Are you saying that Colbert was debating Ehrman? Really?
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.
by whereami 46 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Isidore
I'm saying that Colbert was playing devil's advocate (no pun intended) the way he usually does, and Ehrman didn't exactly come off looking like he was making many good points. I realize one can only do so much in a short spot on a satire show and Colbert jumping on you every opening he gets, but if you profess to believe in these conclusions, and I certainly hope he does because he's influencing alot of vulnerable people, then you've got to hit some home runs once in a while if this is your life's work. Despite a cynical, secular, ever growing atheistic world, that feeds on sound bytes, the audience was drawn into Colbert's counter points. Call me crazy, call me a religious zealot, call me bias, but Colbert made some vaild points and did not come off insulting to Ehrman in any way. At one time, Ehrman believed that truth could be found, but the fact is, he was faced with what alot of Ex JW's and Protestants have found, and that is if one is intellectually honest and read early Church history, one either becomes Catholic/Orthodox, or one claims that the Church has manipulated or "cooked the books", ie, the bible and walks away from Christianity. Ehrman, and many others like him, have chosen the latter.
So the short answer is, no, it was not a real debate. I understand that. I've heard Ehrman actually debate with some seasoned Catholic apologists before, which doesn't happen very often, because the Catholic Church doesn't not rely solely on scripture to support their position. Ehrman will make headway with those (Protestants) that have to completely rely on Sola Scriptura (bible alone) to defend their position, but when the Catholic Church has the early Church fathers, ie the early christians, supporting their positions, Ehrman is left in a corner. And it's no wonder, he himself was a "bible alone" believer.
-
Band on the Run
I'm rereading the Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity and the Imitation of Christ for Lenten reading. C.S. Lewis makes this point about the gospels. Christians existed without them for a long time. They were never intended to explain Christianity. A vigorous tradition did that. Rather, the gospels examined Christian tradition for those who were already Christian.
Not earth-shattering but the timing impressed me greatly.
-
cyberjesus
Colbert couldnt address a single argument and resorted to a string of fallacies. Ehrman kept his cool and saw that no matter what he will say the Moron show conductor would just change the subject or resort to make fun.... People laughing just shows that the mob mentality its still alive.
Sadly we are still far from reaching a level of reasoning where we can listen to facts rather than fairy tales.
-
Curtains
I tend to agree with this statement
The victors not only write the history, they also reproduce the texts. imo the texts that became stamped by the (later) church fathers' seal of ancestral authority came out of other texts and often against those (some by earlier church fathers) and therefore then quietened those texts whilst superimposing their own. I haven't read any of Ehrman's books but am quite interested in seeing what he has to say.
For example - Origen was an unorthodox early church father. He came from the Alexandrian school of thought. Another was Clement. Is this the sort of thing Ehrman is writing about?
-
slimboyfat
Ehrman does not believe in textual criticism. Instead he advances his own theories as superior
That's rubbish. If that were so why did Bruce Metzger, arguably the senior textual critic of the New Testament of the twentieth century, choose to invite Ehrman to co-author the last edition of his textbook on textual criticism? Is JuanMiguel a better judge than Metzger was about what is beyond the pale in terms of textual criticism?
-
PSacramento
Metzger was Bart's professor and Bart add an interesting view point ( not shared by Metzger by the way) to the discussion of the Canon.
Metzger and Ehrman are not in agreement with Bart's views and that is quote allright, opinions are just that, opinions.
They make for great discussion and debate but in the end, personal opinionscarry as much or as little weight as you choose to give them.
Metzger didn't believe that the bible is inerrant and bart used to believe that, I recall reading debates that they had when Bart was still in "school", soon after Bart realised that, in his view, the bible was NOT inerrant and from their he drew the conclusions that he later put into print.
Again, none of his views were new and they had been discussed over and over, but for Bart, personally, it seems that they need to be voiced again.
-
JustHuman14
The pattern of Christianity it is traced in many Ancient Religions: We have Crishna(does it sound familiar with Christ!)He was born from a Virgin Mother, perfomed miracles, had 12 disciples, He was called the Light of The World, he was killed and reserructed after 3 days!!! The same story it is found in the Egyptian Religion with Horus, the Greek Religion with Adonis. We have at least 12-14 old ancient religions repeating the same pattern of Christianity...
The Gnostic Gospels were circulating the same era with the other Gospels. Then when the Orthodox Apostolic Church came with Bishop Athanasius and arranged the Biblical Cannon with the 76 Books, they rejected all the Gnostic Gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.(just to name a few). Specially the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, that clearly shows that in the Early Church, women had been Bishops and perfomed clergy duties among the first Christians. What was the reason not to accept it? Simply the just followed the Judaic system of priesthood and banned all women from having any clergy role at the Church...
Indeed there is a huge difference from the God(YHWH)of the Old Testament and Jesus. It seems like a childish God, that gets angry easyly, He is Jealous(I'm a Jealous God, you will worship no other God but Me). So how can a God be jealous and afraids from other God's that they are not even "true God's"? And what kind of God refuses for the first created Woman and Man the "knowledge of knowing good and bad"?
In the Gnostic Gospels we find a differend explanation than the Old Testament, regarding God. It describes that there are many Gods in different levels, and the God that Created this Universe, was not aware of the other levels that existed, higher than Him, and He became arrogant. That is why the other Gods. sent Jesus on Earth in order to fix the problems that they were created due to the arrogance and pride of the Creator of this World.
So in the start Christianity was so different. It had the Universal teaching of love, to share things with others, and most of all the Love Conquers all things. That is why Jesus was opposed to the Mosaic Law, He was opposed to the Scribes and Pharisees and their man made laws and actually seized that law with only one command: "Love your fellow person like your self". A complete different attitude from the God of the Old Testament that He required an Eye for an Eye..
-
designs
Early followers of the Nazarene were all over the board as to beliefs. Ehrman is just another compiler noting what the Churches have known for centuries but tried to keep quite.
-
PSacramento
Keep quite?
Dude, its been debated for centuries, LOL !