Heresy for sale?
I’m highly disappointed today to learn that logos is selling Bart Ehrman’s book “How Jesus Became God”.
I understand that none of us will agree on 100% of anything, but even a Baptist and Catholic both agree on the divinity of Christ. Erhman’s book is heresy and it doesn’t appear to be sold for the purpose of learning what modern heresy looks like. It appears to be recommended reading.
Logos, you can do better than this.
Comments
-
Well, of course, it's heresy. So are a whole bunch of books in Logos.
Coincidentally, I've been reading this very volume today, after finishing up on Smith's Monotheism book (another heresy volume by the way; so many; so little time). Unfortunately, it's on my Kindle Scribe, so I'm having to move back and forth, to see exactly the greek, along with the variants in discussion. But good to trace exactly what Ehrman's argument was/is.
Actually, there's two Ehrman's on prepub. About time.
BTW: Ehrman discusses a variant that shows up in Whiston's Primitive New Testament … which Logos also carries. It's one of the few translations that works of the Beza and Claramontanus manuscripts (so called 'Western'). And Whiston was the same as the Josephus translator.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
2 -
Please read for the official postion.
I am one who keeps pressing for more Bart Ehrman in Logos. recently I was most annoyed that I still had to reach for an actual book for his The Other Gospels. Furthermore, I find it very useful to be aware of the ideas floating around in academia because sooner or later someone is going to ask me about them.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
2 -
Yesterday I was instructed by a "Christian" on how evolution works.
Having bad books available isn't good but it's a lot better than censorship.
If we don't like a resource we ignore it. If an heretic uses the resource what is it to us?
Let's protect the freedom of speech always."Where are we going to scare them off to, hell number two?"
- Dr. Kent Hovind1 -
I understand some people's disappointment in Logos making Ehrman books available. I, however, am thankful to have these resources so that I can use the power of Logos to search the texts and be able to better counter his arguments. In addition, if I can cite him properly, I am far less likely of committing straw man fallacies. I already own most of his books in print for these reasons. We need to use discernment whenever we read…even books that are from Christian authors. I'm sure we all have areas of Christian writing that we disagree with and, for some, think is borderline heretical. The print books I have in my home for research are not all good books that I would want someone lacking discernment to access. I have a red rubber stamp with the words, "May contain heretical garbage, For research purposes only" and I stamp a books front cover as needed. If something should ever happen to me, my kids would know what books to keep and which ones to burn. Perhaps Logos can implement a red flag of sorts that we can put on books that we feel don't align with our Christian convictions. This would be the same concept as my rubber stamp. When my Logos library is willed to my son, I don't need to worry about him assuming all the texts are good to read. These red flags could be used for all kinds of texts, not just Ehrman.
2 -
Well, Kris, you can always tag your heretical books. I'm not sure Logos could do that … as an example, quite a few of the early Christian leaders turned out to be heretical to the modern church.
Since most books don't fit my beliefs, I'd have to tag almost all of them. Instead, I add a level of 'well-thought-out', plus short blurb to each that I go thru.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
1 -
When you go to the 'Info' page for a book you can give it a short name. You could put a star * or something on books that you want to remind yourself might have disagreeable content. The star wouldn't show up in the long name though, you could add it to that too.
I just realized the AI will still use books we don't like when generating its answers. Maybe it would be good to have a checkbox in the book info to 'exclude from AI'. Telling the AI we don't want it to use this book when finding answers for us.
0 -
I can't resist teasing a bit - I'm more generous. I would label much of my library schismatic and a much smaller slice heretical.🤐 I actually love your tagging based on the thought patterns.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Andddd—Although I certainly agree that a denial of Christ as God is heretical…so is belief in more than one-single God according to crystal-clear Scripture.
Indeed, “heresy” is often in the eye of the beholder.
Just sayin’😉.0 -
Sorry, I should have offered this information earlier but while Baptists and Catholic agree on the divinity of Christ, the following Christian groups do not. Some of these are represented in the forums, all are part of the Logos marketing target communities:
- Unitarians
- Christadelphians
- Jehovah's Witnesses
- Deists (in the sense of the American founding fathers)
- Iglesia ni Cristos (Philippines)
- Christian Science
- possibly Church of Latter-day Saints
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
1 -
The list above is factually inaccurate. Oneness Pentecostals adamantly defend the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Indeed, Oneness Pentecostals rightly place Christ in His biblical position as “the true God and eternal life” (I John 5.20)—contrary to fabricating Him into a mere one of “three divine persons.” Or, as the Apostle Paul would say, “another Jesus” (“heretical” indeed😉).
2 -
Thank you. I did not know there were modern non-Trinitarians who held to the divinity of Christ. A fascinating linguistic puzzle for me to explore.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
3 -
As one who respects your work I would be very interested in what you come across linguistically👍🏻.
1 -
As one who respects your work I would be very interested in what you come across linguistically👍🏻
To actually answer your question, would get into theological definitions but the elements that have to be accounted for:
- what in the conventional description of the Trinity leads to the statement "a mere one" i.e. why the implication of a lesser position?
- in my terminology the position appears to be equivalent to saying that the Godhead is manifested as Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Does that cause any difference in the meronym/holonym relationship between Godhead and Father, Son, Holy Spirit (Trinitarian vs. oneness views)?
- It appears that both the traditional trinitarian view and the oneness view say that the Godhead is experienced/revealed to humans as Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Is there anything in the experience (i.e. the basis of language) that distinguishes between the two views i.e. that I can use as a defining attribute of the view/experience?
- If, any only if, there is no attribute to distinguish the two views, I must assume that the two views arose for philosophical consistency rather than the human experience of God's self-revelation.
My sliding into theology: for the first point, I would be particularly concerned that the answer was compatible with Colossians 2:9.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
1 -
How do you know it's heresy? Is it because someone has studied it and concluded and demonstrated that it is?
In order to identify heresies, we need to study them thoroughly, and what better tool is there to do that than Logos.
We need more heresies in Logos. Come on, Logos, give us the heresies!!!
(I'd still like to see a Heresies Explorer interactive.)
3 -
Logos itself includes many Christian works of men (extra Biblical texts) like commentaries etc. that talk about heresy. Or extra ebooks you could buy.
You could make for yourself a notebook or something, gathering data from various sources. Maybe someone else has already.0 -
Don't know if you're joking (or making a good point), but it's a good idea, indirectly. As earlier mentioned, I have my Bible software tagged relative to belief-basing. In other words, (1) what verses are critical to supporting the various beliefs (I did only primary), and (2) what greek usage is needed to support the verse's use. Of course, the inverse, is the heresy. A good example is 'saved' and how each belief 'plugs in'. Wrong plug = heresy.
Much more interesting is the process works all the way back to the earliest 'fathers'. I'd not of thought that.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Logos is a tool to do research, not only to read about research. It is common academic standard to work with primary sources. Only groups such as Muslims and Mormons avoid doing so.
Don't know if you're joking (or making a good point)
That's not exclusive…
Actually, it's a habit I developed for social media whenever commenting on controversial topics. When people react with the "laughing" emoji, it looks like they laugh at the joke and not at my opinion.
1 -
Only groups such as Muslims and Mormons avoid doing so.
That is not my experience. What is your basis for this put-down?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Yassir Qadhi explains it perfectly. Muslim scholars don't cross the "red line". When "their academics" (quote Qadhi, therefore that's us) cross the red line, this is not to be discussed with the Muslim believers.
Qadhi & Hijab's "Holes in the Narrative" review (1 year on)
Relevant time stamps 19:00 through 20:45 and 31:15 through 34:30.
I've never looked into Mormon theology, whether their scholars cross the "red lines" and research plagiarism from "The View of the Hebrews" for example, large passages from which are included in the book of Mormon…
But this is what they tell their believers:
"To those who may argue that we cannot know these things, I testify that we can, when we are humble enough to do as God has instructed us through His prophets on this earth. To believe otherwise would be to accept the absurd notion that God also does not know where truth can be found or does not have the power to show it to us. Just because someone has not acted on the promise of this book does not mean that others have not done so." (Because My Father Read the Book of Mormon)
I'm not saying that there are no Christian groups who hold a low view of critical scholarship, but you do find critical scholarship in all branches of Christianity, no matter whether mainline protestant, evangelical, catholic, orthodox. That's why a product like Logos Bible Software can be successful, and we'll likely never see any similar research tool for the Quran or the book of Mormon.
0 -
That is not my experience. What is your basis for this put-down?Probably not allowed here. I hope you got my sources in the notification mail.
0 -
I understand now and agree. I was using a different definition of academic which did not include apologists. [Not saying there aren't apologists who are also scholars - just saying they are separate roles.] Using your definition, I have encountered it in several strains of Christianity, as well. I haven't encountered it in the Parsi and Buddhist teachers, at least so far. I believe I have referenced one Mormon scholar in my tips; I know I have referenced their rhetorical site. That is why I was puzzled by the comment.
I should admit that I "got fired" as a freshman in college as a "guinea pig" for a Pentecostal student taking an apologetics course. For various reasons, I did not want to make her question her own beliefs while making sure she didn't think I shared themi.e. I gave myself a red-line. Her teacher wouldn't believe my answers were as reported. I think apologists playing at being academics find themselves sometimes in a similar position.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
2 -
Thanks MJ—interesting points that would likely be better served off-forum so that we don’t violate forum rules. Not sure how to accommodate that process. For now, I’ll just state that we agree on the importance of Colossians 2.9–as well as Mark 12.29 IMO—relative to this topic.
In this same vein, I recently bought the newly released work by Bowman (& the DTS prof.) that I THINK is named “The Incarnate Christ” wherein they defend the deity of Christ. Although, admittedly, I haven’t read the whole book, I have noted that in this work they unwittingly misrepresent Oneness beliefs. I’ve actually dialogued with Dr. David Bernard about this work some and we just want proper representation. As I expressed to Dr. Bernard, I would actually be interested in holding a public discussion w. the authors of this work just to point out some of their inaccuracies.
To be clear, I do NOT believe that they do this intentionally (neither did you and I deeply respect your integrity)—I just suspect a knee-jerk reaction by the authors (although, I have engaged Bowman in times past). For me, I’m only interested in raw-exegetical-data from the scriptures themselves. And if it can be demonstrated FROM THE SCRIPTURES that were in error then I would gladly walk away from my current position. However, after almost 30 years now of researching the topic as intently as I know how—and dialoging ad-nauseum with supposed anti-Oneness “experts”—that hasn’t happened (but I’m always open to rigorous biblical correction).
Ok—I’ve probably violated forum rules enough by now so better creep away while I still can🥴.
0
