Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He just doesn't know what they want him to know, which is always the attack against academia. Certain religious sects tend to think there's some vast "liberal" agenda and therefore take on a very anti-intellectual attitude, when in fact academia simply a collection of places where people analytically look at reality and either assess what really happened or figure out how to make things work better.
He just doesn't know what they want him to know, which is always the attack against academia. Religious people think there's some vast "liberal" agenda, when in fact it's simply a collection of places where people look at reality and either assess what really happen or figure out how to make things better.
I think he knows enough to make a lot of folks really uncomfortable, so they are forced to deny and dismiss.
Thanks, by the way Zug. I've mentioned him HERE and HERE before.
Maybe everyone missed the above post (#10).
Ehrman is NOW an agnostic. He went through conservative Christian schools like Moody and Wheaton before moving on to the more liberal Princeton University. He KNOWS both sides and has far more credentials than most of us have.
There are a few people on this site who would be more than happy to tell him he was "never saved" because he is no longer a Christian after dismissing the faith as faulty. Naturally, nothing he says, no matter how objective or full of evidence is going to fly with them.
^
Good point. I think what really bothers people is that he was one of their own - so far as Moody and Wheaton - before walking away from it. Even his whole family.
Sounds like he is going ap...that is apostate! He may know a few things about the bible, but finding flaws with the bible is a slippery slope. It just means that he has given more authority to writting of man (non-biblical writting), then to the veracity of scripture.
^
Good point. I think what really bothers people is that he was one of their own - so far as Moody and Wheaton - before walking away from it. Even his whole family.
I don't say this arrogantly, but as a former fundamentalist/evangelical myself, if there is one thing I came to find out, it was that nothing scares and frustrates fundamentalist Christians more than an apostate (their definition) ad one who is well versed in the Bible and Christian concepts. You even see it in the New Testament itself. The harshest language was reserved for former believers. In the early church, to ensure believers stayed the course, some New Testament writers told their readers that backsliders were "dogs" who "returned to their vomit." Readers were told that such people could NEVER EVER again be saved again. Others used the circular argument that such people could have been saved in the first place because if they were, they would have never fallen away and thus, falling away from the faith only proved they were not saved to begin with. They were to be shunned, rebuked and castigated.
I don't say this arrogantly, but as a former fundamentalist/evangelical myself, if there is one thing I came to find out, it was that nothing scares and frustrates fundamentalist Christians more than an apostate (their definition) ad one who is well versed in the Bible and Christian concepts. You even see it in the New Testament itself. The harshest language was reserved for former believers. In the early church, to ensure believers stayed the course, some New Testament writers told their readers that backsliders were "dogs" who "returned to their vomit." Readers were told that such people could NEVER EVER again be saved again. Others used the circular argument that such people could have been saved in the first place because if they were, they would have never fallen away and thus, falling away from the faith only proved they were not saved to begin with. They were to be shunned, rebuked and castigated.
With such guilt trips in place....
In some ways it's understandable. If your whole focus in on getting people to learn your ways and read your holy book, then they do and they realize it is not absolutely true, that has to be far harder than those who resist to begin with.
[quote=Nikk;8824373]He dosen't debunk the bible, he just dosen't believe in it. Just saying "I don't think the resurection happened" dose mean anything. That is not scholarly!
The article claims he knows the culture of the times, yet he dosen't understand why Paul said that women couldn't talk in Church. It was not that woman could not be preachers, but in that particular church that Paul addressed, the woman were all talking while the service was taking place. Paul was saying tell them to be quite when others are talking!QUOTE]
Can you give some documentation to back up your assertion that women were all talking while the service was taking place?
Ehrman has a bad habit of giving his opinion in one part of his book and brings up that opinion later as if it were fact and builds upon such manipulation that is subtly overlooked by the readers and later once again taken as facts. I pointed this out to a friend who thought he was a great author so she read his book again and noticed what I told her was true so maybe some of you need to reread his books and watch out for his manipulation of the facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
