (respectively).

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.[7]
[.....]

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.

tosca1 · Dec 30, 2015

mbig said:
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.
[.....]

I stopped listening after his first two sentences. :roll:

Anyway, I never heard of the guy.....so I googled. Here's one critique of him (a very long and quite detailed article). It's about his book,
"Misquoting Jesus." I'll just post the conclusion:

Dr. Bart Ehrman claims that the New Testament has been altered by scribes and religious leaders to reflect their own brand of religious belief.
However, a critique of Dr. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, shows that he grossly exaggerates New Testament textual differences and fails to cite textual critics who disagree with his undocumented claims about possible changes.
Contrary to Dr. Ehrman's assertions, it is clear that the New Testament canon was already accepted by the Church by the early second century, and textual comparison shows that no major doctrinal statements were changed or added after that time.

Misquoting Jesus: Does Bart Ehrman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?

tosca1 · Dec 30, 2015

mbig said:
As one of the small minority of Atheist/Agnostics in his field, Ehrman, has no Axe to Grind/Nor god to defend, and is free to pursue the facts where they take him. And he certainly has as many of the facts as anyone.

Well.....we don't know for sure if indeed he has no ax to grind. No, he has no god to defend....but it seems he has a God in mind, whom he wants to bring down.

Here's the comment from one of the reviewers of his books:

At the end of that review, I concluded with these words:

[Ehrman] regularly goes beyond what the evidence can sustain. For this reason the book, like many of his others, comes across as more autobiographical than academic; more polemical than historical. Ehrman still seems to be chasing the ghosts of his evangelical past. One wonders how many more books he will need to write before they go away.

As to how many more books Ehrman feels the need to write, apparently the answer is (at least) one more. This new book, How Jesus Became God, has very much the same feel as all of Ehrman's other books. It is a heavy dose of his de-conversion story coupled with arguments about how mainstream scholarship has disproven some major tenet of the Christian faith--in this instance, the belief that Jesus is God. And, just like in his book Forged, Ehrman regularly goes beyond what the evidence can sustain, giving the reader the impression that there is more in play here than just neutral, objective, historical investigation.

- See more at: How Jesus Became God: A Review - Reformation21

So I doubt his ideas, even if quite well reasoned, will ever be Mainstream among among those/most whose livelihood depends staying religious, and who are Not free to do so.

He seemed to have found a niche in book writing. If one goes to all the trouble of writing that many books on a particular subject, I'm inclined to think it's worth it - monetarily speaking. Perhaps, his target audience are those disgruntled with Christianity, and anti-Christian secularists who'd only be happy to smugly say, "See?"

Though *I know little-to-Nothing about the NT*, I doubt his ideas have "faced some fairly devastating and thorough rebuttals", as much as strong "disagreement" from the majority of Religious.. Religious scholars.

There were some critiques. Perhaps the reason why there seems to be not that many rebuttals....is because he didn't provide challenge enough for anyone to really get into it , mano-a-mano. Mind you, I don't know if he ever got really involved in a debate, like I've said....never heard of him. By the sound of the couple of critiques I saw.....he didn't sound that convincing.

Because we may not be talking as much 'history' here, as logical conclusions from what is at least in part myth/legend/devotionalism. Again, I think as one of the few non-religious he has the advantage in credibility.

I don't think credibility is validated depending if one is religious or not. Credibility is gained by your presentation - proving you know what you're talking about, and being able to defend your position. That's what got Dawkins sinking fast -remember? When he wrote the God Delusion, he got so many flak for it.....and to make it worse, he refused to defend it when challenged by William Lane Craig.

I saw several of the Religious posters here start watching and then Vanish after/into '20 minute' inactivity zone.
I was expecting them to come out firing about an hour later, but... silence.
Thanks for your response with what you see as the context of his remarks.

Perhaps they never heard about him? I just read this today.....never heard of him.
Besides, there's so many authors who write anti-Christian books this days....so many who want to debunk Christianity. That's been going on for ages.
But seems, more so today.

How many atheists went on to do their investigative findings to prove this and that against Christianity - only to have some of them ended up converting to Christianity? So I can imagine folks getting fatigued about new authors or new books coming out against Christianity!

tosca1 · Dec 30, 2015

Originally Posted by mbig View Post

As one of the small minority of Atheist/Agnostics in his field, Ehrman, has no Axe to Grind/Nor god to defend, and is free to pursue the facts where they take him. And he certainly has as many of the facts as anyone.

tosca1

Well.....we don't know for sure if indeed he has no ax to grind. No, he has no god to defend....but it seems he has a God in mind, whom he wants to bring down.

Click to expand...

Here's another review of one of his books, AND apparently a refutation too!
No, I never read this refutation, and am not familiar with this site, but you might be interested:

Over the years, Bart Ehrman has produced several books; a couple have been relatively non-controversial, but most have not. In those that have provoked controversy, there has always been an underlying lack of forthrightness in the way Ehrman conducts his business.

In some cases Ehrman has abused his authority as a popular author to address topics on which he is not an expert. God's Problem is a classical full-text example of this; Ehrman is not a philosopher and has no business addressing the "problem of evil." In other texts, Ehrman has ranged outside his specialty field (textual criticism) to comment on matters on which he is (compared to other Biblical scholars) badly informed, such as theology and Biblical exegesis. And even when it does come to his specialty, he has repeatedly been dishonest to the extent that he fails to tell the "whole story." This is especially disgraceful inasmuch as a clear dichotomy can be found in how he presents the truth in his more academic works, versus how he presents only as much truth as he wants readers to see in his popular works.

With Jesus, Interrupted Ehrman has stepped far over the line of intellectual honesty and decency, using his platform as a popular author to disseminate much that he surely knows is incomplete and misleading information. The benefit of the doubt is now exhausted. Despite his pretense at scholarship, Bart Ehrman has proven himself, by this book, to be someone not in the least interested in truth, but only in using whatever means are necessary to deconvert as many Christians as possible.

For this reason, I have elected to present as a special edition of the E-Block a thorough refutation of Jesus, Interrupted. Yes, there is also the factor that as predicted, many Skeptics are practically wetting themselves over this one, though it contains nothing new and nothing that has not been refuted before, especially on this site. But primarily, it is Ehrman's lack of intellectual honesty that is the problem here. He is abusing his public trust, and so a response is warranted which publicly shames him for his despicable absues of that trust in Jesus, Interrupted.

Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted -- Detailed Refutation

Somerville · Dec 30, 2015

tosca1 said:
I stopped listening after his first two sentences. :roll:

Anyway, I never heard of the guy.....so I googled. Here's one critique of him (a very long and quite detailed article). It's about his book,
"Misquoting Jesus." I'll just post the conclusion:

Dr. Bart Ehrman claims that the New Testament has been altered by scribes and religious leaders to reflect their own brand of religious belief.
However, a critique of Dr. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, shows that he grossly exaggerates New Testament textual differences and fails to cite textual critics who disagree with his undocumented claims about possible changes.
Contrary to Dr. Ehrman's assertions, it is clear that the New Testament canon was already accepted by the Church by the early second century, and textual comparison shows that no major doctrinal statements were changed or added after that time.

Misquoting Jesus: Does Bart Ehrman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?

The following statement is utter nonsense -- " it is clear that the New Testament canon was already accepted by the Church by the early second century, and textual comparison shows that no major doctrinal statements were changed or added after that time. "

We do not have ANY early Second Century texts that may be compared with other versions. The oldest complete (almost, though it also holds some texts now seen as apocryphal) is the Codex Sinaiticus which is dated to the Fourth Century. The earliest quotes, not paraphrasing, from the four Gospels is found in the writings of Irenaeus' - Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses) c. 180 CE

As scholars have known for years, there was no single "Church" in the Second Century, so that alone makes it a bit difficult to support the supposed acceptance of the New Testament texts by "the Church"

Prof Ehrman has made some mistakes in some of his books but the majority of his critics are True Believers who use the tactics of Christian apologists in their attempts to refute some of his basic points while ignoring many others. For example, on the site linked to by tosca, I read the following: -- "Craig Blomberg points out there are more than 5000 manuscripts available in Greek to help identify textual variants and move close to the original text." This is a common statement by apologists - just one problem, more than 90% of the "5000 manuscripts" are dated later than the Tenth Century.

There are TWO fragments that are positively dated to the Second Century, there are six more with dates from the mid Second to the early Third, there are Thirty texts on papyrus definitely dated to the Third Century with Ten more placed in the Third Century by some scholars and the early Fourth by others. Fortyfour are dated to the Fourth Century. In total, of the "5000 manuscripts", fewer than 370 are dated to periods earlier than the Tenth century

mbig · Dec 30, 2015

tosca1 said:
I stopped listening after his first two sentences. :roll:
...

Figures, but you are almost certainly Lying.. again.
And you are NONresponsive to what he said, just dredged up two wack jobs (of undoubtedly 100) who disagree with his book, but don't know what he said in the lecture
NOR do YOU.

In those "two sentences.."
He just basically thanks the crowd, and remarks that he's not usually speaking before Atheists.

So, of course, you won't even listen to someone of differing opinion, despite his OUTSTANDING credentials.
Nothing like intellectual curiosity!
If someone THAT accomplished had a different or opposite opinion on mine, I would be Delighted/Privileged to listen.
(providing it's not some indoctrinated psychotic from AnswersInGenecyst)

ALL your [Rigid, Butterfly Net] fundmentalist posts are in Complete Denial, and if you never listen to other side - which you won't - you'll never be able to take your beliefs any further.
Ehrman remarks several times that he just wants everyone to have more informed beliefs, Christian or not.
His wife IS a Believer and Shakespeare scholar.

You feel you have to 'refute' everything, but the fact is you can only "disagree" because you have NO proof of your god, nor even Evidence of such.
and Never will.
So, Bottom Line?
The debate is, and always will be, Unwinnable for you.
The vast majority of your fellow believers are savvy enough to realize this and don't try.

CrabCake · Dec 30, 2015

mbig said:
"Disgruntled" meaning he found out 2+2=4 instead of, as most, Never freeing themselves from the Inborn Indoctrination.

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 (by his own admission). That's the very definition of an axe to grind; something you incorrectly claimed he doesn't have.

mbig said:
You have provided NO sources for your Claims about his [lack] of historical knowledge (!), or the nature of those who have "panned/rebutted" him.
ZIP.

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. If this topic truly interests you, you can start googling to find some of that information. 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. It is a fact that he has made no professional contributions to any of the history related fields, but is instead an expert on textual and form criticism. It is a fact that his views on this topic are fringe opinions that have been thoroughly rebutted and find no support anywhere else in the scholarly community. It is a fact he chooses to promote his ideas to lay audiences.

Feel free to disregard what I say and pretend I'm making it all up if you wish. But you'd be discarding facts.

I'll give a link just in case you're particularly lazy: How Jesus Became God: A Critical Review | Strange Notions

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.

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). It's not that the information isn't out there, but that I don't know how someone who hasn't been following the discussion all along gets up to speed on it. But surely, if it interests you, you can start with google, this is one of the few fields of study where many of the luminaries (including Bart Ehrman himself) have blogs that are open to the public (although not always for free, Ehrman charges about $25 a year for access to his).

mbig said:
Well, your Axe to Grind IS out of the bag.

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.

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.

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 about an alternative medicine therapy is NOT that one is credentialed and the other is not. The difference is that one of them is sharing the consensus of the experts in his field with you while the other is pushing a widely discredited pet theory that the experts in his field vehemently disagree with him on. When you listen to Ehrman speaking on this particular topic, you are listening to the latter, not the former.

Bart Ehrman on this particular topic, is more like Dr. Oz pushing alternative medicine, than like Tyson sharing the scientific consensus with you.

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. Could he still be right and everyone else wrong? Of course. But I just want people who listen to him to understand that they aren't listening to the consensus in the field of NT studies; they are listening to a fringe opinion.

mbig · Dec 31, 2015

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.

CrabCake · Dec 31, 2015

mbig said:
What "facts"?

People don't "rebut" religious doctrine arguments.

Had Bart Ehrman written something on theology, you would have a point. But he wrote on history. Actual historians have rebutted his claims and shown that there is no evidence that the world he conjures up ever existed. They have also shown that his view of Pauls Christology is clearly wrong and that he makes many errors about things such as what the term "son of man" meant during second temple judaism. There are many historical claims he makes which have been thoroughly rebutted. Thus, his theories rely on a world that very few, if any, historians actually believe ever existed. His individual findings can be shown to be based on assumptions that are invalid.

mbig said:
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".

No, it would seem you are confused.

We do have extensive written records from the first century and even earlier that help us paint a picture of what second temple Judaism was like. We have many sources we can draw from to cobble together an image of society at the time. When we do so, we find that the world Bart Ehrman paints never existed. Again, this isn't something only Christians make up. This is the consensus in the field from all experts, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc. Bart Ehrman is the lone dissenting voice.

mbig said:
The 'logic'/Appeal to Authority Fallacy here being only believers can understand the debate.

Actually, the appeal to authority fallacy was yours. What I did was debunk it.

Let's take a look:
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Let's hone in on the third qualifier:

Nizkor said:
If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert.

That was actually the crux of my argument. You were citing his credentials in an attempt to appeal to authority. I pointed out that his view is not the consensus, but rather a minority opinion. Thus appealing to Bart Ehrman's authority on this topic is fallacious. In other words, bringing up his credentials does absolutely nothing to further your point. Every time you have done so, you have been appealing to authority fallaciously.

mbig said:
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.

You are grossly misrepresenting the claims being made. Bart Ehrman's theory relies on a specific world view being true. We have an incredible amount of literature from the time period. It all seems to contradict him. If we can prove that his world view is incorrect; that people did not hold the "clash of the titans" mythological worldview he seems to think they held, then the bulk of his theory falls apart. The world he requires for his theory to have been true never existed. We don't even have to approach the bible to make this case.

mbig said:
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.

Which is a fallacious and thus irrelevant statement since you are referring to a position that contradicts the majority opinion in his field (see Nizkor).

mbig said:
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.

He doesn't just contradict the consensus among religious New Testament scholars, but the consensus among all NT scholars. That includes Christians, Muslims, Agnostics, and all the rest.

mbig said:
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.

Dr. Oz is a professor at Columbia, an Ivy League university. Again...you missed the point of the comparison.

dimensionallava · Dec 31, 2015

i read a couple of erhmans books, he tries to define the "historical jesus" which is basically a jesus without all the magic powers and miracles. I don't believe jesus ever existed i think hes just a combination of different myths and legends retold and rewritten over centuries

tosca1 · Dec 31, 2015

Somerville said:
The following statement is utter nonsense -- " it is clear that the New Testament canon was already accepted by the Church by the early second century, and textual comparison shows that no major doctrinal statements were changed or added after that time. "

We do not have ANY early Second Century texts that may be compared with other versions. The oldest complete (almost, though it also holds some texts now seen as apocryphal) is the Codex Sinaiticus which is dated to the Fourth Century. The earliest quotes, not paraphrasing, from the four Gospels is found in the writings of Irenaeus' - Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses) c. 180 CE

As scholars have known for years, there was no single "Church" in the Second Century, so that alone makes it a bit difficult to support the supposed acceptance of the New Testament texts by "the Church"

Prof Ehrman has made some mistakes in some of his books but the majority of his critics are True Believers who use the tactics of Christian apologists in their attempts to refute some of his basic points while ignoring many others. For example, on the site linked to by tosca, I read the following: -- "Craig Blomberg points out there are more than 5000 manuscripts available in Greek to help identify textual variants and move close to the original text." This is a common statement by apologists - just one problem, more than 90% of the "5000 manuscripts" are dated later than the Tenth Century.

There are TWO fragments that are positively dated to the Second Century, there are six more with dates from the mid Second to the early Third, there are Thirty texts on papyrus definitely dated to the Third Century with Ten more placed in the Third Century by some scholars and the early Fourth by others. Fortyfour are dated to the Fourth Century. In total, of the "5000 manuscripts", fewer than 370 are dated to periods earlier than the Tenth century

You misunderstand what "the Church," is.

Sure there were many churches in the first two centuries - but they were all Christian churches. When they say "the CHURCH" in those days -
it meant Christians. Scholars know that!

I don't think there was a single church in the first century either - several churches were established and being established - that's how Christianity spread.

tosca1 · Dec 31, 2015

mbig said:
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.

However, he strayed from his profession (I forgot exactly what it was but it has to do with texts?), and went on to become a quasi-Philiosopher, and did his own not unlikely agenda-driven writing of books.

He's just another author who peddles materials for a certain target group - just like Dawkins targets the disgruntled, and anti-religion folks.

tosca1 · Dec 31, 2015

mbig said:
Figures, but you are almost certainly Lying.. again.
And you are NONresponsive to what he said, just dredged up two wack jobs (of undoubtedly 100) who disagree with his book, but don't know what he said in the lecture
NOR do YOU.

In those "two sentences.."
He just basically thanks the crowd, and remarks that he's not usually speaking before Atheists.

Did you hear his first two sentences? Go back and tell me what you heard. Let's compare notes.

As to being non-responsive - I gave you some leads to start. You're the one interested in him - not me.
If you are, then you should study what his critiques are saying about him and his work - the very first source I gave you (From God and Science), gave an article that named some people who gave their comments about his books. Read those.
(I'm not familiar with the other 2 sites I gave you - but I'm familiar with God and Science).

It seems to me that you are still searching for truth, but you're hoping the truth would be what you are hoping for.
So, see what they have to say about his works.

Besides, his first two sentences somehow already gave me a poor impression of him. I might want to dabble with it later, or maybe not.....

tosca1 · Dec 31, 2015

mbig said:
ALL your [Rigid, Butterfly Net] fundmentalist posts are in Complete Denial, and if you never listen to other side - which you won't - you'll never be able to take your beliefs any further.
Ehrman remarks several times that he just wants everyone to have more informed beliefs, Christian or not.

How do you know that he's informed? Because, he says the things you like to hear......

Dr. Ehrman’s bleak outlook of the text is not shared by the majority of textual critics.

Daniel Wallace PhD, a fellow textual critic, is quick to point out, that, “Here (chapter 2) Ehrman mixes standard text-critical information with his own interpretation, an interpretation that is by no means shared by all textual critics, nor even most of them.”18

In Misquoting Jesus and on primetime television, Dr. Ehrman deceptively leads the audience to believe his questionable interpretation is how all or the great majority textual critics view the scribal process.

In The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Dr. Blomberg counters that, “one of the better kept secrets”19 is “how reliable the New Testament documents are.”20
In Misquoting Jesus, Dr. Ehrman never references conservative counterpoints, like Drs. Wallace or Blomberg, to his assertions, though he does consistently bring up more liberal counterpoints to make himself look more moderate.

Misquoting Jesus: Does Bart Ehrman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?

Who is Dr Daniel Wallace? Here's his bio:

Senior Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary (has taught there for more than 28 years) and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. He earned a B.A. at Biola University (1975) with a major in biblical studies and minor in Greek; graduated magna cum laude from Dallas Seminary with a ThM degree (1979), with the equivalent of a major in Old Testament studies and a double major in New Testament Studies; graduated summa cum laude from Dallas Seminary with a PhD in New Testament studies (1995). He has done postdoctoral study at Tyndale House, Christ’s College, Clare College, and Westminster College, Cambridge; the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (Institute for New Testament Textual Research), Münster, Germany, Tübingen University; Glasgow University; Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Bavarian State Library), Munich; as well as various libraries and monasteries in Europe, Australia, America, and Africa.

Bio | Daniel B. Wallace

That's not all. The bio lists various awards, and other involvements which is too long to post!

His wife IS a Believer and Shakespeare scholar.

SO WHAT? She can also be the President of the USA! That's irrelevant!

We're not talking about his wife!What's his wife got to do with his credentials?

You feel you have to 'refute' everything, but the fact is you can only "disagree" because you have NO proof of your god, nor even Evidence of such.
and Never will. So, Bottom Line?
The debate is, and always will be, Unwinnable for you.
The vast majority of your fellow believers are savvy enough to realize this and don't try.

Well, I beg to disagree.

Somerville · Jan 2, 2016

tosca1 said:
You misunderstand what "the Church," is.

Sure there were many churches in the first two centuries - but they were all Christian churches. When they say "the CHURCH" in those days -
it meant Christians. Scholars know that!

I don't think there was a single church in the first century either - several churches were established and being established - that's how Christianity spread.

Sorry - you know not whereof you write. In the Pauline and neo-Pauline Epistles, there are warnings about false teachers and prophets. In the First Century, there were several very different Christian churches. You had the Jerusalem-based church which followed all of the Jewish laws including circumcision for all males. You had Docetists and Gnostics, you had the Pauline Grecian churches - which ended up being the basis for what we know as Christianity today.

Irenaeus knew personally of at least 20 different forms of 'Christianity' by the mid Second Century. Epiphanus, writing in the late Fourth Century, described more than eighty different faiths which called themselves Christian.

tosca1 · Jan 3, 2016

Somerville said:
Sorry - you know not whereof you write. In the Pauline and neo-Pauline Epistles, there are warnings about false teachers and prophets. In the First Century, there were several very different Christian churches. You had the Jerusalem-based church which followed all of the Jewish laws including circumcision for all males. You had Docetists and Gnostics, you had the Pauline Grecian churches - which ended up being the basis for what we know as Christianity today.

Irenaeus knew personally of at least 20 different forms of 'Christianity' by the mid Second Century. Epiphanus, writing in the late Fourth Century, described more than eighty different faiths which called themselves Christian.

Yes there were those false teachers....but when you say, "the church," it's understood that you're referring to THE CHURCH - CHRISTIAN CHURCH - established by the Apostles and disciples - adhering to what the Apostles had taught.

You were talking about the second century.....so late 4th century is irrelevant, right?

Somerville · Jan 3, 2016

tosca1 said:
Yes there were those false teachers....but when you say, "the church," it's understood that you're referring to THE CHURCH - CHRISTIAN CHURCH - established by the Apostles and disciples - adhering to what the Apostles had taught.

You were talking about the second century.....so late 4th century is irrelevant, right?

Really need to read some history and not apologetics texts.

There was no "CHURCH" established by the Apostles. Most, not all, of what is known about the early years of Christianity has been taken from the Epistles. Paul, or whatever his name really was, is the founder of what became THE CHURCH but within his writings there are hints of dissension and disagreements as to the teachings and nature of Jesus. Obviously as the creator of this new belief - OK, not the creator, the salesman - Paul was going to attack others who claimed to be Christian by calling them liars and false prophets. Paul's group won the battle and over the following centuries the group which became Christianity attempted to erase the records of the other beliefs. That erasure attempt is why we have the Nag Hammadi documents; they were buried instead of being burned when the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, ordered the destruction of all heretical documents in 367 CE

Logicman · Jan 3, 2016

Somerville said:
Obviously as the creator of this new belief - OK, not the creator, the salesman - Paul was going to attack others who claimed to be Christian by calling them liars and false prophets. Paul's group won the battle and over the following centuries the group which became Christianity attempted to erase the records of the other beliefs. That erasure attempt is why we have the Nag Hammadi documents; they were buried instead of being burned when the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, ordered the destruction of all heretical documents in 367 CE

The truth survived, which is why the anti-Christian influences were overcome.

One thing all you anti-Christian pundits have STILL been unable to accomplish, is to destroy the historicity of the Resurrection. You bray against it and Christianity and try to prop up these pseudo-intellectuals who seek to twist, reinvent, and pervert Christ and early Christianity, but its never worked for you. The anti-Christian soothsayers die and the truth of the New Testament Christ lives on.

How about you present Bart Ehrman's main argument about why the Resurrection of Christ never really occurred, and we'll see how it stands up against proper scrutiny?

Somerville · Jan 3, 2016

Logicman said:
The truth survived, which is why the anti-Christian influences were overcome.

One thing all you anti-Christian pundits have STILL been unable to accomplish, is to destroy the historicity of the Resurrection. You bray against it and Christianity and try to prop up these pseudo-intellectuals who seek to twist, reinvent, and pervert Christ and early Christianity, but its never worked for you. The anti-Christian soothsayers die and the truth of the New Testament Christ lives on.

How about you present Bart Ehrman's main argument about why the Resurrection of Christ never really occurred, and we'll see how it stands up against proper scrutiny?

Without delving into his books, I have a few of them, I can't present "his main argument". The basic point made is the ever so small one - there are NO, NONE, ZERO, NADA non-Christian sources for the resurrection. The four canonical gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or by scribes who were told the story by eyewitnesses.

For several centuries, there were those who called themselves Christian who did not believe the Christ had ever even walked on the face of the Earth and that all of His story had taken place on a higher plane, somewhere between Heaven and Earth.

You have failed to provide "proper scrutiny" to any statements made by those who disagree with your specific religious views.

zyzygy · Jan 3, 2016

Anti-Christian pundits? Am I anti-fairy tales because I believe that they are fiction?

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

mbig

onomatopoeic

CrabCake

mbig

onomatopoeic

CrabCake

Casper

mbig

onomatopoeic

tosca1

tosca1

tosca1

Somerville

mbig

onomatopoeic

CrabCake

mbig

onomatopoeic

CrabCake

dimensionallava

tosca1

tosca1

tosca1

tosca1

Somerville

tosca1

Somerville

Logicman

Somerville

zyzygy