avi

yes, thank you Apostate Abe. I enjoyed watching and listening to all 24 episodes. I am fond of his books, as well. Relaxing, good, solid entertainment.

I agree with Pete's conclusion, that Ehrman's newest, forthcoming ("e-") book ought to be significantly more substantial than the substance contained within these 24 lectures.

The audience for this lecture series is rather unclear to me, since his delivery was relatively elementary, focused on quotes from the gospels, and based upon a supposition, unchallenged, and unexplained, of historical validity of the life of JC.

The series has some good points, but, not much that is not already well known to members of this forum.

In my view, the chief advantage in watching this series, is to learn how a distinguished biblical scholar of great reputation proceeds to elaborate, step by step, his own transformation from solid believer to skeptic.

I will be very interested to learn how he decides that the theory of a mythical Jesus is not simply far fetched, but erroneous.

He does, to his credit, in my opinion, outline, in this eleven year old lecture series, his method of evaluating which gospel stories are fictional, and which represent genuine history. For me, to be sure, his logic is flawed, because I view the entire new testament as purely fictional.

avi

beallen041

It is my understanding that these are lectures given for a course by the Teaching Company and my guess is they are in violation of some copyright unless the Teaching Company is now putting all their lectures on YouTube (which would be great).

Toto

The Teaching Company is not mentioned, and the person who put them online is not associated with the TC.

Toto

Teaching Company: Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

Most review are positive, except ones like this:

Toto

I can't believe I watched the whole thing. The first half is not too bad. The second half contains a lot of assertions that I know are unsupportable, about how we are sure that Jesus was baptized, did something in the Temple, etc. The very last half hour is a review of failed predictions of the end of the world.

This is not the only youtube post of this series.

stephan huller

I was thoroughly bored by what I saw. Solid but ultimately forgetable

aa5874

Ehrman is probably the worse I have ever heard. He uses ADMITTED unreliable sources to support his presumption of an HJ.

avi

Three luminaries of the forum.

Three hostile reviews.

Well, in my opinion, you three are all correct, in explaining what's wrong with this eleven year old discussion of the origins of Christianity.

However, there is an enormous difference between offering a valid critique of someone's effort, and generating our own twenty four part video series for posting here, and at youtube, if someone wishes.

Which of you three critics, will step up to the plate, and organize our own 24 part video, explaining our view that the Jews, Christians and Muslims are no different from the "pagans", Zoroastrians, Hindus and the rest---simply followers of ideologies based upon ignorance, superstition, and tradition.

It is MUCH easier to complain, than to do something assertive, something which explains why a particular scholar's interpretation errs. Ehrman is not the world's greatest speaker, or the smartest guy on the planet, or the best informed skeptic around, but he is VERY skillful, in performing his lectures, in my opinion, much, much more skillful, than I could ever hope to do, if I had some sort of knowledge of the subject matter, (which I lack.)

I simply cannot imagine any of the fine contributors to this wonderful forum offering a 24 part, 12 hour lecture series, with as much confidence, and proficiency, as Ehrman displayed in this very old production. I hope I am wrong, and that someone will come along, and gather the troops, to organize a video reply to Ehrman, one which is NOT boring, NOT citing unreliable sources, and NOT containing assertions known to be unsupportable.

avi

Doug Shaver

Find me a sponsor and I'll do it. I have everything needed (unless a relevant c.v. counts as "needed") except the free time. Ehrman was, I assume, getting paid by his university for the time he put into that production.

aa5874

Why are you COMPLAINING if you are not going to do anything assertive?

You are doing the very same thing that you accuse others of.

It must be that others may LACK the same skills you lack.

Now, it is NOT a complain that Ehrman has assumed an historical Jesus of Nazareth based on UNRELIABLE sources. It is a FACT.

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ was a Child of a Holy Ghost, the Creator that was God and was BORN in Bethlehem.

Ehrman uses those very sources to claim Jesus was a man from Nazareth.

How ridiculous!!!

Ehrman MUST first PRODUCE a credible source of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth.

That is BASIC.

It ONLY takes a FEW seconds to destroy Ehrman.

I don't have HOURS to waste with Ehrman.

In the NT, Jesus Christ was a MYTH character. See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, John 1, and Galatians 1

This is not a complain. There is NO source of antiquity that mention Ehrman's HJ of Nazareth.