Misquoting Jesus
Posted: 24 December 2008 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24

Anybody ever read Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus in full? A 2007 NYT Bestseller, Ehrman recounts his experiences as a Bible-worshipping fundamentalist in childhood to his cut with the faith and eventual transformation to a skeptical biblical scholar at UNC.

It’s a short book that’s well worth the read. It really brings into light all the political contrivances that went into making the NT as we know it today…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 December 2008 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2008-10-28

Yes, when it first came out.  Have also read a previous work of his that is focused for the academic market:  The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

A nice easy read.  The problem with these books is that there are too many contradictions or signs of editing for all of them to be listed.  So the most they can provide is a representative sampling.  Nevertheless, the evidence for editing of texts is beyond question, unless you are in denial because of your faith commitments.

David

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 December 2008 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
DancingFoolVB - 24 December 2008 04:47 PM

A nice easy read.  The problem with these books is that there are too many contradictions or signs of editing for all of them to be listed.

Are you talking about the books of the Bible or those of Ehrman’s?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 December 2008 01:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2008-10-28

Misquoting Jesus is an easy read.  The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, being oriented to scholars, is not quite so easy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 December 2008 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Giova - 24 December 2008 03:22 PM

Anybody ever read Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus in full? A 2007 NYT Bestseller, Ehrman recounts his experiences as a Bible-worshipping fundamentalist in childhood to his cut with the faith and eventual transformation to a skeptical biblical scholar at UNC.

It’s a short book that’s well worth the read. It really brings into light all the political contrivances that went into making the NT as we know it today…

Pretty good, but I thought his arguments started to feel pretty lite in the last few chapters.

Try, Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 December 2008 08:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

As has been discussed here in the past, it is a must read, along with ‘The Bible Unearthed’

Anytime a theologian of 30 years studies the Greek manuscripts and becomes agnostic in doing so, it must be read by the secular/atheist crowd.

Of course we will not get the evangelicals to read it but…. cool mad

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2008 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  254
Joined  2008-09-06

Anyone who can make textual criticism of early Church apologetics fascinating has a passion for his subject and a gift for writing which are very, very rare.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2008 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  84
Joined  2008-12-09

I just finished this book.  I found it extremely helpful in understanding the new testament.  I also have watched every video on the net of his lectures, speeches and debates.  I highly respect Prof. Ehrman for taking the risk of putting the truth out there for the common people, knowing the effects of what it could do.

However, I just finished watching a video where Prof. Ehrman spoke about his new book, “God’s Problem”, at Berkley in April of this year.  During the Q & A session at the end, a lady asked his thoughts on a new book “Away With All Gods” where the author claims religion stands in the way of the emancipation of humanity and religion is harmful because it blinds people to the way the world really is.  She wanted his opinion regarding these claims.  Prof. Ehrman said he hasn’t read the book but he has read the neo-atheists’s (Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris) books.  Prof. Ehrman said that “The most disappointing thing about these authors is they know very little about religion as a rule and that they make claims about religion that simply are sophomoric and silly.”

Personally, I found it to be a little disappointing to hear Prof. Ehrman say this.  With all due respect to Prof. Ehrman, whom I adore and admire for all he has done in bringing the truth about the bible to the common people, I think that HE is in denial about how harmful religion truly is. He obviously has empathy for those who are still “duped” by religion, like his wife, and finds atheists to be too quick to point these hurtful things out to those who are vulnerable in losing their faith. But isn’t this why he wrote his books?  To get people to see the truth because of what he went through?  Maybe Dr. Ehrman does’t want to face up to the nasty, dirty truth about religion:  that it’s the true evil on this earth.  It has and still inspires the majority of wars, let alone the oppression of minorities and women!  How can anyone say that what Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris wrote was sophmoric!  I’m now feeling incredulous about Prof. Ehrman. Maybe he’s pissed that all three quoted HIM in their books to garner support for their cause. 

In conclusion, of all people who should know how harmful religion can be, he should know.  He claims to have went through 5 years of hell during the process of losing his faith.  A faith that was indoctrinated into him from a child and further indoctrinated into him while at Moody Bible College and Wheaton. Basically, he was lied to and manipulated into believing something that wasn’t true.  That is a hard thing to take.  When I watch him debate William Lane Craig, who I think is THE MOST DELUSIONAL Christian I have ever seen, Prof. Ehrman is visibly angry. You can see how absurd he thinks Mr. Craig is.  And he is ABSURD.

Anyways, here is the link if your interested in the speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7cmUCjnCgE

 Signature 

Life has the meaning you give it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2008 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2007-12-21

Great post Stephanie,

“Ehrman said he hasn’t read the book but he has read the neo-atheists’s (Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris) books.  Prof. Ehrman said that “The most disappointing thing about these authors is they know very little about religion as a rule and that they make claims about religion that simply are sophomoric and silly.””

That’s the thing about Bart Ehrman I don’t like - he attacks others while he himself is trying to ride the fence. He was a former fundy for about 20 years of his life before going Agnostic - which to me is best defined as “non-committal.”

Steph “HE is in denial about how harmful religion truly is”

I think you’re spot on with that comment Steph. Ehrman still believes in an historical Jesus and last I heard, planned on writing a book about it maybe this is that book, I don’t know.

Ehrman also attacked Acharya S - which should be, I guess, considered a compliment. I really enjoyed her book “Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ” - http://stellarhousepublishing.com/index.html

 Signature 

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection

Online Videos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2008 10:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  84
Joined  2008-12-09

Thanks! Prof. Ehrman claims to be an agnostic but on the other hand says he doesn’t believe there is a god as described in the bible, torah, or koran, which actually makes him an atheist, whether he wants to admit to it or not. He probably believes the intelligent designer theory.  I don’t think he is a “science” type person.  He is obviously still biased towards Christians, since his wife is still one (his words).  The fact that he is unable to be completely honest with himself about what he really believes just shows how truly damaging religion is.  It scars you for life.  He says he still wakes up in a sweat over nightmares of going to hell and often wonders if he “was right the first time.”  To me, this is just sad.  I think he took Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens’ books personally which would explain his verbal attack.  However, I thought they were brilliant and are giving them to my sister to read.

I like Archarya S. as well.  I just got done reading “Who Was Jesus” which I enjoyed immensely.  I also have “Suns of God” and “The Christ Conspiracy”.I I am about burned out on reading right now.  I have read more books the past 3 months than I have read in the past 10 years!  I just got “Apocalypse” by Robert Price in the mail today and “The Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan in the mail on Saturday which makes 9 books I have to read.  Yikes!

 Signature 

Life has the meaning you give it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2008 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Stephanie - 29 December 2008 03:21 PM

Thanks! Prof. Ehrman claims to be an agnostic but on the other hand says he doesn’t believe there is a god as described in the bible, torah, or koran, which actually makes him an atheist, whether he wants to admit to it or not.

That does not make him an atheist, that makes him deistic or agnostic as he claims.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2009 12:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Stephanie - 28 December 2008 11:17 PM

Prof. Ehrman said he hasn’t read the book but he has read the neo-atheists’s (Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris) books.  Prof. Ehrman said that “The most disappointing thing about these authors is they know very little about religion as a rule and that they make claims about religion that simply are sophomoric and silly.”

Did he give any examples of what he was talking about? Probably not. This is the exact kind of criticism leveled by true faith heads like Alister McGrath after Dawkin’s God Delusion came out: Because Dawkin’s doesn’t have degrees in religion or theology, his comments and arguments about both are flawed. Not to mention, Harris et al’s arguments against religion and theology makes Ehrman’s CV look worthless. So he feels personally insulted.

But isn’t this why he wrote his books?  To get people to see the truth because of what he went through?  Maybe Dr. Ehrman does’t want to face up to the nasty, dirty truth about religion:  that it’s the true evil on this earth.

He most likely thinks that by coming out as an atheist he will lose credibility as an academic. He would be forever typecasted as a mere atheist. And this is how more and more I’m seeing the media treat Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, i.e., as mere atheist polemics rather than as authorities in their own respective academic fields. 

Maybe he’s pissed that all three quoted HIM in their books to garner support for their cause.

If he’s so against Harris et al. he can ask them not to quote from his works any more. Meanwhile, it’s people like Ehrman which the nonreligious community has to rely on to criticize faith: someone who is generally skeptical of religion’s claims but not so incredulous as to reject it completely and come out as being anti-religious. It’s probably best that we have scholars like him anyway. By not publically taking sides, he avoids accusations of bias in his scholarship.

He is obviously still biased towards Christians, since his wife is still one

Well Bart is definitely not a traditional Christian. Seeing that debate with Craig in which he virtually disbelieves the divinity of Jesus, I’d say he is not a Christian at all. But in that case his wife is commanded to “not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” What a marriage.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2009 07:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  84
Joined  2008-12-09

I agree with you about not publicly taking sides.  He is very concerned about not influencing his students with his beliefs which is why I believe he claims to be an agnostic.  What a marriage indeed.  His wife is a prof. of medieval history and according to Prof. Ehrman, smarter than he. How someone can be highly educated, be married to one of leading experts of the New Testament and Christian Antiquities who left his faith over the complete LACK of evidence that supports the claims Christianity makes and the complete LACK of evidence that there is a loving and just god, BUT still makes the conscious choice to believe and have faith in everything that her husband no longer believes in.  He’s published around 20 books on the subject. Has she not read any of them?  It’s beyond my comprehension.

 Signature 

Life has the meaning you give it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2009 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Stephanie - 04 January 2009 12:47 PM

How someone can be highly educated, be married to one of leading experts of the New Testament and Christian Antiquities who left his faith over the complete LACK of evidence that supports the claims Christianity makes and the complete LACK of evidence that there is a loving and just god, BUT still makes the conscious choice to believe and have faith in everything that her husband no longer believes in.  He’s published around 20 books on the subject. Has she not read any of them?  It’s beyond my comprehension.

Without knowing the timeline of his break with fundamentalist Christianity, for all we know he could have become an agnostic after his marriage with her. In any case his wife decided not to divorce him for his being an infidel, a decision which actually shows that love conquers all rather than the bigoted mandates of the New Testament, which is good news.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed