Bart Ehrman,the Resurrection and the Inspired Version.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Based on what I have read or listened to by Ehrman, I find that his primary data actually supports the Latter-day Saint views on scripture and how the doctrine of the Trinity developed.  His data is basically correct but his conclusions are questionable. His conclusions are often based on false assumptions, even the same assumptions that might be held by some evangelical Christian groups.  Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon both say that the Bible went through a lot of changes after it was originally written.  And our understanding of how scripture is written is vastly different than how some "Sola Scriptura" believing Christians might view it.  The narrative portrayed in the book How Jesus Became God is exactly the kind of thing that we believe happened.  The shift in how the Godhead was viewed in early Christianity can be easily documented.  So I don't get the controversy that the subject of this thread is trying to stir up.  It is a total non-issue to Latter-day Saints in my way of thinking.

In his book How Jesus Became God Ehrman argues that Jesus never claimed to be God, divine or anything that LDS doctrine would attribute to him.  This is why I think the books claims are very problematic for Latter day Saints.

[InCognitus]

(Duplicate - So now I know how that happens!)

Edited July 28, 2020 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

In his book How Jesus Became God Ehrman argues that Jesus never claimed to be God, divine or anything that LDS doctrine would attribute to him.  This is why I think the books claims are very problematic for Latter day Saints.

And he would be right, that Jesus never claimed those things of himself overtly.   And those same arguments are no different than what a Unitarian or Jehovah's Witness might use to argue against the doctrine of the Trinity.  But this doesn’t really impact LDS doctrine.  In fact I think LDS doctrine embraces this same data for our views about Jesus and his relationship to the Father and our somewhat unique view on his divinity.  Views on the divinity of Jesus would be an interesting topic for a different thread.

When Bart Ehrman released his book How Jesus Became God, another book was released at the same time by Cambridge scholar Simon Gathercole, How God Became Jesus.  Each author was able to preview the other’s book and make revisions to their own book prior to their releases.  A podcast/radio show that I listen to occasionally on Premier Christian Radio – Unbelievable?, had two shows (Part 1 and Part 2) where both Bart Ehrman and Simon Gathercole “debated” their points of view, back in 2014.  There are opposing views.  So the topic is debatable.  And I think the LDS view is totally unscathed by any of this.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

And he would be right, that Jesus never claimed those things of himself overtly.   And those same arguments are no different than what a Unitarian or Jehovah's Witness might use to argue against the doctrine of the Trinity.  But this doesn’t really impact LDS doctrine.  In fact I think LDS doctrine embraces this same data for our views about Jesus and his relationship to the Father and our somewhat unique view on his divinity.  Views on the divinity of Jesus would be an interesting topic for a different thread.

When Bart Ehrman released his book How Jesus Became God, another book was released at the same time by Cambridge scholar Simon Gathercole, How God Became Jesus.  Each author was able to preview the other’s book and make revisions to their own book prior to their releases.  A podcast/radio show that I listen to occasionally on Premier Christian Radio – Unbelievable?, had two shows (Part 1 and Part 2) where both Bart Ehrman and Simon Gathercole “debated” their points of view, back in 2014.  There are opposing views.  So the topic is debatable.  And I think the LDS view is totally unscathed by any of this.

...because?

... because we're talking about the same kind of being, I think.

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Never happened. Likely has been referenced in a few talks. You must be thinking of another conference or something.

Haven't actually listened to any other conference, to the best of my knowledge. I am pretty sure he was on video as at one of these -- if not as a speaker, then as an attendee? Now I'm wondering if I was confusing him with someone else... 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Haven't actually listened to any other conference, to the best of my knowledge. I am pretty sure he was on video as at one of these -- if not as a speaker, then as an attendee? Now I'm wondering if I was confusing him with someone else... 

I highly doubt he attended.  I checked with others in case my memory was poor and someone would have mentioned that. There was another Bart (Kowallis ? have to check spelling, added:  spelling correct)

Edited July 29, 2020 by Calm

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I highly doubt he attended.  I checked with others in case my memory was poor and someone would have mentioned that. There was another Bart (Kowallis way long have to check spelling).

I had a look at a photo of Ehrman online. He does not look like the man I assumed was him at one of the FAIR conferences. So, I stand corrected on all points.

[Urloony]

On 7/26/2020 at 5:22 PM, InCognitus said:

I always enjoy Ehrman's debates and topics, but I wondered what he would be speaking about at "Sunstone".  This is from their website, scheduled for Wednesday, July 29th from 7:00 to 8:30 PM :

Sounds interesting.

I'm not finding this on his site.  Is this going to be streamed somewhere?

[InCognitus]

37 minutes ago, Urloony said:

I'm not finding this on his site.  Is this going to be streamed somewhere?

This is the event schedule page for tomorrow night.  It seems like there was a direct link to the live stream when I looked a couple of days ago, but now I can't find it:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/2020-schedule/

Edit:  It's going to be live streamed from the Sunstone Magazine Facebook page:   https://www.facebook.com/SunstoneMagazine

Edited July 29, 2020 by InCognitus

[aussieguy55]

Bart has spoken about a number of contradictions in the gospels none of which have been solved by Smith in the IV. In Richard Howard's Restoration Scriptures there are photos of pages of the manuscript where Smith wrote "correct". In Isaiah 29 he even added some verses. The great Isaiah scroll does not have them. 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Bart has spoken about a number of contradictions in the gospels none of which have been solved by Smith in the IV. In Richard Howard's Restoration Scriptures there are photos of pages of the manuscript where Smith wrote "correct". In Isaiah 29 he even added some verses. The great Isaiah scroll does not have them. 

So what?    Honestly. 

The Joseph Smith IV is an "inspired version" and as such it should never be misconstrued to be an attempt to restore the original Greek or Hebrew text of the Bible in every single change that was made.  The primary purpose, as Joseph Smith put it, was to restore “many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.”  Doctrine and Covenants section 76 was a revelation that was received as part of that process.  And I would assume that much of what we find in the book of Moses and elsewhere would be the same kind of thing.  So for the most part it is like an inspired commentary, and not a direct restoration of the original text. 

You may be surprised, but I'm going to suggest a Dialogue article to you that addresses this question.  But you need to add my reference of a Dialogue article to the over 100 times that Richard Bushman references Dialogue articles in his book Rough Stone Rolling, and the times that Dialogue was referenced in the church's Ensign magazine, and promise to never mention Bushman ignoring Dialogue in his responses to Wesley Walters ever again  

See "The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible", by Kevin L. Barney, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 19:3 (Fall 1986):

From the opening paragraph:

Quote

The Question this essay attempts to answer is whether the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST) represents in any way a restoration of text that originally existed in ancient manuscripts but was later altered or removed by scribal carelessness or malice.

And the conclusion:

Quote

We have seen that the majority of JST changes lack ancient textual support. Although we cannot say with complete assurance what stood in the original text, manuscript discoveries have made the argument that there could have been massive early deletions from the text untenable, at least for the New Testament. We have also examined the few passages that parallel ancient variants; if inspired textual restoration exists in the JST, these would be the most likely examples. A few of these JST emendations parallel the original text, although these changes could be due to reasons other than inspiration. But most of them do not; they parallel nonoriginal ancient variants and seemingly for the same reasons these ancient variants arose: assimilation to better known wording, harmonization of contradictions, and doctrinal clarification of problematic texts. For these reasons, it is unlikely (with very few exceptions) that the JST represents a literal restoration of material that stood in the original manuscripts of the Bible.

We emphasize that this does not mean that the JST cannot be regarded as an inspired "translation" in the sense of a paraphrase or interpretation of Joseph Smith's exemplar, the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, this may be the most promising approach to understanding the JST from a believer's perspective.

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by InCognitus

[Urloony]

I decided to tune in, thanks for the info.  I thought his talk was good and enjoyed the Q&A.  Ehrman really appeals to Mormons because of the common ground we share in questioning the veracity of the Biblical text.  I've enjoyed Misquoting Jesus, Jesus Interrupted, and Forged.  I'm currently reading How Jesus Became God and now after listening to tonight's lecture, I'm beginning to think Bart just needs to sell books.  He's also now moved from the "Agnostic camp" where he used to claim membership, to the "Atheist Camp" as he announced tonight.  There is a part of me that is sad for the fact that his research has cost him his faith.  I'm sure people have pointed this out before, but when your faith is built on the concept of the infallibility of the Bible, as his was, the only way one can go from there is down.  Bibliolatry aside, I hope that he can someday regain his faith.  It's ironic that one of the tenets of our faith is what cost him his faith.

I do find what he often talks about very faith promoting like his discussion tonight about Baptism for the dead.  The question was whether there  was any evidence for Bap for the dead in the NT.  He laughed as he gave his response saying he never gets that kind of question from his protestant audiences.  He then pointed out that Paul acknowledges the practice of Bap for the dead as a then present day practice and uses it as an argument in support of the resurrection.  This of course is the Latter-Day Saint position, which is always nice to have confirmed by a professed atheist...  for what it's worth.

[aussieguy55]

Bushman did not list the Spring 1969 Dialogue round table on the revival question in Rough Stone Rolling. Bushman admits that the members of the Smith family may have joined the Presbyterian church as the result of a revival in 1823-24 rather than 1820. See page 570 fnote 30 of RSR. He mentions Inventing Mormonism. 

 Walters did not think much of Backmans scholarship. Backman ignored his paper in his book on the FV. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bhfqw-hluxkkYV1xG_51zBeXl-Q6-S1stq4QBVGXqkc/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17tMmblylKNZYQVXKZZjiu8pTvtmlck0X6y8K20CC464/edit?usp=sharing

 

Smith misunderstood Jonah where it reads "God repented" which actually means God changed his mind"relented" I got some notes somewhere which I will dig up.

In Smith's "revision" harmonization"  in Matthew  28 does it not sound strange that he adds another angel and has them talking to the Marys at the same time. (weird) In Mark's account he again has two angels sitting on the rock but omits the mention of the man inside. In Luke the two men inside are shifted outside and standing by. In Luke (KJV) they go inside but in IV  they must have slipped off the rock and were standing by it v.2. In John 20 Mary by herself arrives sees the stone rolled away and leaves to get Peter and John. I must ask Bart on his blog if he is aware of these unusual accounts in the IV>

[InCognitus]

On 7/29/2020 at 8:24 PM, Urloony said:

I'm beginning to think Bart just needs to sell books. 

I listened to his presentation too and I got the same impression.  

[The Nehor]

On 7/27/2020 at 3:06 PM, Ahab said:

 

Nope, that did not work either.

[Ahab]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, that did not work either.

Did you dance while you watched and listened to the video?  You have got to put some effort into it!  Get into it! Don't worry!  Be happy! NOW!!!

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Did you dance while you watched and listened to the video?  You have got to put some effort into it!  Get into it! Don't worry!  Be happy! NOW!!!

I can't dance right now. I have four sugar gliders asleep in my shirt and gyrations will get them all doing this:

 

[TheTanakas]

On 7/26/2020 at 4:57 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and it gets even more interesting when we include the Gospel of Thomas

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/the-gospel-of-thomas-114-sayings-of-jesus/

No wonder it wasn't part of canon.

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/the-gospel-of-thomas-114-sayings-of-jesus/

No wonder it wasn't part of canon.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Thomas is obnoxious. Many of the sayings don't make any sense...then again, I'm not a Gnostic.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/the-gospel-of-thomas-114-sayings-of-jesus/

No wonder it wasn't part of canon.

 

41 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Thomas is obnoxious. Many of the sayings don't make any sense...then again, I'm not a Gnostic.

Bear in mind that most of those sayings (logia) appear in the Four Gospels within a narrative, chronological context.   Stephen J. Patterson, AThe Gospel of Thomas and Jesus,@ Dialogue, 28/2 (Summer 1995):111-119, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp‑content/uploads/sbi/issues/V28N02.pdf , and at  https://www.academia.edu/26068320/The_Gospel_of_Thomas_and_Jesus?email_work_card=view‑paper .

[aussieguy55]

Anyway gentleman check out Mormonstories where Ritner just gave an excellent discussion on Fac 1. I wonder if the Fac had not been damaged and displayed the reclining figure holding his penis what Joseph Smith would have made of that. Ritner said in the video that on some sites in Egypt the penis has been scratched out.