December 31, 2010
-
Skeptics arguing w/ Skeptics over faith vs fact
I stumbled upon this the other day and found it interesting. Infidel Guy clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s a man desperately committed to the idea that Jesus never existed. He’s evidently unwilling to have his faith stripped from him by an ordinary historian. On the other hand, Dr. Bart Ehrman is perplexing because he puts himself in a position of alternately saying he’s unfamiliar with another historian (Robert M. Price) while simultaneously criticizing his resume. It’s difficult to decide which of these fellows presents a less sympathetic figure.
Skeptics were thrilled when Dr. Ehrman stepped onto the scene. What better than to have a former Fundamentalist on their side? But he isn’t as committed as some would like. It’s like the school geek finally getting a date with the pretty cheerleader. But after the date is over, all he can pry out of her is a modest peck on the cheek. ~ Very amusing!
Comments (14)
OK, I could only make it through 2:34 of this drivel.
First, (“. . . I’ve written an entire book on what Jesus said and did.”) – look, Bart, I agree with you in fact. But, entire books have been written on what Sherlock Holmes said and did, yet at no point did Sir Conan believe he existed and solved crimes.
Simply writing on a subject does not equate with belief any more than teaching on a subject makes one an expert. And the core question that the historical Jesus asks about Himself is John 11:26. One’s response to this is definitive to one’s existence. Period.
Looks like the recommend button isn’t working.
Fantastic.
@SwordAndSacrifice -
Bart’s opinion about Jesus is his own and he’s welcome to it. I’ve listened to him debate before and have heard what he has to say. The man has a habit of overstating a position and, quite honestly, bluffing. You get a flavor of it towards the end of this interview when the I.G. fella brings up Price. He just asserts answers reflexively without any real consideration. He then back peddles and does it again when commenting on whether or not the man holds a teaching position (He does btw). It’s amazing and I think reveals how he handles his knowledge of NT criticism. ~fast and loose. His assessment of the Gospels presenting a different Jesus is astounding. His claim of Mark’s embellishment is…… well, embellished. He often leaves the impression that the Gospels were cut out of whole cloth so it’s little wonder dodo’s like I.G. think he doesn’t believe in a “real” Jesus. That’s the impression he’s happy to leave many times!!
There is no question Dr. Ehrman has credibility as a scholar. But his agenda becomes apparent whenever his mouth moves. It just goes to show; the obtaining of a degree or two may fill a man with knowledge but it doesn’t bleed him of all bias.
@soccerdadforlife -
It seems to be working but no need to feel obligated. It’s difficult to recommend these two.
@The_ATM -
Thanks for the Rec!
I’ve read a couple of Ehrman’s books. The interesting thing about him is that he doesn’t fundamentally disagree with the footnotes in any Bible. He points out the exact same things you would notice if you read those footnotes. “This phrase omitted in the best and earliest manuscripts,” and so on. He just takes all that information and draws conclusions from it. I think they’re unwarranted conclusions, of course, but his work is nothing that should upset anyone.
@SirNickDon -
I agree. Take for instance the story of the adulteress. Conservative scholars have set that aside for at least a century due to it’s late dating and other difficulties. Other than that he seems to dismiss Christ’s divinity based on what amounts to clerical errors and some dissimilarities. His arguments is really one of inerrancy as he defines it and not one of accuracy.
I heard of an interview where the host asked eagerly, “So tell me what you think the original manuscripts REALLY said” He said, “What do you mean?” The host pushed him further and said well with all this corruption you’ve suggested it had to have been different. Amazingly he said that the earliest manuscripts were probably very much like we see them translated today!!! In other words, between 95 and 99% pure!
He really has very little to offer the skeptic community.
This was an enjoyable discussion. I’m glad one of the parties possessed intellectual honesty.
Finally, I found someone refreshing.
Most atheists have no idea of what they are talkiing about when they discuss thological issues. But even the most brainless of atheists will usually admit Jesus existed. Obviously our friend’s brain count is in negative numbers!
@kenedwards5 -
Absolutely. The Christian Faith is a rational faith based on evidence. The skeptic has to replace evidence with wishful thinking. In reality, there is nothing the least bit skeptical about their approach to history.
It’s ironic, really.
someone stole my damn name?
@AtheistInfidel -
IDK, he may have his copyrighted.