How do I counter-argue Bart Ehrman's criticism on NT reliability?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Senyorico
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bookshelf said:
Oh yes he does have a theology. He is an agnostic, isn’t he?

He does cherry pick Sacred Scripture - this is common knowledge.
Click to expand...
Agnostics no more have a theology than people who see no evidence of the existence of bigfoot have a ‘bigfootology’. If it is common knowledge that Prof Ehrman cherry picks perhaps you could provide an example.
 
The book you need to read is The Case For Jesus by Dr. Bart Pitre. Pitre is a professor at the Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans and holds a doctorate in New Testament and Judaism. He wrote this book to deal with the kind of “misconceptions” that Ehrman loves to project. Ehrman began as a Protestant Christian but ultimately lost his belief in the divinity of Jesus and now writes exclusively against that divinity. He may be brilliant in a scholarly sense, but, in my judgment, he is simply wrong in his dealing with Christ and the New Testament.
 
Last edited:
Bart Ehrman’s discussions on the historical problems with the Bible are not a unique view. He mostly is reporting the consensus view of all but evangelical scholars. He just has an ability to explain these issues and the results of scholarly views in a readable form for the general reader. He does hold a very few views that are outside the general consensus and states that it is and gives his reasons but I’d guess that over 90% of what he writes is common knowledge to other biblical scholars…once again excepting evangelicals who refuse to come to any conclusion they haven’t already presupposed.

Condemning Dr. Ehrman won’t get very far when all the other scholars mostly agree with him…and most of them are Christians though their knowledge tends to make them lean quite liberal in the Christian sphere.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
He mostly is reporting the consensus view of all but evangelical scholars.
Click to expand...
Followers of Jesus gain Guidance from God’s Holy Spirit - and never from “scholars” -
who in turn represent a mish-mosh of often conflicting opinions…

Consensus? Has naught to do with FAITH - aka the Key to Understanding God.

_
 
Then followers of Jesus should not read what scholars have learned and write about. I have no problem with believers distancing themselves from scholarship about what can known from an historical perspective. Historians work with probabilities and the evidence.

However, some people do want to know what scholars have to say and shouldn’t be discouraged from learning others views. If their faith is weak or easily challenged, they need to avoid this. If they’re curious, they are free to investigate it. I will never tell anyone they must read Dr. Ehrman nor will I ever tell someone they shouldn’t. We should be free to decide for ourselves.
 
Christians do not rely upon secular scholars
 
Last edited:
The Jewish Roots of Jesus’ Gospel go directly to Jewish Jesus…!

" A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. " – Rom 2:
 
EndTimes said:
Christians do not rely upon secular scholars
Click to expand...
Christians rely on secular scholars all the time.

Limiting youurself to the scholarship of those who agree with you is not Catholic. Truth is truth wherever it is found, and someone like Ehrman who strggles with God to find the truth does a great service for us. We too often settle for sectarian platitudes rather than embracing the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top