Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Misquoting Jesus?

Olavarria

By Olavarria
in Miscellaneous

Recommended Posts

handys003 Explorer

handys003

Posted
Posted

Interesting. I guess he is no longer inspired. I wonder what would have happened if he was on the Council of Nicea? You think Constantine would agree or have him disposed? Anyhow he should learn the AoF

AoF

8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

Which makes me wonder how he would deal with the Gospel of Thomas which are supposedly the direct quotes of Christ form the Disciple himself.

Macabus Newbie

Macabus

Posted
Posted

Ehrman asks some valid questions, and makes some valid points. However, certain publications (namely "A Reexamination of the text of P.Oxy 2949" by Thomas A. Wayment-JBL 128:2) provide new evidence to question his current assumptions. He is correct to note the absence of any New Testament or Old Testament autographs. However, an English autograph for the Book of Mormon does exist, and viewed in light of a context of continuing revelation, complete abandonment of any biblical authenticity is irrational. It is easy, when confronted with apparent contradictions to beliefs, to reject them outright. Dealing less destructively with cognitive dissonance can produce a result inverse to that of Ehrman.

Magyar Veteran

Magyar

Posted
Posted

Amazing to think that if he could embrace the LDS understanding of the Bible, as noted above, he might still be a Christian.

It forever puzzles me that anyone could go all frothy at the mouth when we state that we believe the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Would an incorrect translation still be the word of God, such as the infamous mistranslation of the Ten Commandments that promoted adultery? Of course not, at least in the mistaken part. . And who with a straight face could insist that an incorrect translation is impossible? I could go out tomorrow and create a Bible that replaced Joshua with Homer Simpson.

LifeOnaPlate Community Regular

LifeOnaPlate

Posted
Posted

Amazing to think that if he could embrace the LDS understanding of the Bible, as noted above, he might still be a Christian.

IIRC, Ehrman's over-riding concern which ultimately led to his exodus from Xtian faith was theodicy, the problem of evil in the world versus the proclaimed goodness/omnipotence of God. Problems with scripture and inerrancy was, he says, very secondary.

Vance Grand Master

Vance

Posted
Posted

. . . the problem of evil in the world versus the proclaimed goodness/omnipotence of God.

So it was the false doctrine of ex nihilo creation that drove him away.

cinepro Grand Master

cinepro

Posted
Posted

Does Ehrman ever talk about "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it"?

Because talk about misquoting Jesus...!

1-NeverSaidItWouldBeEasy.jpg

Olavarria Experienced

Olavarria

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think the problems Erhman bring up are a real issue if you're a sola scriptura, Bible is infallible type of Christian. As I understand it, the BoM predicts this sort of thing.

krose Contributor

krose

Posted
Posted

IIRC, Ehrman's over-riding concern which ultimately led to his exodus from Xtian faith was theodicy, the problem of evil in the world versus the proclaimed goodness/omnipotence of God. Problems with scripture and inerrancy was, he says, very secondary.

After reading his book, God's Problem, I concur.

LifeOnaPlate Community Regular

LifeOnaPlate

Posted
Posted

Does Ehrman ever talk about "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it"?

Because talk about misquoting Jesus...!

1-NeverSaidItWouldBeEasy.jpg

That's not a misquote, it's a straight-up fabrication. (And a relatively harmless one.)

mercyngrace Veteran

mercyngrace

Posted
Posted

That's not a misquote, it's a straight-up fabrication. (And a relatively harmless one.)

That's fodder for a thread of its own. I'm not sure it's harmless. Looking for a more difficult way is what left serpent-bitten bodies on the desert floor.

LifeOnaPlate Community Regular

LifeOnaPlate

Posted
Posted

That's fodder for a thread of its own. I'm not sure it's harmless. Looking for a more difficult way is what left serpent-bitten bodies on the desert floor.

Not if one doesn't read it as encouraging self-flagellation (like me).

mercyngrace Veteran

mercyngrace

Posted
Posted

Not if one doesn't read it as encouraging self-flagellation (like me).

I think the whole statement is depressing but like you said, it's probably how I'm reading it. To me, it basically says, "Life sucks. But don't worry, you'll get a reward after it's over."

I much prefer "Man is that he might have joy."

handys003 Explorer

handys003

Posted
Posted

So it was the false doctrine of ex nihilo creation that drove him away.

That's plus the problem of ignoring the other books omitted from the bible such as gnostic texts, etc....

MountainMan Newbie

MountainMan

Posted
Posted

Professor Ehrman ["..for a long time I thought the Bilble was inspired and inerrant...."] should compare notes with Professor Daniel Peterson....

"We [FARMS] do not believe necessarily that the Book of Mormon is inerrant. We don't believe that it's without any errors at all.

We have a high view of the Book of Mormon, but we aren't inerrantists; we don't believe that it's infallible."

http://www.pbs.org/m...s/peterson.html

Seems to be the latest academic buzz word: "inerrant" said 4 times in one breath.

just saying...ohmy.gif

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

Not if one doesn't read it as encouraging self-flagellation (like me).

OTOH, I think it can promote the attitude of looking for obstacles in one's life, that this is a sign that one is doing the right thing.

And I think that attitude can be very problematic, not only because when we look for problems we will be sure to find them (and thus inflate their actual importance in our lives).

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

Professor Ehrman ["..for a long time I thought the Bilble was inspired and inerrant...."] should compare notes with Professor Daniel Peterson....

"We [FARMS]

Are you equally critical of BYU's board of trustees that pay for not only Dr. Peterson's salary, but support and fund the Maxwell Institute (formerly known as FARMS) as well?

After all it's only the academics that talk about inerrancy, right?

http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/ttlpg (see last sentence)

Skylla

Skylla

Posted
Posted

Professor Ehrman ["..for a long time I thought the Bilble was inspired and inerrant...."] should compare notes with Professor Daniel Peterson....

"We [FARMS] do not believe necessarily that the Book of Mormon is inerrant. We don't believe that it's without any errors at all.

We have a high view of the Book of Mormon, but we aren't inerrantists; we don't believe that it's infallible."

http://www.pbs.org/m...s/peterson.html

Seems to be the latest academic buzz word: "inerrant" said 4 times in one breath.

just saying...ohmy.gif

Take a week off and review the board guidelines.

Skylla

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

I don't get it

Check out MM's one note posting style. It gets very old very quickly. I suspect the mods agree and want more substance to whine ratio.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Grand Master

Mola Ram Suda Ram

Posted
Posted

Take a week off and review the board guidelines.

Skylla

I swear he was banned earlier today. I dont get it either.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...