Jump to content

Bart Ehrman,the Resurrection and the Inspired Version.


Recommended Posts

Bart Ehrman is scheduled to speak at Sunstone. I have followed his debates on Youtube with various evangelical scholars, like Dr Craig and Craig Evans. Bart encourages us to read the gospels horizontally. One can do this with the resurrection stories and find some interesting differences.Matthew has the angel sitting on the rock, Mark has an one angel inside and Luke has the women meet two angels inside while John makes no mention of meeting angels outside or inside. Read Matthew  28: in the inspired version. Two angels are sitting on the rock. Look at verses 4-5. The angels are speaking the same words at the same time. In Mark and Luke there is no mention of meeting one or two angels inside.Interesting changes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

Bart Ehrman is scheduled to speak at Sunstone. I have followed his debates on Youtube with various evangelical scholars, like Dr Craig and Craig Evans. Bart encourages us to read the gospels horizontally. One can do this with the resurrection stories and find some interesting differences.Matthew has the angel sitting on the rock, Mark has an one angel inside and Luke has the women meet two angels inside while John makes no mention of meeting angels outside or inside. Read Matthew  28: in the inspired version. Two angels are sitting on the rock. Look at verses 4-5. The angels are speaking the same words at the same time. In Mark and Luke there is no mention of meeting one or two angels inside.Interesting changes. 

Yes, and it gets even more interesting when we include the Gospel of Thomas.  Ehrman is always a good speaker.  Evangelicals can't stand him because he puts the lie to their false claims of an infallible and inerrant Scripture.  Encyclopedias have been compiled listing the numerous biblical anachronisms.

  • Like 4
Link to post

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 :

Quote

A recent Pew Research poll showed that 72% of Americans believe in a literal heaven, 58% in a literal hell. Most people who hold these beliefs are Christian and assume they are the age-old teachings of the Bible. But eternal rewards and punishments are found nowhere in the Old Testament and are not what Jesus or his disciples taught.

Join Bart D. Erhman as he unfolds the history of post-mortality, drawing from his latest book, Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife. Then participate in a Q&A session with him afterward.

Sounds interesting.

Edited by InCognitus
  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

When 4 + witnesses give the exact same story , all with the exact same details, that is a red flag that something is fishy . 

Even with today's videos there will be differences of opinion as to what went on when. 

Exactly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

Maybe Mary was "cognitively" ok like Trump so she could relay the exact words the angel(s)spoke to the gospel writer. 

There were no Gospel writers, but only various later traditions of the Christian Church which were compiled as faith-promoting accounts.  They were not professional histories.  In the case of the Gospel of Thomas, not even chronological.

At this remove, we have no way of knowing what actually happened at the tomb, except through faith and inspiration via the Holy Spirit.  The movie "Risen" is as likely to accurate as any of the Gospels.

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There were no Gospel writers, but only various later traditions of the Christian Church which were compiled as faith-promoting accounts.  They were not professional histories.  In the case of the Gospel of Thomas, not even chronological.

At this remove, we have no way of knowing what actually happened at the tomb, except through faith and inspiration via the Holy Spirit.  The movie "Risen" is as likely to accurate as any of the Gospels.

 

Under such circumstances, what value do we find in the canonical gospels? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Under such circumstances, what value do we find in the canonical gospels? 

Lessons on how to be happy, until you open your heart.

  • Like 2
Link to post
54 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Under such circumstances, what value do we find in the canonical gospels? 

As devotional Christian literature, they can't be beat.  They serve their purpose when they force us to ask the hard questions, such as:  Did all this really happen?  Is there really a Plan of Salvation?  Did Jesus rise from the dead?  Through fasting and prayer we can know the answers to those questions, but only by the power of the Holy Ghost.

When we read Holy Scripture, it takes us into the zone where only the Spirit abides, where we can know true joy and faith.

  • Like 4
Link to post
15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and it gets even more interesting when we include the Gospel of Thomas.  Ehrman is always a good speaker.  Evangelicals can't stand him because he puts the lie to their false claims of an infallible and inerrant Scripture.  Encyclopedias have been compiled listing the numerous biblical anachronisms.

Yes EVs do not like him.  Much of his research and books are also problematic for Latter Day Saints.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most of those views have been around for a long time, but Ehrman is particularly good at skewering questionable beliefs or myths about Christian history and literature.  To the extent that Mormons share those naive beliefs, they too are subject to Ehrman's critique.  Actually, however, Latter-day Saint beliefs are so fundamentally different from those of mainstream Christianity that they remain essentially untouched by the Ehrman critique.  One sees this most clearly in the strongest points of attack by anti-Mormons on LDS theology and Scripture.  The evangelicals in particular reject the powerful biblical and revelatory basis of Mormonism, choosing to follow instead the "strange fruit" of Classical Greek philosophy.

Ehrman can occasionally be troubling, such as his views on the authorship of the Revelation of St. John, which our scripture pins quite firmly on John Boanerges. That, however, can be navigated, and I disagree with Ehrman on that score in any case.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most of those views have been around for a long time, but Ehrman is particularly good at skewering questionable beliefs or myths about Christian history and literature.  To the extent that Mormons share those naive beliefs, they too are subject to Ehrman's critique.  Actually, however, Latter-day Saint beliefs are so fundamentally different from those of mainstream Christianity that they remain essentially untouched by the Ehrman critique.  One sees this most clearly in the strongest points of attack by anti-Mormons on LDS theology and Scripture.  The evangelicals in particular reject the powerful biblical and revelatory basis of Mormonism, choosing to follow instead the "strange fruit" of Classical Greek philosophy.

It seems to me that the LDS Church and most its members would not view the NT canon the way Ehrman portrays it. Have you read his book How Jesus Became God?  That book pretty much argues against Jesus being divine at all. You don't find that problematic for Latter Day Saints?

Link to post
37 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Ehrman can occasionally be troubling, such as his views on the authorship of the Revelation of St. John, which our scripture pins quite firmly on John Boanerges. That, however, can be navigated, and I disagree with Ehrman on that score in any case.

Can you share on what basis you disagree with him on that score? 

Link to post
1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Ehrman can occasionally be troubling, such as his views on the authorship of the Revelation of St. John, which our scripture pins quite firmly on John Boanerges. That, however, can be navigated, and I disagree with Ehrman on that score in any case.

Yes, it can be navigated, and not least because such questions of authorship are really secondary to the content.

  • Like 4
Link to post
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me that the LDS Church and most its members would not view the NT canon the way Ehrman portrays it. Have you read his book How Jesus Became God?  That book pretty much argues against Jesus being divine at all. You don't find that problematic for Latter Day Saints?

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Lessons on how to be happy, until you open your heart.

But I am not happy. Must be doing it wrong. :( 

  • Like 2
Link to post
7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes EVs do not like him.  Much of his research and books are also problematic for Latter Day Saints.

Maybe some find him problematic. I've read a couple of Ehrmann's books and listened to at least one talk he gave at a FAIR conference. I don't find him problematic in the least. Although I guess I can see that some LDS who are of an inerrantist bent might find him so.

Link to post
12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But I am not happy. Must be doing it wrong. :( 

 

Link to post
46 minutes 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.

That's what I have gotten from his works, too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

listened to at least one talk he gave at a FAIR conference.

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 7/26/2020 at 3:57 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and it gets even more interesting when we include the Gospel of Thomas.  Ehrman is always a good speaker.  Evangelicals can't stand him because he puts the lie to their false claims of an infallible and inerrant Scripture.  Encyclopedias have been compiled listing the numerous biblical anachronisms.

I wonder how far apart that is from the traditionalLDS position. Evangelicals believe that the original manuscripts of the scriptures are "infallible and  inerrant Scripture", which sounds a lot like the LDS position that the Bible is the word of God "insofar as it was translated correctly." Get back to the original manuscript, and you get back to the Bible being the word of God without qualification. 

Latter-day Saints will generally be willing to say that this or that was merely the opinion of Nephi or Matthew or Paul, but that raises the question about what's the point of carrying around these canonized books in the first place--what makes the scriptures any more special than the Journal of Discourses or back issues of The Ensign and the Improvement Era

  • Like 2
Link to post
52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I wonder how far apart that is from the traditionalLDS position. Evangelicals believe that the original manuscripts of the scriptures are "infallible and  inerrant Scripture", which sounds a lot like the LDS position that the Bible is the word of God "insofar as it was translated correctly." Get back to the original manuscript, and you get back to the Bible being the word of God without qualification. 

God claims that He speaks to man in man's own language and culture, which means that any manuscript is flawed and human, that any stage in the process, from inspiration to translation is always mediated by flawed humans.  Add to that the various documents which are edited and reedited by successive prophets, priests, and scribes (Mormon and Moroni are at the end of a long process of editing in Egyptian, which then had to be translated into English, long before Joseph Smith came along), which has subsequently undergone thousands of modern English changes to make it easier to understand.  The Mormon view of canon fits like a glove into the scholarly notion of the documentary hypothesis, which the evangelicals regard as anathema.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Latter-day Saints will generally be willing to say that this or that was merely the opinion of Nephi or Matthew or Paul, but that raises the question about what's the point of carrying around these canonized books in the first place--what makes the scriptures any more special than the Journal of Discourses or back issues of The Ensign and the Improvement Era

The Holy Canon of Scripture is usually something formally acknowledged by the Body of Christ (or the Congregation of Israel) to have that status.  There are many ancillary texts, such as the Book of Common Prayer or the Jewish Siddur which are liturgical in nature, but do not necessarily have canonical status.

  • Like 3
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...