[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 6101996.jpg (47 KB, 267x400)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
This guy believes most of what is written in the bible was written by other people that didn't know jesus decades later, and assumes this means other interpretations based on those writings are wrong.

At the same time, he claims objective knowledge coming from a historical point of view of the gospels by claiming Jesus's original words are those that he claims they were, without any proof whatsoever and just basing his interpretation as the interpretations of the people he vehemently opposes.

For example, he claims Mark is the earliest of our Gospels and puts a great deal of explaining to his audience that whatever is not found in the earliest copies of Mark, are just later, fabricated traditions of Jesus's theology. He also stresses that these additions are written decades later after the historical Jesus, and points to the Sources Q and M from which Luke and Mathew drew inspiration in their own Gospels.

Despite what he argues in the second half of his book, he just claims he knows the True, Objective, Unaltered sayings of the original historical Jesus...... by quoting sayings from the very same decade old traditions he was so critical about in the first half of the book.

Who the hell takes this hack seriously?
>>
Yeah who takes this Christianity shit seriously?!
>>
He says they were written much later because if they weren't, they wouldn't make accurate predictions. Completely fraud, stick with Papias if you want to know about Gospel authorship
>>
>>12577585
There's one thing in making a point in Gospel criticism, and there's another thing in criticizing them simply because you put no stock in them.

The logic of this guy is laughable. He treats Christianity like something that should have been freshly baked from the oven when it comes to present day concepts, like the Trinity, Jesus's divinity etc..completely ignorant of the fact that literally all religions in the world started out from one text and formed continuous traditions over hundreds of centuries of written commentary.

His entire analysis is poorly argued and it makes no sense because he's not getting anywhere with all the scholarship that supposedly supports his views.
>>
when's he converting to islam
>>
File: 1549878522080.png (103 KB, 543x573)
103 KB
103 KB PNG
>>12577771
Supposedly when Islam answers his question of "why does god allow suffering in this world"

In the meantime he's just another christian fundumentalist-turned-progressive-liberal with no validity to his arguments.
>>
>>12577574
Ehrman is mostly representing the modern scholarly consensus. I've never seen him claim perfect knowledge of what Jesus really did and said. And what he does claim, he doesn't claim without argument. You're just unwilling to engage with his arguments and would rather ree on /lit/.
>>
>>12577574
the Great Courses gave him free reign on a lot of the Christian courses—never understood that
way he’s set himself up at NC, you have to go there to debate him, he was a high school debater, went to Moody, then Princeton (where he lost faith, big surprise)—he reminds me of someone
>>
>>12577574
my understanding is he’s written the same book over and over all these years
>>
Biblical scholarship in general is a minefield of stupid because everybody is more concerned with finding evidence for their little pet theory than honestly pursuing truth. It makes people unreasonable.
>>
File: index.jpg (6 KB, 224x224)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>12577574
>he thinks words are inert and don't self-organize
>>
>>12578111
>I've never seen him claim perfect knowledge of what Jesus really did and said.

He claims that Jesus differentiated between himself and the Son of Man in his historical ministry, that the Son of Man will come to the earth and establish God's rule on earth, where Jesus will be his ruler in his name with the 12 Disciples each governing one of the 12 tribes of Israel.

This is the claim he makes within the context of what the historical Jesus said and thought.

>And what he does claim, he doesn't claim without argument.

Except that his arguments are as weak as the arguments he's combating when it comes to NT interpretation.

He deconstructs present NT interpretation of Jesus because he deems them as based on traditions added decades after his death.

Yet when it comes to his own point of view, he doesn't see it at all an issue of basing decade old traditions of the Ebionites who shared the Gospel of Mathew with the early Christians, that claimed Jesus was simply a follower of the judaic law that preached people obey the law.

The Ebionites were a known sect that maintained that Jesus was the Christ, but that he wasn't divine at all and that in fact he urged people to continue to follow the judaic law. They vehemently opposed gentiles converting, and if they did they were to be circumcised.

They also argued their authority by claiming this is what Jesus's brother James thought as well, even if he was long dead by that point, and held onto a similar Gospel as that of Mathew. Erhman claims this is what the historical Jesus actually thought, because that's what the Ebionites thought of him.

When it comes to the Ebionites texts with a religious agenda, Erhman doesn't see an issue at all for deconstructing their views, because it supports his own point of view.
>>
>>12577600
Papias also said Judas swelled into a huge blob that was wider than a chariot, who constantly pissed maggots and eventually burst on his own land.
>>
>>12578466
That is correct, although exaggerated. Judas was left hanging for quite some time, bloating, rotting, etc. Eventually the rope broke
>>
>>12578240
>everybody is more concerned with finding evidence for their little pet theory than honestly pursuing truth

This.
>>
>>12577655
>He treats Christianity like something that should have been freshly baked from the oven when it comes to present day concepts, like the Trinity, Jesus's divinity etc..completely ignorant of the fact that literally all religions in the world started out from one text and formed continuous traditions over hundreds of centuries of written commentary.

Claims to be the objective truth and word of god:
>changed and adapted over time

Remind me why anyone treats it seriously when we all know it was changed and adapted at whim.
>>
>>12577574
>at the same time he claims objective knowledge from a historical point of view

Have you even read him? Or do you just have shit for brains? He doesn't claim what he thinks is the end all be all, but through analysis you can get a better idea of what really went down, and he argues for what he thinks really happened. Even when he talks about stuff he says "I think this probably what Jesus said".
>>
>>12578666
It wasn't

t. Orthodox
>>
>>12577600
>stick with Papias

Gee i'm sure this proto-orthodox bishop would certainly give the most accurate and unbiased recollection of the traditions of his church.
>>
>>12578676
Orthodox isn't pure Christianity either since the mystical stuff is all added and borrowed from elsewhere, get off your high horse.
>>
>>12578666
>Claims to be the objective truth and word of god:

Only american "Christians" claim this. And it's no wonder Erhman has such a tooth to pick with the NT, his audience are literally iq70 people that would rather read the entire series of Harry Potter than the Bible. Outside of that audience, he's a laughable scholar. And most of his concerns over suffering have been covered by centuries of writings covering the Orthodox tradition.

t. Orthodox.
>>
>>12577655
>He treats christianity like something that..

Because most christians treat it like that, most christians think jesus went around calling himself God and the established the Trinity and set in stone what christianity is.

All Ehrman is doing is showing the very human nature of the development of Christianity and showing it to be like all other religions in the world, clearly man made. I suspect this realization is at the heart of your antagonism towards Ehrman(and textual criticism at large).
>>
>>12578706
As opposed to someone born thousands of years later and doesn't believe in God lol

>>12578715
Sacrament in the west is literally a translation of the Greek word "mysterion" in the NT. The Last Supper was referred to by ancient Christians as the mystical supper
>>
>>12578718
>Only american "Christians" claim this.
The saints say it

>t Orthodox

Orthodoxy is concurring with the saints
>>
>>12578676
It wasn't changed and adapted at a whim? Do you think the "let he who is without sin blah blah blah" story is authentic? What about all the letters of paul? Do you think they are all pauls?

Its crazy the lengths you fundies will go to rationalize what is quite clearly a fabricated book that was continuously changed to serve the purposes of those changing it.
>>
>>12578739
>Do you think the "let he who is without sin blah blah blah" story is authentic
Yes but probably inserted later by John

>What about all the letters of paul? Do you think they are all pauls?

Yes although some are ghostwritten as it were
>>
>>12578675

>He doesn't claim what he thinks is the end all be all, but through analysis you can get a better idea of what really went down

And that analysis is quite shitty. I mean, what author dedicates half his book to the idea that whatever material is the earliest provides a better picture, and then in the next make an analysis taking later traditions at face value? He's contradicting himself, but what's more important he makes no solid case for his "Historical" reasoning because his opinion is based on some large assumptions, like.

>Jesus was a jew
>Judaism is/was a monolithic entity
>There was a Judaic religious canon in Jesus's time

Jesus clearly went against everything that stood for jewishness in his time. He was against the Pharisees and the Temple authorities. He was clearly not a jew in our modern understanding.
>>
>>12578727
And the rest of the orthodox beliefs?
You don't get out of it by saying that a few times mysticism is mentioned in the bible.
>>
>>12578718
Are you seriously arguing that only american 'Christians' think the bible to hold the word of god? And you call yourself orthodox?

>he's a laughable scholar
There's a reason why he's the foremost new testament scholar in the world.

>most of his concerns over suffering have been covered
Yeah they've been covered but that doesn't mean they've been covered well. Muh free will argument is fucking trash, as are all regular orthodox rebuttals. If the orthodox god is really the 3-O god, then there shouldn't be suffering.
>>
>athiest will never know what faith is
>>
>>12578721
All Ehrman is doing is pushing an agenda, as he very plainly and simply states in his own words.

You can explain something using theological reasoning to reach a rational conclusion. Erhman is just a deeply frustrated man with very frustrated ideas about himself and his spiritual place in the world, which is why all his writings and speeches are more like angry rants rather than scholastic argumentation.
>>
>>12578727
>as opposed to someone born thousands of years later and is a historian

Yeah i'm sure Muhammads contemporaries that claim they saw him fly to the moon on a winged horse and believed in his visions are historically reliable, not some stupid historian who's done the careful analysis. Now that you agree that Islam is super historically reliable cause these contemporaries said it is i'll see you at the mosque Ahmed :^)
>>
>>12578736
Semantics.

Only gullible and superstition grannies from villages think like that. Serious orthodox scholars do not hold saints as some sort of authority on scripture.
>>
>>12578785
>Yeah i'm sure Muhammads contemporaries that claim they saw him fly to the moon on a winged horse
If there were were numerous eye witnesses that endured lives of ostracism, persecution and ultimately execution rather than recant they saw it, then I might see sone credibility to it
>>
>>12578757
>yes but probably inserted later by John

LITERALLY no reason to believe this, that shit didn't pop up for 400 years. And this isn't some issue that there is great debate or that Ehrman is the only person who thinks this way, its widely and uncontroversially established that this story was a fabrication added in at least centuries later. This is the state of your religion. Your holy book LITERALLY has fan fiction in it. It'd be hillarious if it wasn't so pathetic that you revere a book that has fan fiction in it. At least 50 shades of grey is understood to be fiction.

>Yes although some are ghostwritten
Ghostwritten is a nice equivocation on forgery. If it really were ghostwriting then itd be people writing on behalf of Paul and Paul signing his name off on it, as opposed to what it really was, some total random person writing whatever he thought and getting people to believe in it just because they thoguht it was actually paul. How do you know whoever wrote it actually had any clear understanding of Christianity?

>The absolute state of Christianity
>>
>>12578739
>Orthodox

>Fundies

Also you're completely ignorant of the fact that every religion is not a pre-fabricated set of monolithic ideas that just go through time. They are adapted, explained and expanded during a historic evolution.

Is life an arbitrary fabrication to you simply because we no longer look like our distant ancestors?
>>
>>12578772
popular =/= foremost

Nothing he says is groundbreaking, as his ideas were around for a couple of centuries already.
>>
>>12578800
You need to talk to any muslim apologist cause they'll give you all that you asked for and more, starting with how the pagans at the time ousted Muhammad and his clan from Medina and blah blah blah, its all very boring but its really fascinating how similar their logic, and the evidence they cite is to christians apoligism. But for whatever reason you think your eyewitness testimony that validates your preconcieved religious faith is real and all the other ones are stupid and wrong.
>>
>>12578812
You have no idea what you're talking about, kid.
>>
>>12578838
Great argument. Well allow me to retort.

YOU have no idea what you're talking about, kiddo.
>>
>>12578820
>Also you're completely ignorant of the fact that every religion is not a pre-fabricated set of monolithic ideas that just go through time. They are adapted, explained and expanded during a historic evolution.

That's the problem with religion, it claims to be objective truth whilst not being it.
>>
>>12578832
>nothing he says is groundbreaking

Yeah all the views he espouses are pretty well established save for a few that he clearly marks as such. But he is the foremost scholar not because he's breaking ground but because he's the clearest espouser of the commonly held views of the field.
>>
>>12578820
>you're completely ignorant of the fact that every religion is not a pre-fabricated...

No i'm completely aware of how obviously fabricated after the fact Christianity is, christians are the ones who are unaware of this, and it doesn't matter if they're catholic or baptist or whatever, they all do the same thing. They think things like Jesus claimed to be divine despite the very obviously man made evolution of these views. That's Ehrmans whole point with which I agree.

Almost all christians think christianity to be very unique and so obviously given by god but they don't see the very obvious fabrications of the religion.
>>
>>12578812
>LITERALLY no reason to believe this, that shit didn't pop up for 400 years.
That's not really true. You're banking on the oldest copies being copied about 400 AD. There is variation regarding that passage, certainly it could have been copied before he added it, or just likely excised by copyists in many lines because it seemed funny, but there is no 400 year gap between texts with and without It

>>12578820
Doctrine however doesn't develop. Accounts are simply shared and incorporated
>>
>>12578835
Mohommed got extensive wealth and pussy, he had thirteen wives even after he set four as the limit.
>>
>>12578876

And what is objective truth to you, the rambling opinions of some sophisticated sophist over the span of a couple of centuries ago?

Or let me guess you define truth as the apriori assumptions of some physicalist scientists who discovers truth by constantly using circular reasoning validating his own apriori definitions of truth.

Non-religious people are a joke.
>>
>>12578918
>Doctrine however doesn't develop.

iq89 post. The Upanishads would like to have a word with you. Actually the entire of the Hindic traditions would like to take a massive shit on your low iq as to demonstrate just how wrong you are.
>>
>>12578962
I am talking about Orthodoxy, not heathens
>>
>>12578918
>Or just likely excised by copyist

I love how to rebut this you have to go to scribes just taking stuff out despite having no idea if its true. Love how obviously man made this shit is. But regardless there's many other reasons why its obviously a fabrication, such as difference in stylistic prose, and that no early church fathers references this story. Kind of odd how what christians regard as one of Jesus' best displays of his wisdom wasn't mentioned by the earliest church fathers. Perhaps you'll argue they didn't find it important.
>>
>>12578934
Obviously he got that as a reward from Allah for undergoing his tribulations so faithfully. Come on Ahmed, you should know that!
>>
>>12578898
>christians are the ones who are unaware of this

There's been quite the debates and political struggles over the centuries over exactly the issues the christian were in fact aware of when it came to theological reasoning.

>Man made evolution

They may have dealt with different understandings in a different manner than other advanced religions around them, but that's another thing altogether.
>>
>>12578979
>I love how to rebut this you have to go to scribes just taking stuff out despite having no idea if its true
I say that because a church father suggested it

>christians regard as one of Jesus' best displays of his wisdom wasn't mentioned by the earliest church fathers.

There are a lot of things not mentioned by the earliest church fathers. This passage is not of inordinate significance as you suggest, rather it became such today because liberal Christians use it to say morals shouldn't be legislated
>>
>>12578978
>I am talking about Heathens, not heathens

Oh my bad, got a little mixed up there.
>>
>>12578978
Doesn't matter, the underlying process is the same. Vedism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, etc, it's a mechanical function of every organized religion to have an understanding of their own sacred texts which evolves over time and which inevitably creates new dogma.

Muslims like to brag about how Muh quran is perfectly written but that doesn't mean there aren't a dozen of muslim sects understanding it differently.
>>
>>12578999
>I say that because a church father suggested it
Ahh yes the paragons of historical accuracy that church fathers being, certainly no motivations for him to rationalize his beliefs.

>There are a lot of things not mentioned by the..
And there's a lot of things that were added in later! Thats the point. But for none of them to mention it in any of their writings is quite unbelievable.
>>
>>12577574
Not read the book but read the thread.

Why do people struggle to admit to themselves that perhaps their religious texts aren't pure and are perhaps changed?
>>
>>12578666
>checked Satan
I've never seen any of the changes make any significant difference in what the overall document is relaying and pointing toward. The Holy Bible isn't supposed to be an idol itself.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.