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.
MasterHaster said:
2473 Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude. “Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach Go
Click to expand...
This does not discount bloodless martyrdom. Keep looking.
 
MasterHaster said:
You have the burden of proof. Start looking.
Click to expand...
AS I said, your text from the catechism does not in anyway discount bloodless martyrdom. Show me one that does. And if this has nothing to do with Bart Ehrman and his theories and books, it is going way off topic and the conversation will be ceased here.
 
Last edited:
MasterHaster said:
Define “intelligence” and how do you know angels have superior intelligence to humans?
Click to expand...
No need to define “intelligence” … Angels have “minds” … and Free Will
Were it the unproveable case that e.g., Ehrman is more intelligent than angels - that’s of no matter…

Angel Satan is viewed as possessing a very bright Mind
  • E.G. when combatting Jesus - and losing
  • including when Satan made an UnWise DisObedientn to God Choice of his will
  • which ended with his Tossing out of Heaven
  • and with Satan becoming at the End - tossed into Hell
 
Last edited:
MasterHaster said:
You make an assertion about intelligence and then refuse to define it. There is nothing more to say.
Click to expand...
Sacred Scriptures use the terms “intelligent” and “intelligence”

Curious -

Does those terms as presented in Scriptures fly over any minds thus leaving any baffled?

Does, “nothing more to say”, mean - a mind has closed b/c of alleged quibbling over a definition?

Another post bespoke of Ehrman as being “brilliant”.
What’s Brilliant? A literal bright light?
Or… maybe perhaps possible related to… errrmmmm Intelligence?

POINT? Wisdom supercedes IQ…

_
 
Last edited:
MasterHaster said:
Unintelligible.
Click to expand...
To whom? …
Define - UnIntelligible…
This way - unless you refuse to - we’ll get a sense of your definition of intelligent,

Someone posits Ehrman who Criticizes the reliability of the NT as being brilliant?

Looks more like the opinion of some non-Christians…

Ergo, Please to Define ‘brilliant’ as well
 
Last edited:
7_Sorrows said:
Who is Bart Ehrman?
Click to expand...
Bart Ehrman was once a protestant, and now an agnostic. He doesn’t speak with divine authority, and his opinions are his own. Like Martin Luther, a personal crisis in Ehrman’s life made him question the Bible (KJV). He is popular among Muslims, because his books and writings question the Bible (KJV), and seemingly lend support to Islam (i.e. the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Muslims and Christians who read Bart Ehrman rather than the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Catholic Church do so at their own peril.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Bart Ehrman is a brilliant scholar who has written many academic and popular works on biblical textual criticism. He causes much anxiety to biblical fundamentalists but I don’t think much to Catholics who have tradition as well as scripture as their authority. I have read all his popular books, am a member of his blog and have also read some of his texts. I have also read others who critique him but usually without much success. I think the most troublesome aspect of his work to a Catholic is his refutation that predictions and prophecies the Old Testament are liked to events recorded in the new. He is also, incidentally, probably the leading opponent of the mythicists in popular culture who claim Jesus was not a historical person.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and stood against individuals like Martin Luther and Bart Ehrman whose private opinions led them astray. Bart Ehrman was once a protestant, and now an agnostic. Even Protestants, who disagree with Catholics on certain doctrinal issues, can see the harmful effects of cherry-picking Sacred Scripture to further his misguided theology and views.

Bart Ehrman doesn’t speak with divine authority, and his opinions are his own. This man like many of us has been given free choice to recognize the Kingship of Christ. His words like many heretics (Arius, Nestorius, etc.) who have lived before him, or who will come after him, does not cause anxiety to the Catholic Church. It pains Holy Mother Church to see another soul succumbing to the seven deadly sins, and as Catholics we pray for him.
 
ATraveller said:
An overrated scholar whose writings many atheists take as gospel truth because his opinions happen to undermine Scripture.
Despite his popularity, other Biblical scholars point out his errors.
Click to expand...
In addition to Atheists, many non-Catholics like Muslims and Hindus also take his writings as gospel truth. They rather believe in Bart Ehrman, than Our Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps they are hoping that he will show them the way, the truth and the life!!
 
PickyPicky said:
Probably popular among more than Muslims, since his book on the New Testament is, I believe, a standard textbook in American colleges.
Click to expand...
Then too… AntiChristianity is very popular in this worldly world… Just As Prophesied.
 
Last edited:
bookshelf said:
The Catholic Church was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and stood against individuals like Martin Luther and Bart Ehrman whose private opinions led them astray. Bart Ehrman was once a protestant, and now an agnostic. Even Protestants, who disagree with Catholics on certain doctrinal issues, can see the harmful effects of cherry-picking Sacred Scripture to further his misguided theology and views.

Bart Ehrman doesn’t speak with divine authority, and his opinions are his own. This man like many of us has been given free choice to recognize the Kingship of Christ. His words like many heretics (Arius, Nestorius, etc.) who have lived before him, or who will come after him, does not cause anxiety to the Catholic Church. It pains Holy Mother Church to see another soul succumbing to the seven deadly sins, and as Catholics we pray for him
Click to expand...
Bart Ehrman does not have a theology.He does not believe in god(s). He is a scholar who does not ‘cherry pick’ scripture.
 
FiveLinden said:
Bart Ehrman does not have a theology.He does not believe in god(s).
Click to expand...
Everybody has a theology. Even if you say an impersonal force, blind chance, or something else brought the universe into being, or even if say you don’t know, that is your theology.

Surely he has some ethics, seems certain things right or wrong by whatever standard. Well that standard is his moral theology.
 
adf417 said:
Newman’s quote “To Be Deep in History Is to Cease to Be Protestant” and with his dislike of Catholicism, left him with no where to be.
Click to expand...
What? He an Evangelical Protestant, then a Liberal Protestant. He left due to his philosophical struggle with the Problem of Evil. It has absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism or church history, he never even was a Catholic.
 
commenter said:
Everybody has a theology. Even if you say an impersonal force, blind chance, or something else brought the universe into being, or even if say you don’t know, that is your theology.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no, people who do not think god(s) exist do not have a ‘theology’ except in the sense that the study of something that does not exist is possible. I mean no disrespect with this analogy but I also do not think unicorns exist. That does not mean I have a ‘unicornology’ which explains the things others, who believe in unicorns, explain by the existence of unicorns.

I think Bart Ehrman has a most admirable sense of right and wrong and is a most generous donor to charity. But it’s not a moral ‘theology’ because no god(s) are part of his decisions. But I don’t know what he thinks about ethics because he mentions such things only in passing. He writes on biblical textual criticism. That’s his expertise. He wants you together believe nor disbelieve. He just shares his extensive knowledge and does so as a brilliant communicator. He is not a leader of any movement or an advocate for any position outside his field except in the way that any ordinary member of the public is.
 
MasterHaster said:
Every definition of martyrdom I could find includes death as a requirement. The Catechism also requires it.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with Saint Bernard’s writings on the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Do not be surprised, brothers, that Mary is said to be a martyr in spirit. Let him be surprised who does not remember the words of Paul, that one of the greatest crimes of the Gentiles was that they were without love. That was far from the heart of Mary; let it be far from her servants.
Click to expand...
Perhaps someone will say: “Had she not known before that he would not die?” Undoubtedly. “Did she not expect him to rise again at once?” Surely. “And still she grieved over her crucified Son?” Intensely. Who are you and what is the source of your wisdom that you are more surprised at the compassion of Mary than at the passion of Mary’s Son? For if he could die in body, could she not die with him in spirit? He died in body through a love greater than anyone had known. She died in spirit through a love unlike any other since his.
Click to expand...
 
FiveLinden said:
Bart Ehrman does not have a theology.He does not believe in god(s). He is a scholar who does not ‘cherry pick’ scripture.
Click to expand...
Oh yes he does have a theology. He is an agnostic, isn’t he?

He does cherry pick Sacred Scripture - this is common knowledge.
 
stpurl said:
From Mr. Ehrman’s own blog, in his own words. . .
…I got to a point where I just didn’t believe it any more. This wasn’t because I was a biblical scholar who knew that the Bible was deeply flawed as a very human book filled with contradictions, discrepancies, and mistakes. All that was irrelevant. It also wasn’t because I was a historian of early Christianity who realized that traditional Christian faith developed as the result of historical and cultural forces, not divine guidance, that there was a huge variety of conflicting Christian views in its early years, decades, and centuries, and that what we know of Christianity is more or less the result of historical accident. That too was irrelevant.

What was relevant was the very heart of the Christian claim that God loves his people, answers their prayers, and intervenes when they are in need. I came to think there was no such God, and decided that I had no choice but to abandon my faith and leave the Christian tradition.
Click to expand...
:point_up_2:t2: Exactly why I don’t trust him
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top