Agnostic Forums - View Single Post

Abel · 05-09-2008, 11:47 AM

Og
It is men like Ehrman that do the most damage to the cause of Christ. Due to his education and position as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, people will have a tendency to accept what he says without question.

An examination of Bart Ehrman reveals a contradiction in him personally. He currently serves as the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the UNC at Chapel Hill, yet he is a professing agnostic. He does not even believe what he is suppose to teach. He actually debates against Biblical truthes. How can anyone take this man seriously?

Dr. Ehrman cannot prove what he believes. Let me give one example. Ehrman uses certain criteria in his arguments. Here's his first:
1. Criterion of independent attestation - the more sources that mention an event, the more likely it is to be historically accurate. Multiple witnesses are better than one witness. This is akin to corroborating evidence in modern trials. It is worth noting here that since Matthew and Luke took many stories from Mark, those instances cannot be considered independently attested. It is also worth noting that just because an event or saying is found only in one source, that alone is not evidence that it is historically inaccurate. This criterion will, however, assist us in determining where the information is on a spectrum of more or less likely to be authentic.

The section that I underlined is an assumption that has never been proven by Ehrman or anyone else. In fact there are those who believe Mark and Matthew were copied from a supposed text they call "Q". Several "experts" claim Matthew and Luke copied from Mark because of their exact similarities. Remember, all three men were writing about one specific person --Jesus. Of course there will be similarities. In a court of law, would the judge discount eyewitness accounts because they were exactly the same? Of course not.

Ehrman has no proof, only beliefs -- "Changes were made, however, that Ehrman believes with near certainty that could not have been mistakes, but were in fact purposeful alterations by the early church fathers and theologians to mold the early Christian writings into what they needed."

Bart Ehrman is a very educated person, but he has less understanding of the Bible than my 11 year old daughter. 1 Corinthians 2:11-14 "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Again, we have no proof, only opinions.

05-09-2008, 11:47 AM	#9 (permalink)
Abel Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 324	Og It is men like Ehrman that do the most damage to the cause of Christ. Due to his education and position as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, people will have a tendency to accept what he says without question. An examination of Bart Ehrman reveals a contradiction in him personally. He currently serves as the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the UNC at Chapel Hill, yet he is a professing agnostic. He does not even believe what he is suppose to teach. He actually debates against Biblical truthes. How can anyone take this man seriously? Dr. Ehrman cannot prove what he believes. Let me give one example. Ehrman uses certain criteria in his arguments. Here's his first: 1. Criterion of independent attestation - the more sources that mention an event, the more likely it is to be historically accurate. Multiple witnesses are better than one witness. This is akin to corroborating evidence in modern trials. It is worth noting here that since Matthew and Luke took many stories from Mark, those instances cannot be considered independently attested. It is also worth noting that just because an event or saying is found only in one source, that alone is not evidence that it is historically inaccurate. This criterion will, however, assist us in determining where the information is on a spectrum of more or less likely to be authentic. The section that I underlined is an assumption that has never been proven by Ehrman or anyone else. In fact there are those who believe Mark and Matthew were copied from a supposed text they call "Q". Several "experts" claim Matthew and Luke copied from Mark because of their exact similarities. Remember, all three men were writing about one specific person --Jesus. Of course there will be similarities. In a court of law, would the judge discount eyewitness accounts because they were exactly the same? Of course not. Ehrman has no proof, only beliefs -- "Changes were made, however, that Ehrman believes with near certainty that could not have been mistakes, but were in fact purposeful alterations by the early church fathers and theologians to mold the early Christian writings into what they needed." Bart Ehrman is a very educated person, but he has less understanding of the Bible than my 11 year old daughter. 1 Corinthians 2:11-14 "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Again, we have no proof, only opinions. __________________ God loves you and I'm trying.