Post Reply
Page 4 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Who Wrote the Bible, by Bart Ehrman
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 9:52AM #31
Nino0814
Posts: 1,753

Mar 22, 2012 -- 7:40AM, journeying wrote:


I too am reading Crossan's Parables. Very interesting.




I found Crossan's view of the gospels as parable to be very compelling, and challenging.  He has challenge me to read the Gospel of Mark with a new set of eye.  Where the un-named people of faith are favored over the Church leaders.  It was particularly interesting to think of Mark's total message in today's reading of the resurrection.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 1:55PM #32
journeying
Posts: 2,317

Hopefully, now that Holy Week is history for 2012, I can get back to the Crossan. The vicar who leads our Bible study has some disagreements with him but she said he has caused her to rethink some aspects of the Gospels. For her, that's a huge admission.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 3:04PM #33
RJMcElwain
Posts: 2,961

A funny thing this morning. The Rector's Easter Sermon was based on the writings of Bart Ehrman, who was quoted near the beginning of the Sermon. Specifically, the Rector gave one of the best Sermons I've ever heard on the subject of the Resurrection using Ehrman as his source.


We now audio tape the sermons and put them on our website. As soon as this one becomes available, I'll post the address.

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 1:33PM #34
Mostyn32
Posts: 2,941

Whether or not Bart Ehrman is an agnostic is immaterial. Strange as it may seem, agnosticism does not preclude faith. An agnostic is one who believes that nothing can be known or proved about the existence of God, and Ehrman's personal beliefs (or lack of them) should not hamper his research/writing on matters theological.


I agree that much of what Bob wrote about in his original post on this thread is not new. Theologians have known since at least the middle of the nineteenth century that Paul did not write all the letters ascribed to him, that John did not write The Book of the Revelation (or even the Gospel accredited to him) and that the authorship of Peter's letters, John's letters and those of Jude and James are shrouded in mystery. It was not unusual at the time at which these letters were written, for those who admired certain well known people to write in their name. Forgery, as we understand it, was not an issue then.  None of that really matters because the writings have value. However, I must admit that I get ticked when we have a reading from Ephesiansd and it is attributed to Paul by the Lector, when the Church has known for almost two hundred years that Paul did not write Ephesians!


The only book I have read by Bart Ehrman is 'Misquoting Jesus', which I enjoyed. It saddens me that those of a more fundamentalist/literalist bent will not engage any of the ideas advanced by modern scholars of scripture.

"God is no captious sophister, eager to trip us up whenever we say amiss, but a courteous tutor, ready to amend what, in our weakness or our ignorance, we say ill, and to make the most of what we say aright."  from 'A Learned Discourse on Justification', a sermon by Richard Hooker (1554-1600).
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 5:12PM #35
journeying
Posts: 2,317

Apr 9, 2012 -- 1:33PM, Mostyn32 wrote:


It saddens me that those of a more fundamentalist/literalist bent will not engage any of the ideas advanced by modern scholars of scripture.



Many people apparently can't challenge what they have been taught. The world would be a different place if everyone could grow. Too many have no interest in it or are too fearful. Sad.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 6:02PM #36
GRobit625
Posts: 1,991

Perhaps some of those people have indeed weighed and measured those ideas, they just found them wanting.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 7:00PM #37
Nino0814
Posts: 1,753

Anyone with minimal interest in reading the scholarship knows that there is a general consensus on these matters.  Does that mean the consensus is infallible?  No!  


Why would a nonscholar disregard experts in any field, especially when the experts have dedicated themselves to studying this subject, and submitted their findings to scholarly peer review?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 7:22PM #38
GRobit625
Posts: 1,991

Apr 9, 2012 -- 7:00PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Anyone with minimal interest in reading the scholarship knows that there is a general consensus on these matters.  Does that mean the consensus is infallible?  No!  


Why would a nonscholar disregard experts in any field, especially when the experts have dedicated themselves to studying this subject, and submitted their findings to scholarly peer review?





I'll go with "Because they think they're full of it" for $200,Alex. Doctors misdiagnose patients all the time. That's why people usually go for a second or third opinion from multiple sources. In the field of theology, there are plenty of people passing themselves off as scholars. One of my priests have a Ph.D, however, that doesn't mean that I'm going to automatically take on his positions. I take from him what I can use, and I throw the rest in the shredder.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 10:16PM #39
Nino0814
Posts: 1,753

Apr 9, 2012 -- 7:22PM, GRobit625 wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 7:00PM, Nino0814 wrote:


Anyone with minimal interest in reading the scholarship knows that there is a general consensus on these matters.  Does that mean the consensus is infallible?  No!  


Why would a nonscholar disregard experts in any field, especially when the experts have dedicated themselves to studying this subject, and submitted their findings to scholarly peer review?





I'll go with "Because they think they're full of it" for $200,Alex. Doctors misdiagnose patients all the time. That's why people usually go for a second or third opinion from multiple sources. In the field of theology, there are plenty of people passing themselves off as scholars. One of my priests have a Ph.D, however, that doesn't mean that I'm going to automatically take on his positions. I take from him what I can use, and I throw the rest in the shredder.




GRobit,


IMO you are correct not to accept all opinions by any "expert" in a field of science or historical verification, but when there is a consensus of opinion by experts in a particular field, who have critically reviewed the subject, then how can anyone who has not studied the subject reject that opinion?  


Scientists, historicans and literary experts have methods that are used in their field that have given us useful information.  They share their methods as well as their conclusions, so others can verify the results for themselves (peer review). 


What method of examination do you use to determine what to keep and what to shred when reading through expert opinion?  

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 10:22PM #40
RJMcElwain
Posts: 2,961

I was going to start by saying "the problem is......" but it's really not a problem. So..... the thing is there is no consensus and I doubt there ever will be. The Resurrection could have taken any number of a dozen different forms, depending on which theologian floats your boat.


I go with the Borg, Ehrman, Spong, Pagels, King, Armstrong, Crossan school of "damned if I know" theology. If that doesn't do it for you, there are a few hundred others to choose from.Cool

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook