I know what I think of Bart Ehrman, but it seems to be he is both angry with God and confused.
Why would YOU think that he ever was a “Christian?”
Why would YOU accept that he was a Christian that renounced his belief in Jesus?
Are you suggesting that there are no examples of Christians who have lost their faith?
Or perhaps you think they were never "True Christians tm" in the first place?
You’re talking to yourself again, trying to get ahead of the game.
I am referring to Bart Ehrman.
But, since you asked…. What makes someone a “True Christian?”
Do you have any idea?
You have referred to the term, but I suspect you have only the tiniest bit of knowledge of Christian doctrine.
So….should you choose, you can respond in a number of ways.
1.- Some empty headed smart remark, that shows you can’t keep up in the discussion.
2. - You can do an internet search and do some sort of cut and paste, that shows you are incapable of keeping up with the discussion.
3.- Contribute some sort of your own thought or conjecture on the subject what makes a “True Christian.”
So, DBT…. Have at it.
No, he's alluding to your use of The True Scotsman Fallacy, insinuating Bart was not a "True Christian". Bart initially went to Moody Bible Institute. This is a school for true believers. He finished his undergrad at Wheaton before going on to Prinston for his Masters and PHD. The more he learned, the more holes he saw. It's a simple straight forward story.
Yes, knowledge and logic lead him from Christianity. I understand you don't like the idea the knowledge and logic demonstrate the short comings of your beliefs, but for the open minded, it does.
Now there you go again…. bobbing and weaving….trying to divert from the central issue.
Forget Bart Ehrman…I realize he is your favorite poster boy but can you get back to the base issue?
YOU are the one that brought up the issue of “True Christian.” You used that term in reasonably good context but now you flee from it.
So…..back to question that you are clearly very reluctant to address:
".....What makes a “True Christian?” Remember, you brought it up. What if I told you that, when younger, I was a Mormon, but then spent many years as an agnostic….and later “converted to” Catholicism.
You might wonder, was TF a “True Mormon?”
Was TF a “True Agnostic?”
Is TF a “True Catholic?”"
So, what makes a “True Christian.”
This is your term, you brought it up….leave Bart out of it for now.
Last edited by TF49; 04/01/24.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Confirmation bias has been mentioned. It is on full display by the ones that are sure of themselves. I'm going to keep studying and keep being suspicious of those who don't heed Gandhi's advice to "not be too sure of ones own wisdom'' .... ''even the wisest might err".
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
The apostle John said, “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
You go ahead and heed Gandhi’s advice; I’ll heed the apostle John’s advice.
Confirmation bias has been mentioned. It is on full display by the ones that are sure of themselves. I'm going to keep studying and keep being suspicious of those who don't heed Gandhi's advice to "not be too sure of ones own wisdom'' .... ''even the wisest might err".
Yes, was this one of times that Gandhi quoted from the Bible?
Proverbs 3:7 “Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord (with reverent awe and obedience) and turn away from evil.”
A similar thought is seen in verse 5: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
The apostle John said, “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
You go ahead and heed Gandhi’s advice; I’ll heed the apostle John’s advice.
I like Gandhi and he liked Jesus. John was correct on a good bit of his commentary but he was out of sequence with the synoptic gospels and leaves out some pretty significant events such as the Sermon on the Mount. I would say his account was written with more of an agenda than were the 3 synoptics which were written mostly as a record.
We are dealing with at best a pretty sparse account of a 30 plus year long life and a three year stint as a traveling preacher and prophet.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
The apostle John said, “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
You go ahead and heed Gandhi’s advice; I’ll heed the apostle John’s advice.
I like Gandhi and he liked Jesus. John was correct on a good bit of his commentary but he was out of sequence with the synoptic gospels and leaves out some pretty significant events such as the Sermon on the Mount. I would say his account was written with more of an agenda than were the 3 synoptics which were written mostly as a record.
We are dealing with at best a pretty sparse account of a 30 plus year long life and a three year stint as a traveling preacher and prophet.
Each of the gospels was written for a different audience with a different message. As an example Matthew is for a Jewish audience.
That's why we only find the following in Matthew:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Got it. John’s Gospel and commentary doesn’t jive with your already established beliefs and agenda, so you just discount it. You do the same with Jesus’ own words when they don’t jive with your already established beliefs and agenda too (you simply discount em’, or twist and distort em’ until they suit your needs). It’s not surprising that you discount John’s Gospel, because in it he clearly affirms Jesus’ divinity.
I know what I think of Bart Ehrman, but it seems to be he is both angry with God and confused.
Why would YOU think that he ever was a “Christian?”
Why would YOU accept that he was a Christian that renounced his belief in Jesus?
Are you suggesting that there are no examples of Christians who have lost their faith?
Or perhaps you think they were never "True Christians tm" in the first place?
You’re talking to yourself again, trying to get ahead of the game.
I am referring to Bart Ehrman.
But, since you asked…. What makes someone a “True Christian?”
Do you have any idea?
You have referred to the term, but I suspect you have only the tiniest bit of knowledge of Christian doctrine.
So….should you choose, you can respond in a number of ways.
1.- Some empty headed smart remark, that shows you can’t keep up in the discussion.
2. - You can do an internet search and do some sort of cut and paste, that shows you are incapable of keeping up with the discussion.
3.- Contribute some sort of your own thought or conjecture on the subject what makes a “True Christian.”
So, DBT…. Have at it.
No, he's alluding to your use of The True Scotsman Fallacy, insinuating Bart was not a "True Christian". Bart initially went to Moody Bible Institute. This is a school for true believers. He finished his undergrad at Wheaton before going on to Prinston for his Masters and PHD. The more he learned, the more holes he saw. It's a simple straight forward story.
Yes, knowledge and logic lead him from Christianity. I understand you don't like the idea the knowledge and logic demonstrate the short comings of your beliefs, but for the open minded, it does.
Now there you go again…. bobbing and weaving….trying to divert from the central issue.
Forget Bart Ehrman…I realize he is your favorite poster boy but can you get back to the base issue?
YOU are the one that brought up the issue of “True Christian.” You used that term in reasonably good context but now you flee from it.
So…..back to question that you are clearly very reluctant to address:
".....What makes a “True Christian?” Remember, you brought it up. What if I told you that, when younger, I was a Mormon, but then spent many years as an agnostic….and later “converted to” Catholicism.
You might wonder, was TF a “True Mormon?”
Was TF a “True Agnostic?”
Is TF a “True Catholic?”"
So, what makes a “True Christian.”
This is your term, you brought it up….leave Bart out of it for now.
I brought up the True Scotsman Fallacy in the context of you questioning Eherman's Christian roots by your suggesting that he was never a real Christian. This isn't my first rodeo. I know your tricks.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
It is not ridiculous or surprising to historians when they hear skeptics or those with a clear agenda…like atheists or modern day Judaizers…claim that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life. A case can be made that scholarly positions are that the Gospels of Matthew and John were eyewitness accounts, and the Gospels of Mark and Luke were based on reports from eyewitnesses.
But for the sake of discussion (or argument) let’s say those scholars are wrong. It ‘still’ wouldn’t be a problem for historians because we don’t have any surviving eyewitness accounts for specific historical people from ancient history. None.
There are no surviving eyewitness accounts of the life and deeds of Hannibal of Carthage. We don’t have any eyewitness accounts of the high priest Caiaphas or of the Jewish scholar Honi ‘the circle-drawer’ who lived during that time period. We don’t even have any surviving eyewitness accounts of the ruler of the mighty Roman Empire itself, Tiberius Caesar.
The one person from ancient history who we have the most information on is Jesus. By far. Overwhelmingly so.
So when put into context, it’s not odd or ridiculous to historians when skeptics or those with an agenda…like atheists or modern day Judaizers…claim what they do. Nearly all ancient texts have simply been lost to history. What we have for all of ancient history are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. And referrals in those copies to other manuscripts.
In comparison to Jesus, the claims about Hannibal are rather mundane. In the Ancient World Generals were common, Gods and the Sons of Gods were not, and no one claims the fate of their eternal soul is contingent upon the historical text written about Hannibal. Mundane claims require mundane evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Regardless, much of what we commonly believe about alleged historical figures is not true. Sun Tzu, as described in "The Art of War", did not exist. At best he's a composite character, and the deeds attributed to him spanned several life times.
Did Hannibal exist, fair quesiton. At minimum it's likely some of his exploits were exaggerated, and his ending and how it resulted in the end of Carthage reads something like a morality tale, so there room for a discussion regarding what is or is not the real story, but I don't see anyone praying to him nightly, or elevating him to diety status, so your red herring is not the equivalency you think it is.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Pain and suffering in the world, and his inability to reconcile a good and loving God with that, is specifically what led Bart Ehrman away from Christianity. His loss of faith had zero to do with the New Testament manuscripts. He concedes that. And then, he went looking for reasons to substantiate his new beliefs and agenda. A crystal clear case of confirmation bias.
Nope. If you watch his content, especially his newer content he discusses how textual issues contributed to his disbelief, but problem of good and evil was a greater contributing factor for him. It doesn't have to be an either or, multiple factors can contribute to a belief.
Yep.
The problem of pain and suffering was the thing that caused him to lose his faith. He’s clearly said so. And again, after he lost his faith, he went looking for reasons to substantiate his new beliefs and agenda. Confirmation bias, to a T.
Yes, you have a strong confirmation bias.
Regardless, this is your strawman. Regardless of why he changed his mind, the scholarship is the scholarship, and the evidence is the evidence, and he and I are free to agree or disagree on what pieces fit where.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 04/01/24.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Nope, not a problem at all. Greek was widely used all around the Mediterranean and widely used.
Btw…. As I recall, you referred to Bart Ehrman as being a Christian who later renounced Christianity.
Why would you accept that Bart was a Christian?
Perhaps he was not.
Whatever, but you can bet the teachings and words of Jesus were not spoken in High Greek, Low Greek, or any form of Greek and you can bet Matthew never spoke or wrote anything in Greek, likewise the commercial fisherman Peter almost surely would not have bee a speaker of Greek if he was even literate.
The gospels we accounts of Jesus we have were spoken in a language that was not Greek, translated into Greek from memory, and now into several versions of English.
There are always losses in translation and eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Go to court sometimes and listen to 3 or 4 witnesses describe the same event.
Keep in mind by High Greek the language is akin to Shakespearian English in the time of the Rennaissance. It was not the Greek of common people, but the language and style of playwrights and Scholars.
Not so…. As “English” is the modern day world wide language…..the most common second language spoken in the world today, so was Greek “universal language” in the Mediterranean. It is incorrect to characterize Greek as only the language of “playwrights and scholars.”
It wasn't written in common Greek, nor was it written in the language attributed to his followers.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Pain and suffering in the world, and his inability to reconcile a good and loving God with that, is specifically what led Bart Ehrman away from Christianity. His loss of faith had zero to do with the New Testament manuscripts. He concedes that. And then, he went looking for reasons to substantiate his new beliefs and agenda. A crystal clear case of confirmation bias.
Nope. If you watch his content, especially his newer content he discusses how textual issues contributed to his disbelief, but problem of good and evil was a greater contributing factor for him. It doesn't have to be an either or, multiple factors can contribute to a belief.
Yep.
The problem of pain and suffering was the thing that caused him to lose his faith. He’s clearly said so. And again, after he lost his faith, he went looking for reasons to substantiate his new beliefs and agenda. Confirmation bias, to a T.
YES, YOU HAVE A STRONG CONFIRMATION BIAS.
Regardless, this is your strawman. Regardless of why he changed his mind, the scholarship is the scholarship, and the evidence is the evidence, and he and I are free to agree or disagree on what pieces fit where.
Ya reckon?
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I know what I think of Bart Ehrman, but it seems to be he is both angry with God and confused.
Why would YOU think that he ever was a “Christian?”
Why would YOU accept that he was a Christian that renounced his belief in Jesus?
Are you suggesting that there are no examples of Christians who have lost their faith?
Or perhaps you think they were never "True Christians tm" in the first place?
You’re talking to yourself again, trying to get ahead of the game.
I am referring to Bart Ehrman.
But, since you asked…. What makes someone a “True Christian?”
Do you have any idea?
You have referred to the term, but I suspect you have only the tiniest bit of knowledge of Christian doctrine.
So….should you choose, you can respond in a number of ways.
1.- Some empty headed smart remark, that shows you can’t keep up in the discussion.
2. - You can do an internet search and do some sort of cut and paste, that shows you are incapable of keeping up with the discussion.
3.- Contribute some sort of your own thought or conjecture on the subject what makes a “True Christian.”
So, DBT…. Have at it.
No, he's alluding to your use of The True Scotsman Fallacy, insinuating Bart was not a "True Christian". Bart initially went to Moody Bible Institute. This is a school for true believers. He finished his undergrad at Wheaton before going on to Prinston for his Masters and PHD. The more he learned, the more holes he saw. It's a simple straight forward story.
Yes, knowledge and logic lead him from Christianity. I understand you don't like the idea the knowledge and logic demonstrate the short comings of your beliefs, but for the open minded, it does.
Now there you go again…. bobbing and weaving….trying to divert from the central issue.
Forget Bart Ehrman…I realize he is your favorite poster boy but can you get back to the base issue?
YOU are the one that brought up the issue of “True Christian.” You used that term in reasonably good context but now you flee from it.
So…..back to question that you are clearly very reluctant to address:
".....What makes a “True Christian?” Remember, you brought it up. What if I told you that, when younger, I was a Mormon, but then spent many years as an agnostic….and later “converted to” Catholicism.
You might wonder, was TF a “True Mormon?”
Was TF a “True Agnostic?”
Is TF a “True Catholic?”"
So, what makes a “True Christian.”
This is your term, you brought it up….leave Bart out of it for now.
I brought up the True Scotsman Fallacy in the context of you questioning Eherman's Christian roots by your suggesting that he was never a real Christian. This isn't my first rodeo. I know your tricks.
Hmm….. why would you not question whether or not Bart Ehrman was a “real Christian?” Again the term “real Christian” is your term, not mine. Wouldn’t you want to know? Is Bart Ehrman just a poser or was he indeed a “real Christian” who recanted the faith?
Obviously…..You don’t want to know because that knowledge might destroy the “atheist poster boy’s” credibility.
But, I digress, Mr. Ehrman is not the most important issue.
This may not be the first rodeo you have attended but all you really do is watch from the stands.
You refuse to jump in and mix it up…..like they say….”all hat, no cattle, never been on a horse.”
I conclude that you are literally unable to define or describe what a “True Christian” is. You don’t know do you?
You back away as soon as something hits too close to home.
You retreated from the “hell” question, you backed away from the “sentient being” issue and now you are fleeing from the “True Christian” issue.
Right now, I have a “ranch to run” but will return this evening and explain it to you.
Btw…I cannot remember, but have I ever alleged that Bart Ehrman was not a “True Christian?” I think I have not, but perhaps I have forgotten. Do you recall me ever alleging he was not a “Christian?”
Last edited by TF49; 04/01/24.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
I know what I think of Bart Ehrman, but it seems to be he is both angry with God and confused.
Why would YOU think that he ever was a “Christian?”
Why would YOU accept that he was a Christian that renounced his belief in Jesus?
Are you suggesting that there are no examples of Christians who have lost their faith?
Or perhaps you think they were never "True Christians tm" in the first place?
You’re talking to yourself again, trying to get ahead of the game.
I am referring to Bart Ehrman.
But, since you asked…. What makes someone a “True Christian?”
Do you have any idea?
You have referred to the term, but I suspect you have only the tiniest bit of knowledge of Christian doctrine.
So….should you choose, you can respond in a number of ways.
1.- Some empty headed smart remark, that shows you can’t keep up in the discussion.
2. - You can do an internet search and do some sort of cut and paste, that shows you are incapable of keeping up with the discussion.
3.- Contribute some sort of your own thought or conjecture on the subject what makes a “True Christian.”
So, DBT…. Have at it.
No, he's alluding to your use of The True Scotsman Fallacy, insinuating Bart was not a "True Christian". Bart initially went to Moody Bible Institute. This is a school for true believers. He finished his undergrad at Wheaton before going on to Prinston for his Masters and PHD. The more he learned, the more holes he saw. It's a simple straight forward story.
Yes, knowledge and logic lead him from Christianity. I understand you don't like the idea the knowledge and logic demonstrate the short comings of your beliefs, but for the open minded, it does.
Now there you go again…. bobbing and weaving….trying to divert from the central issue.
Forget Bart Ehrman…I realize he is your favorite poster boy but can you get back to the base issue?
YOU are the one that brought up the issue of “True Christian.” You used that term in reasonably good context but now you flee from it.
So…..back to question that you are clearly very reluctant to address:
".....What makes a “True Christian?” Remember, you brought it up. What if I told you that, when younger, I was a Mormon, but then spent many years as an agnostic….and later “converted to” Catholicism.
You might wonder, was TF a “True Mormon?”
Was TF a “True Agnostic?”
Is TF a “True Catholic?”"
So, what makes a “True Christian.”
This is your term, you brought it up….leave Bart out of it for now.
I brought up the True Scotsman Fallacy in the context of you questioning Eherman's Christian roots by your suggesting that he was never a real Christian. This isn't my first rodeo. I know your tricks.
Hmm….. why would you not question whether or not Bart Ehrman was a “real Christian?” Again the term “real Christian” is your term, not mine. Wouldn’t you want to know? Is Bart Ehrman just a poser or was he indeed a “real Christian” who recanted the faith?
Obviously…..You don’t want to know because that knowledge might destroy the “atheist poster boy’s” credibility.
But, I digress, Mr. Ehrman is not the most important issue.
This may not be the first rodeo you have attended but all you really do is watch from the stands.
You refuse to jump in and mix it up…..like they say….”all hat, no cattle, never been on a horse.”
I conclude that you are literally unable to define or describe what a “True Christian” is. You don’t know do you?
You back away as soon as something hits too close to home.
You retreated from the “hell” question, you backed away from the “sentient being” issue and now you are fleeing from the “True Christian” issue.
Right now, I have a “ranch to run” but will return this evening and explain it to you.
Btw…I cannot remember, but have I ever alleged that Bart Ehrman was not a “True Christian?” I think I have not, but perhaps I have forgotten. Do you recall me ever alleging he was not a “Christian?”
The Christians in each of these boxes thinks they are the only "True Christians":
So you tell me, which box is right, and which one's are wrong.
Spoiler alert. The correct answer is Mormons.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
![[Linked Image from i.etsystatic.com]](https://i.etsystatic.com/15644934/r/il/24c1c1/5087343019/il_1588xN.5087343019_c61u.jpg)