SUGGESTION: Bart Ehrman Collection

I've seen Ehrman v. Evans a couple times on Youtube, and in my opinion, Ehrman eats Evans's lunch AND his dinner. It's not that I think Ehrman is right on the big issues, it's just that Evans is so tunnel-visioned that he lacks intellectual rigor, imo. Evans shouldn't debate--I doubt he wins many converts from a crowd of the undecided, especially against a guy like Ehrman, who knows his stuff even if he makes erroneous conclusions.

There's a fine line between doctrine and platitudes...so fine, it often doesn't exist at all.

Bump.

Ehrman Collection please.

I don't think YHWH is appeased by ignorant worship. I don't think church leaders (pastors and their ilk) who study the "difficult" stuff but choose not to "burden their flocks" with such uncomfortable information are doing their underlings any favors. If the present state of the textual circumstance (or whatever other difficult circumstance it might be) is enough to throw a person into an unrecoverable tailspin, I seriously doubt their ignorance of such matters would have ever saved them. If an issue is important enough for a pulpit speaker to become familiar with, then it probably should be shared with the congregation. Chances are pretty good that if someone can't handle such things, they won't be able to handle YHWH in His unadulterated glory...since it isn't nearly as tame as it is often made out to be. Truth either strengthens or crushes. Being gentle while leading one to maturity is fine--refusing to tax a person with truth is unacceptable. If Ehrman had been made aware of the textual situation before he got to graduate-level studies, he would have been better prepared to deal with reality in a healthy way. Youth is supple and pliable; age stiffens and makes brittle unless one is deliberate in keeping limber.

MJ. Smith said:

My objection was to your calling his conclusions "dumb". That sort of response makes it hard for some of the rest of us to get nonbelievers to believe one can be rational, intelligent AND Christian. Or with some other posts (not yours) that Christians can be kind. As my mother would say "I've no truck with stupid, snide, nasty, provocative comments unless their mine."

Josh said:

His books essentially are ANTI-Christian - they state that the Scriptures are not reliable.

There is wide variation in the Christian community as to what is meant by the Scriptures being reliable. I know some mainstream pastors (not Catholic) who are likely fans of Ehrman - at least they are fans of Borg. There's a need for provocateur authors - they're a good cure for complacency.

Well, Josh and I are able to claim a rare point of agreement on Ehrman...he is intelligent and has things worthy of being said...and he punctuates his contributions with conclusions that are egregiously lacking in good sense. Some call that "dumb", others "stupid".

As a school teacher, I am well aware of the negative view that "calling names" has taken on in recent years. It just isn't nice, and as has been concluded by psychologists, analysts, and others, it has a tendency to cut off communication and causes people to dig in their heels. Plus it is increasingly perceived as unbecoming and even ugly. I don't entirely dismiss those points...but I do think that such things are often beside the point. The reason is, as is often pointed out when the discussion turns to YHWH's name, names aren't just "tags" appended to things and people for easier reference. They are often descriptions of the character of something or someone. Unfortunately, some actions and behaviors ARE ugly, and refusing to append an ugly reference to such behaviors and the practitioners of them because doing so is considered "ugly" is a mindless reversal of staggering consequence. That isn't to say that as a Christian, one is carelessly free to attach the labels "dumb" and "stupid" with little aforethought. The pointing finger with its back-pointing buddies is ever in play. Nevertheless, perhaps there is a reason why it's "hard for some of the rest of us to get nonbelievers to believe one can be rational, intelligent AND Christian..."--because it just isn't all that true. I know one person who feels that way... Jer. 4:22, Jer. 10:21.

...YHWH.

I'm well aware of the old saying, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all."

I would tend to counter that with this: "If you don't have anything good to say...PROPHESY!"

Alain Maashe said:

David Paul said:

Nevertheless, perhaps there is a reason why it's "hard for some of the rest of us to get nonbelievers to believe one can be rational, intelligent AND Christian..."--because it just isn't all that true. I know one person who feels that way... Jer. 4:22, Jer. 10:21.

I see the point you are trying to make and I agree but I cannot help but to make a few observations concerning your use of Jer. 4:22, Jer. 10:21.

In context, both Jer 4:22 and 10:21 are not referring to being rational or intelligent in the modern understanding of the terms but to godliness and the knowledge of God. As in such, in Jeremiah which follows the understanding found in wisdom literature, "foolishness", "senselessness", "stupidity" are linked to a lack of knowledge of God and failure to have spiritual understanding as one is adept at doing evil and unable to do good (this point is especially clear in Jer 4:22 but also implied in 10:21).

Ironically and according to the wisdom tradition, non-believers are de facto foolish and stupid regardless of their IQ and intellectual achievements.

No doubt, Alain. Full agreement here regarding your final statement above...but there are verses that attend to your specific observation; namely, Jer. 10:14, Jer. 51:17. I used Jer. 4:22 and Jer. 10:21 to draw attention to the fact that YHWH has spoken specifically about the stupidity of those who choose to call themselves by His name. Mt. 7:21, 22 speaks about those folks, referred to as the "many", and He says in Mt. 7:23 that He doesn't know them...because they don't truly know Him.

Alain Maashe said:

The fool says "there is no God" Ps 14:1; 53:1

Absolutely true...and in YHWH/Yeishuu`a's sight, those who are mentioned in Mt. 7, thought they call Him "Lord", speak by their actions that "there is no God".

MJ. Smith said:

David Paul said:

Unfortunately, some actions and behaviors ARE ugly, and refusing to append an ugly reference to such behaviors and the practitioners of them because doing so is considered "ugly" is a mindless reversal of staggering consequence

Which I would call a "crock of self-justifying ...". One can point out errors, bad behavior and even bad character without engaging in it.

Hmmm, somehow this post slipped by my notice earlier.

So, MJ, I wonder...since you called me a "crock", must I then simply take your word that this is possible? You know, seeing as I don't actually have an example to consider?