Anyone listen to this podcast with Bert Ehrman? I was a history teacher at one point so the history of the Bible has always been fascinating to me. I know what I believe and that is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah who died on the cross and was raised 3 days later but the things he discusses on this show are fascinating to me. I never realized that most scholars recognize that 6 of Paul's epistles probably weren't written by Paul himself. Anyway, it's fun for a history geek like myself to listen to.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Misquoting Jesus Podcast
3,115 Views |
22 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by AgLiving06
I've watched a few of his debates but not his podcast. I'm a fan of Daniel B. Wallace and I believe they have debated at least once.
He's an agnostic textual critic. What did you expect?
Bert Ehrman is kind of a pariah in two circles. First, atheist who generally know his talking points tend to think he's always reinventing the atheist arguments in a more hot take, lower quality, not so honest debate. Like his point about how there are more errors than words in the bible is just eye rolling how he came up with that math.
Secondly, denominations that have church-before-bible view of authority (catholic and orthodox) see that he is constantly (and ironically) misquoting the bible. He's got some work to do on his views of the Messiah according to the old testament.
I would highly recommend Lord of Spirits podcast, it does a great job analyzing tough biblical topics. If you go to their website, they have transcripts for every episode. Just search "friend of the show Bert Ehrman" if you want a collection of all the times they specifically call out Bert's criticisms.
Secondly, denominations that have church-before-bible view of authority (catholic and orthodox) see that he is constantly (and ironically) misquoting the bible. He's got some work to do on his views of the Messiah according to the old testament.
I would highly recommend Lord of Spirits podcast, it does a great job analyzing tough biblical topics. If you go to their website, they have transcripts for every episode. Just search "friend of the show Bert Ehrman" if you want a collection of all the times they specifically call out Bert's criticisms.
one MEEN Ag said:
Bert Ehrman is kind of a pariah in two circles. First, atheist who generally know his talking points tend to think he's always reinventing the atheist arguments in a more hot take, lower quality, not so honest debate. Like his point about how there are more errors than words in the bible is just eye rolling how he came up with that math.
Secondly, denominations that have church-before-bible view of authority (catholic and orthodox) see that he is constantly (and ironically) misquoting the bible. He's got some work to do on his views of the Messiah according to the old testament.
I would highly recommend Lord of Spirits podcast, it does a great job analyzing tough biblical topics. If you go to their website, they have transcripts for every episode. Just search "friend of the show Bert Ehrman" if you want a collection of all the times they specifically call out Bert's criticisms.
I typed the same recommendation then deleted it because I didn't have the heart to start the thread off like that.
Quote:
He's got some work to do on his views of the Messiah according to the old testament.
Whose take on the Old Testament?
Ehrman is both an academic and a popularizer of academic biblical scholarship. I'm sure he makes mistakes when speaking, etc, it happens to the best of us, but I'm curious to know precisely what is wrong with his claims and how much of that has to do with the translation and version used vs genuine "not right" claims.
I'm sorry....You're contention is that Catholics put Church before Bible? You do know that the early Church didn't have bibles so it was the Church teaching the scriptures, right? That and most people couldn't read anyway. The Church came first, and then the scriptures. And nothing the Church interprets can't contradict scripture.one MEEN Ag said:
Bert Ehrman is kind of a pariah in two circles. First, atheist who generally know his talking points tend to think he's always reinventing the atheist arguments in a more hot take, lower quality, not so honest debate. Like his point about how there are more errors than words in the bible is just eye rolling how he came up with that math.
Secondly, denominations that have church-before-bible view of authority (catholic and orthodox) see that he is constantly (and ironically) misquoting the bible. He's got some work to do on his views of the Messiah according to the old testament.
I would highly recommend Lord of Spirits podcast, it does a great job analyzing tough biblical topics. If you go to their website, they have transcripts for every episode. Just search "friend of the show Bert Ehrman" if you want a collection of all the times they specifically call out Bert's criticisms.
And I know many Protestant denominations who trust the interpretation of scripture from their local pastor, so they can say the hold the bible first...but what they mean is the interpretation they are taught.
Rant over
Since you're the type to dig in deep here, let me pull some things together and get back to you. I don't really give Bart Ehrman the time of day to follow his posits and those who respond to him. Every time I've heard something from Bart about Christianity he either A) misses the point completely from a theosis perspective, or B) critiques Jesus for basically not coming down in his divine glory and revealing to all, at all times that he is the Son of God.Sapper Redux said:Quote:
He's got some work to do on his views of the Messiah according to the old testament.
Whose take on the Old Testament?
Ehrman is both an academic and a popularizer of academic biblical scholarship. I'm sure he makes mistakes when speaking, etc, it happens to the best of us, but I'm curious to know precisely what is wrong with his claims and how much of that has to do with the translation and version used vs genuine "not right" claims.
Its a lot of throwing babies out with the bathwater. Just off the top of my head:
A)He thinks by there being more grammar 'mistakes' than words in the bible that its text cant be trusted in any sense when you can clearly compare texts and show its things like punctuation missing and easily cleared up with textual criticism.
B) Or how he doesn't like there are four gospels with different accounts and different miracles. They show a discombobulated account of liars who cant get their story straight, not that the authors had different audiences and wanted to highlight different aspects of jesus events.
C) How jesus's death and resurrection are seen as mere motivators for a religion to be founded by outright lies. That the bigger the lie the greater christianity spread because of how incredulous it is to die and be resurrected.
D) That there were a bunch of disciples who didn't fully grasp who Jesus was until after the fact (and that is a critique of Christianity)
Even back when I was in college it was obvious Bart's enjoyed jumping on a get rich, get famous tour by cranking out these hot takes and jumping on tv interviews.
Relax, you're barking up the wrong tree. My point is that churches that were at the table of the united church usually have very different interpretations of scripture than those formed after the reformation. Bart picking off talking points that derive from 'I'm the pope today and its just me and my bible, lets sit down and see what it has to say' is going after low hanging fruit. And while Bart may think they are signs of refuting the church, I don't.BluHorseShu said:I'm sorry....You're contention is that Catholics put Church before Bible? You do know that the early Church didn't have bibles so it was the Church teaching the scriptures, right? That and most people couldn't read anyway. The Church came first, and then the scriptures. And nothing the Church interprets can't contradict scripture.one MEEN Ag said:
Bert Ehrman is kind of a pariah in two circles. First, atheist who generally know his talking points tend to think he's always reinventing the atheist arguments in a more hot take, lower quality, not so honest debate. Like his point about how there are more errors than words in the bible is just eye rolling how he came up with that math.
Secondly, denominations that have church-before-bible view of authority (catholic and orthodox) see that he is constantly (and ironically) misquoting the bible. He's got some work to do on his views of the Messiah according to the old testament.
I would highly recommend Lord of Spirits podcast, it does a great job analyzing tough biblical topics. If you go to their website, they have transcripts for every episode. Just search "friend of the show Bert Ehrman" if you want a collection of all the times they specifically call out Bert's criticisms.
And I know many Protestant denominations who trust the interpretation of scripture from their local pastor, so they can say the hold the bible first...but what they mean is the interpretation they are taught.
Rant over
Mea culpaone MEEN Ag said:Relax, you're barking up the wrong tree. My point is that churches that were at the table of the united church usually have very different interpretations of scripture than those formed after the reformation. Bart picking off talking points that derive from 'I'm the pope today and its just me and my bible, lets sit down and see what it has to say' is going after low hanging fruit. And while Bart may think they are signs of refuting the church, I don't.BluHorseShu said:I'm sorry....You're contention is that Catholics put Church before Bible? You do know that the early Church didn't have bibles so it was the Church teaching the scriptures, right? That and most people couldn't read anyway. The Church came first, and then the scriptures. And nothing the Church interprets can't contradict scripture.one MEEN Ag said:
Bert Ehrman is kind of a pariah in two circles. First, atheist who generally know his talking points tend to think he's always reinventing the atheist arguments in a more hot take, lower quality, not so honest debate. Like his point about how there are more errors than words in the bible is just eye rolling how he came up with that math.
Secondly, denominations that have church-before-bible view of authority (catholic and orthodox) see that he is constantly (and ironically) misquoting the bible. He's got some work to do on his views of the Messiah according to the old testament.
I would highly recommend Lord of Spirits podcast, it does a great job analyzing tough biblical topics. If you go to their website, they have transcripts for every episode. Just search "friend of the show Bert Ehrman" if you want a collection of all the times they specifically call out Bert's criticisms.
And I know many Protestant denominations who trust the interpretation of scripture from their local pastor, so they can say the hold the bible first...but what they mean is the interpretation they are taught.
Rant over
Ehrman is a smart guy who unfortunately fell from the church/bible after he was raised/educated as an evangelical literalist. He realized a lot of the fundamentalist stuff he was taught was crap and just became disillusioned. In ironic/sad result of poor biblical teaching, imho.
It irks me that after all these years he still clings to some of his most terrible arguments. Apolonius being one and the "there's more alterations then words" being the other.
The myth of Apolonius was written 150 years after he allegedly existed and is obviously written in response to Christianity. This is obvious to basically everyone.
The "alterations" argument he basically refutes himself when pressed. He knows that we can fairly accurately reconstruct 99% of the New Testament.
I wish he would be intellectually honest enough to drop stuff like that, but he knows it grabs headlines and turns heads so he keeps throwing them out there.
The myth of Apolonius was written 150 years after he allegedly existed and is obviously written in response to Christianity. This is obvious to basically everyone.
The "alterations" argument he basically refutes himself when pressed. He knows that we can fairly accurately reconstruct 99% of the New Testament.
I wish he would be intellectually honest enough to drop stuff like that, but he knows it grabs headlines and turns heads so he keeps throwing them out there.
Quote:
The myth of Apolonius was written 150 years after he allegedly existed and is obviously written in response to Christianity. This is obvious to basically everyone.
Uh, that's not the position of a lot of scholars of the era. There was an attack on Christianity by his followers, as there was an attack on Apollonius by Christians, but there isn't a consensus in any way that Apollonius was just a response to Christianity. His existence at the end of the first century is known, his philosophy is known, we may even have some of his writings, and his following was strong and growing at the same time as Christianity, but more in Greece than Anatolia.
https://www.livius.org/articles/person/apollonius-of-tyana/apollonius-of-tyana-7/
Uh, no scholar disputes that the vast majority of the details about Apolonius comes from The Life of Apolonius written by Philostratus 150 years after he existed.
Uh, pretty much all the Christ parallels Erhman likes deceive his viewers with come from this work.
Uh, it was commissioned by the wife of the Emperor to combat Christianity and the parallels are an obvious result of that.
I'm not saying there wasn't some magician named Apolonius who had a following.
I'm say all the parallels between his story and Christ arise a full 100 years after John was written.
Do the math Sap.
Uh, pretty much all the Christ parallels Erhman likes deceive his viewers with come from this work.
Uh, it was commissioned by the wife of the Emperor to combat Christianity and the parallels are an obvious result of that.
I'm not saying there wasn't some magician named Apolonius who had a following.
I'm say all the parallels between his story and Christ arise a full 100 years after John was written.
Do the math Sap.
Did you look at the link? That's not the only source. And that source quotes from earlier material about his life and the worship of him. He was not just created to combat Christianity.
I didn't say that. I said The Life of Apolonius, which is the title of the 3rd century book, was written to combat Christianity.
This is where the Christ parallels Ehrman uses to deceive his audience come from.
Read carefully.
This is where the Christ parallels Ehrman uses to deceive his audience come from.
Read carefully.
Silent For Too Long said:
I didn't say that. I said The Life of Apolonius, which is the title of the 3rd century book, was written to combat Christianity.
This is where the Christ parallels Ehrman uses to deceive his audience come from.
Read carefully.
He's not "deceiving his audience." The parallels are there and The Life of Apollonius was written using previous writings and beliefs about him. Again, there is no consensus among historians of the era that this was just intended as a response to Christianity as opposed to a genuine religious belief in the 2nd century. The only sources claiming that it's obvious are Christian apologists.
Sapper, there is no consensus on anything in academia. Tenure has to be made, papers have to be written. And consensus for consesus's sake doesn't mean anything.
one MEEN Ag said:
Sapper, there is no consensus on anything in academia. Tenure has to be made, papers have to be written. And consensus for consesus's sake doesn't mean anything.
Sure there's consensus in academia. You're right, academics are more than happy to nitpick each other over the stupidest things, which means when there is consensus you should probably take it seriously and understand why it exists.
Meh. Pseudepigrapha isn't uncommon in writings of history (or in the old testament for that matter).Blanco Jimenez said:
Anyone listen to this podcast with Bert Ehrman? I was a history teacher at one point so the history of the Bible has always been fascinating to me. I know what I believe and that is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah who died on the cross and was raised 3 days later but the things he discusses on this show are fascinating to me. I never realized that most scholars recognize that 6 of Paul's epistles probably weren't written by Paul himself. Anyway, it's fun for a history geek like myself to listen to.
For example: It seems rather apparent that there were at least three authors of Isaiah. The Documentary hypothesis, which is quite reasonable, gives at least four "redactors" to Torah who worked on it over centuries. Daniel was written in the 2nd century CE, not during the exile. You can find many more examples like this (ex. a "Q" source for the two-source theory of the authorship of Matthew and Luke).
None of that affects my faith or that the Bible is God's word. Would seem strange that he could inspire its authorship, but then not have any control over its editing.
Sapper Redux said:Silent For Too Long said:
I didn't say that. I said The Life of Apolonius, which is the title of the 3rd century book, was written to combat Christianity.
This is where the Christ parallels Ehrman uses to deceive his audience come from.
Read carefully.
He's not "deceiving his audience." The parallels are there and The Life of Apollonius was written using previous writings and beliefs about him. Again, there is no consensus among historians of the era that this was just intended as a response to Christianity as opposed to a genuine religious belief in the 2nd century. The only sources claiming that it's obvious are Christian apologists.
He absolutely is deceiving his audience. He's trying to paint this picture of another character in history INDEPENDENTLY arose with a narrative similar to Christ's.
There's zero chance even the earliest writings on Apolonius were unaware on the Christian narrative or the existence of the Gospels.
It's an extremely deceitful line of reasoning and you should be embarrassed for defending it.
That didn't take long as was totally expected.one MEEN Ag said:
Bert Ehrman is kind of a pariah in two circles. First, atheist who generally know his talking points tend to think he's always reinventing the atheist arguments in a more hot take, lower quality, not so honest debate. Like his point about how there are more errors than words in the bible is just eye rolling how he came up with that math.
Secondly, denominations that have church-before-bible view of authority (catholic and orthodox) see that he is constantly (and ironically) misquoting the bible. He's got some work to do on his views of the Messiah according to the old testament.
I would highly recommend Lord of Spirits podcast, it does a great job analyzing tough biblical topics. If you go to their website, they have transcripts for every episode. Just search "friend of the show Bert Ehrman" if you want a collection of all the times they specifically call out Bert's criticisms.
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
B-1 83 said:That didn't take long as was totally expected.one MEEN Ag said:
Bert Ehrman is kind of a pariah in two circles. First, atheist who generally know his talking points tend to think he's always reinventing the atheist arguments in a more hot take, lower quality, not so honest debate. Like his point about how there are more errors than words in the bible is just eye rolling how he came up with that math.
Secondly, denominations that have church-before-bible view of authority (catholic and orthodox) see that he is constantly (and ironically) misquoting the bible. He's got some work to do on his views of the Messiah according to the old testament.
I would highly recommend Lord of Spirits podcast, it does a great job analyzing tough biblical topics. If you go to their website, they have transcripts for every episode. Just search "friend of the show Bert Ehrman" if you want a collection of all the times they specifically call out Bert's criticisms.
Correct. A complete straw man on his part.
Featured Stories
See All
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
9h ago
5.1k
12:07
8h ago
9.7k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
23h ago
1.1k
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger