Two atheists go at it over the existence of Jesus Christ

[Christos doulos]

Oldie but Goldie :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

The infidel guy vs Bart Erhman on "The Infidel Guy Show"

The infidel Guy was on "Wifeswap" paired up with a Christian fundamentalist family.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIhX4BWCPU

 

[preachinjesus]

No reasonable scholar or historian doubts that Jesus existed. Bart's point is a good one and nobody should take the Infidel Guy seriously about anything.

 

[Amy.G]

What a great testimony of the validity of the bible from an atheist. God can use anybody.

Does anybody know what happened to Bart Erhman? What caused him to leave the faith?


That Infidel guy is an idiot. He bases all his "knowledge" on.....nothing. :laugh:

 

[Don]

used to be an atheist guy on the public access channel in Hawaii who would do a similar show; Forrest something-or-other. I came across him on a message board somewhere ten years or so ago. He would stupid questions, like "if David and Moses are such well-known Christianity figures, where are they buried?"

One guy shut him up by asking, "do you deny that Genghis Khan conquered most of the known world at one time? No? Then tell us where he's buried."

 

[preachinjesus]

What a great testimony of the validity of the bible from an atheist. God can use anybody.

For what its worth, Ehrman is an agnostic and not an atheist. There is a definite distinction.

Does anybody know what happened to Bart Erhman? What caused him to leave the faith?

I believe it was a combination of his wrestling with the problem of evil and then encountering the difficulties which exist in the text of the NT from a textual critical standpoint. Both issues are significant ones, though reconciliable, and Bart left the Christian faith.

However I do add that Ehrman is a world class textual scholar. Bruce Metzger, longtime exegete extraordinare at Princeton theological, was asked who he thought the best NT Greek scholar was and he said Ehrman. The guy, Ehrman, is a serious intellect and someone to be taken seriously (not saying you aren't.) His intellectual struggles are the kind that many people deal with.

 

[Christos doulos]

There is a definite distinction.

Not when it pertains to the existence of Jesus Christ being the Son of God

Both issues are significant ones, though reconciliable, and Bart left the Christian faith......

My friend. Erhman never left the Christian faith as he was never in it to begin with.

 

[HAMel]

Ehrman writes about the early Christians, using the term "proto-orthodox" to describe the Christian traditions that would later be defined as orthodox.

He describes 1st- and 2nd-century Christians as not yet having a unified, orthodox tradition.[1] He is the author of a number of books in this area, including Misquoting Jesus (2005), God's Problem (2008), and Jesus, Interrupted (2009).

In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.

His graduate studies, however, eventually convinced him that one ought to acknowledge the contradictions in the biblical manuscripts rather than attempt to harmonize or reconcile discrepancies. He remained a liberal Christian for fifteen years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.

From, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman


It looks like he allowed philosophy to get the best of him.

 

[DaChaser1]

For what its worth, Ehrman is an agnostic and not an atheist. There is a definite distinction.



I believe it was a combination of his wrestling with the problem of evil and then encountering the difficulties which exist in the text of the NT from a textual critical standpoint. Both issues are significant ones, though reconciliable, and Bart left the Christian faith.

However I do add that Ehrman is a world class textual scholar. Bruce Metzger, longtime exegete extraordinare at Princeton theological, was asked who he thought the best NT Greek scholar was and he said Ehrman. The guy, Ehrman, is a serious intellect and someone to be taken seriously (not saying you aren't.) His intellectual struggles are the kind that many people deal with.

Hard to be the best in the World if one doubts the very inspired word of God!
And denies the very Christ of the Bible!

remember that satan is the best of all created beings for brains/smarts, and he would hold to pretty much same as someone like bart would!

 

[Baptist Believer]

It looks like he allowed philosophy to get the best of him.

From what was said in Wikipedia, I don't see it as philosophy so much as the doctrine of inerrancy he was likely taught as a young person. If you build a house-of-cards theology that claims a single error in scripture should mean that you can't trust scripture at all, then you set the stage for rejection of the faith when you do encounter difficulties.

I was raised with that kind of "faith" and very nearly had my faith derailed my first semester in college. I had to complete start over in my faith, tossing aside everything I had been told by the church that helped raise me, before I was able to have confidence in Jesus again. My brother's faith was completely derailed and he professes atheism to this day.

Ironically enough, the only reason (in human terms) that I gave Christianity another chance was that I was well aware of the hypocrisy of my spiritual mentors growing up, while my brother, up to the time he rejected his faith, was not. Their hypocrisy made me suspect that what I had been told may not be an accurate presentation of the way of Jesus.

Those of us who struggle with textual issues and seeming contradictions who do not labor under that delusion (the view that a single error means you can't trust scripture, not inerrancy) do not risk our faith every time we try to work through as issue. We can patiently meditate on the issues and wait for the guidance and enlightenment of the Spirit to work out those problems in due course. Over time, I have worked through satisfactory resolutions (at least for me) for most of the textual issues I have struggled with. I can approach those issues with honesty AND faith (which are not contradictory, but rather complement each other) and help other people who struggle with the same issues.

 

[DaChaser1]

Ehrman writes about the early Christians, using the term "proto-orthodox" to describe the Christian traditions that would later be defined as orthodox.

He describes 1st- and 2nd-century Christians as not yet having a unified, orthodox tradition.[1] He is the author of a number of books in this area, including Misquoting Jesus (2005), God's Problem (2008), and Jesus, Interrupted (2009).

In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.

His graduate studies, however, eventually convinced him that one ought to acknowledge the contradictions in the biblical manuscripts rather than attempt to harmonize or reconcile discrepancies. He remained a liberal Christian for fifteen years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.

From, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman


It looks like he allowed philosophy to get the best of him.

primary mistake was to deny Jesus as the messiah, as IF one holds to being a Christian , that truth of jesus would verify the truthdfulness of the scriptures!

IF jesus is God in Human form, than the Bible would be divinely inspired, as he conformined that it was!

 

[DaChaser1]

From what was said in Wikipedia, I don't see it as philosophy so much as the doctrine of inerrancy he was likely taught as a young person. If you build a house-of-cards theology that claims a single error in scripture should mean that you can't trust scripture at all, then you set the stage for rejection of the faith when you do encounter difficulties.

I was raised with that kind of "faith" and very nearly had my faith derailed my first semester in college. I had to complete start over in my faith, tossing aside everything I had been told by the church that helped raise me, before I was able to have confidence in Jesus again. My brother's faith was completely derailed and he professes atheism to this day.

Ironically enough, the only reason (in human terms) that I gave Christianity another chance was that I was well aware of the hypocrisy of my spiritual mentors growing up, while my brother, up to the time he rejected his faith, was not. Their hypocrisy made me suspect that what I had been told may not be an accurate presentation of the way of Jesus.

Those of us who struggle with textual issues and seeming contradictions who do not labor under that delusion (the view that a single error means you can't trust scripture, not inerrancy) do not risk our faith every time we try to work through as issue. We can patiently meditate on the issues and wait for the guidance and enlightenment of the Spirit to work out those problems in due course. Over time, I have worked through satisfactory resolutions (at least for me) for most of the textual issues I have struggled with. I can approach those issues with honesty AND faith (which are not contradictory, but rather complement each other) and help other people who struggle with the same issues.

Key thing to remember on this issue...

ALL hinges about person and work of jesus...

IF he is the Lord, rose from dead, than Bible by view of his approval has to be inspred revelation!

 

[Baptist Believer]

remember that satan is the best of all created beings for brains/smarts, and he would hold to pretty much same as someone like bart would!

Actually the adversary and demons are not agnostics or atheists. They know Jesus (Acts 19:15) and probably have better theology than any human.

They are merely in rebellion against the LORD.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Key thing to remember on this issue...

ALL hinges about person and work of jesus...

IF he is the Lord, rose from dead, than Bible by view of his approval has to be inspred revelation!

One key failure of this reasoning is that the New Testament was not written until after Pentecost, so we don't have an objective record of Jesus giving His approval to the canon of the New Testament.

Now by saying that, I'm just pointing out that your argument is irrelevant to the question at hand. I'm not denying any part of the New Testament. I heartily embrace all of the New Testament canon.

 

[Amy.G]

From what was said in Wikipedia, I don't see it as philosophy so much as the doctrine of inerrancy he was likely taught as a young person.

What is the inerrancy doctrine you were taught that damaged your faith? How did it affect you? I wasn't raised in a Christian home, so I had to learn everything as an adult.

 

[DaChaser1]

One key failure of this reasoning is that the New Testament was not written until after Pentecost, so we don't have an objective record of Jesus giving His approval to the canon of the New Testament.

Now by saying that, I'm just pointing out that your argument is irrelevant to the question at hand. I'm not denying any part of the New Testament. I heartily embrace all of the New Testament canon.

No, as the Lord Himself verified that the Apsotles would be inspired same fashion as the prophets, by the HS, so that they would be accurate to the details around events of the life and times of jesus!

Again, jesus being Incarnate son of God supports/confirms the NT, not the bible confirming Him!

Go to Him as the source of the Bible, and he would be supreme basis to verify veracity of it as being of/from God!

 

[Baptist Believer]

What is the inerrancy doctrine you were taught that damaged your faith? How did it affect you? I wasn't raised in a Christian home, so I had to learn everything as an adult.

I don't want to drag this discussion off on a discussion of whether or not the specific theological construction of inerrancy (which I do not embrace) is the best way to affirm the reliability of the scriptures (which I happily affirm), but my main difficulty with inerrancy is that it (in its most popular forms), asserts that if there is a single error in any part of scripture, then all of scripture is in error; therefore it is not God's word, and therefore, all untrue. This point, in my view and experience, is extremely dangerous to biblical faith when a Christian is not involved in a church experience where the gifts and manifestations of the LORD's presence are not experienced as a regular part of life. In the very low level of Christianity that most of us in the Western world experience today, we often have very little experience with the LORD to support us when we struggle with intellectual issues.

Now you can pick apart the popular assertions about inerrancy, and claim that the original manuscripts (which no living human has knowingly seen) are inerrant and that the errors we find in manuscripts are scribal errors, but that is an act of faith with no objective evidence. You can also point out the "science" of textual criticism which is extremely valuable in reconciling the various manuscripts and producing a text which is probably extremely close, if not an almost exact match to the original manuscripts, but there will always be some doubt.

In truth, inerrancy tries to reduce a living faith in the scriptures to a doctrinal creed, using sloppy logic and extrabiblical assumptions. There are historical reasons for this (the rise of modernism) and the intentions were certainly right and proper, but those who responded to attacks on the reliability of scripture against the modernists and the liberalism of the 19th century used the very same faulty tools and modernistic worldview to answer the challenge.

Instead, I think we need to speak of scriptures in terms of reliability and the way they confirm themselves as we experience the life of Jesus in our lives as well memorize and apply its teaching. Some folks will immediately claim that I'm echoing Karl Barth here (and I am to some degree), but that is not inherently wrong even though I have some major differences with Barth.

Anyway, that's more of an answer than you probably want and I don't want to drag this thread off in the wrong direction.

 

[Baptist Believer]

No, as the Lord Himself verified that the Apsotles would be inspired same fashion as the prophets, by the HS, so that they would be accurate to the details around events of the life and times of jesus!

You write this as if I don't know that.

You missed the point I was making: The New Testament canon did not exist for Him to affirm during His earthly, incarnate ministry.

The New Testament canon gained much of its authority by being tied to the Apostles who had their messages and ministries confirmed by signs, miracles and wonders (just like Jesus). This is clear from a casual reading of Acts.

Go to Him as the source of the Bible, and he would be supreme basis to verify veracity of it as being of/from God!

So you are asserting that our experience with Jesus confirms the New Testament to us as individuals? If so, I tend to agree.

 

[Christos doulos]

I don't want to drag this discussion off on a discussion of whether or not the specific theological construction of inerrancy (which I do not embrace) is the best way to affirm the reliability of the scriptures (which I happily affirm), but my main difficulty with inerrancy is that it (in its most popular forms), asserts........

I have always said, scripture is inerrant, our interpretation of scripture is not.

 

[DaChaser1]

I don't want to drag this discussion off on a discussion of whether or not the specific theological construction of inerrancy (which I do not embrace) is the best way to affirm the reliability of the scriptures (which I happily affirm), but my main difficulty with inerrancy is that it (in its most popular forms), asserts that if there is a single error in any part of scripture, then all of scripture is in error; therefore it is not God's word, and therefore, all untrue. This point, in my view and experience, is extremely dangerous to biblical faith when a Christian is not involved in a church experience where the gifts and manifestations of the LORD's presence are not experienced as a regular part of life. In the very low level of Christianity that most of us in the Western world experience today, we often have very little experience with the LORD to support us when we struggle with intellectual issues.

Now you can pick apart the popular assertions about inerrancy, and claim that the original manuscripts (which no living human has knowingly seen) are inerrant and that the errors we find in manuscripts are scribal errors, but that is an act of faith with no objective evidence. You can also point out the "science" of textual criticism which is extremely valuable in reconciling the various manuscripts and producing a text which is probably extremely close, if not an almost exact match to the original manuscripts, but there will always be some doubt.

In truth, inerrancy tries to reduce a living faith in the scriptures to a doctrinal creed, using sloppy logic and extrabiblical assumptions. There are historical reasons for this (the rise of modernism) and the intentions were certainly right and proper, but those who responded to attacks on the reliability of scripture against the modernists and the liberalism of the 19th century used the very same faulty tools and modernistic worldview to answer the challenge.

Instead, I think we need to speak of scriptures in terms of reliability and the way they confirm themselves as we experience the life of Jesus in our lives as well memorize and apply its teaching. Some folks will immediately claim that I'm echoing Karl Barth here (and I am to some degree), but that is not inherently wrong even though I have some major differences with Barth.

Anyway, that's more of an answer than you probably want and I don't want to drag this thread off in the wrong direction.

original manuscripts/documents were inerrant in ALL they referenced to, and were inspired revelation of/from God to us!

Now we no longer have them, but have extant preserved for us such an amount of texts that we can affirm that what we have today in both the Greek/hebrew texts that we use today for translation purposes can be considered truely word of God, an infallible revelation from god to us today!

Just curious, what part of Inerrancy bothers you?

 

[preachinjesus]

Hard to be the best in the World if one doubts the very inspired word of God!
And denies the very Christ of the Bible!

remember that satan is the best of all created beings for brains/smarts, and he would hold to pretty much same as someone like bart would!

This statement lacks an attachment to reality and is just a dogmatic reply that overlooks the nature of scholarship.