Toto

If I thought anyone would take Abe's comment seriously, I would have removed it.

Steven Carr is also being sarcastic, if you were wondering.

NateVader

I found Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted to be very helpful in my deconversion. I'll probably check this new one out at some point.

J.F. Gaul

Didn't Ehrman already write a bit on scriptural forgeries in Lost Christianities?

ApostateAbe

As you may have gathered already, I am kidding. I am actually a big fan of Ehrman, and I have read three of his books. I was introduced to Ehrman after I found out about the pair of doomsday prophecies with imminent deadlines in each of Matthew, Mark and Luke. After that, I concluded that Jesus was a human being, not just a myth, because such a thing would be much more expected of an actual human cult leader, not a mythical character. I started a thread in this forum years ago, making my argument known, and wondering why mythicists and Jesus-skeptics don't find this argument persuasive for a historical Jesus. I was told that I was not the first to come up with this argument, and I was pointed to Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. I bought it online, and, yep, in the book I found out that it was the established position among critical scholars for 100 years (popularized by Albert Schweitzer).

Bart Ehrman was a guest on the Infidel Guy's radio show a few years ago to talk about one of his books, and there was a caller who thought that Jesus never existed. Ehrman was greatly condescending toward such a position, he joked that there were people online who quoted him as though he agreed with that position, which is especially preposterous since he wrote a book on the life of Jesus. The Infidel Guy, who advocated mythicism, asked him what evidence there was of the historical Jesus. And Ehrman responded, "What evidence is there of Julius Caesar?" This rubbed mythicists the wrong way, because they get that analogy from apologists all the time, and they thought much less of Ehrman after that. There are occasionally mythicists and Jesus-skeptics who accuse Ehrman and other critical scholars of being part of the Christian society, depending on the Christian church for their respect or whatever. That is how they tend to explain the positions of the critical scholars, because many of them can't even imagine that the model of a historical human Jesus can have any merit, especially by depending on evidence that is almost exclusively part of the New Testament canon. Mythicists and Jesus-skeptics prefer to take the New Testament as absolutely unreliable for any historical conclusion except concerning the arbitrary things that Christians believed at the time. And, of course, critical scholars tend to think differently.

Kapyong

If it was good enough for Aristotle,
it's good enough for me !

;-)

Minimalist

Most of them would be kicking and screaming the whole way, boss.

Joan of Bark

Sorry, Abe. My sarcasm meter was broken.

judge

I'd be very interested in hearing more about how these books helped, if you have time. Thanks

temporalillusion

I was already along my de-conversion path (which started more with science vs. literalism and logical and moral issues), but Ehrman's TTC lectures and those books were very enlightening in fixing a lot of misconceptions and/or complete gaps in my knowledge.

If you are raised as an evangelical biblical literalist then:

-that not all the epistles were written by Paul
-many of the changes in the manuscript tradition could actually be intentional
-the differences between the gospels actually represent different theological views

Are just a few ideas that literally shake the foundation of your beliefs.

If I'd been raised in a liberal denomination then my beliefs might have survived the contradictions with science, logic, morality, and history, but that's the problem with beliefs in absolutes.. they may appear stronger, but are more brittle and instead of bending, they shatter.

judge

For myself, starting to critically examine these things has been an important part of my deconversion, but, well I think when I look at Ehrmans work, I think..M'eh.
They could be true but its all based on less than solid foundations, with lots of assumtions. So I find at least some of his points unlikely.
He keeps pumping out more books with, to me, sensationalist titles, with not a lot that is new.

i think also , for myself, it has been my own experience in life that has run counter to the nutty ideas of fundamentalist christians, and as I rely more on that, it matters little whether, for example, Paul wrote all the epistles credited to him.
Speculating about conspiracies to forge tests or change them, seems pretty unimportant, ot me anyway.
Does fundalmentalist christianity produce results that are any good, is amuch more important question,, for me.
Anyway thats my rave done.