Ehrman's books are not even close to being neutral. I've read them all.
And, "Misquoting Jesus" is Ehrman's diatribe against the authenticity of
the Bible.

For an opposing view, see Dr. Craig Evan's debates with Ehrman on
youtube, or his book on how modern scholars distort the gospels:
http://www.amazon.com/Fabricating-Je...=AG56TWVU5XWC2

Ehrman readily admits that he didn't leave Christianity and theism because
of any issues with Christians or the Bible. he left because he couldn't
resolve the issue of theodicy in his mind - that is the problem of there
being a good God with such evil in the world.

No, the problem is a supposedly good God leaving his "word" that makes him look like a genocidal maniac, and is full of inconsistencies and errors.

You are 100% wrong.

Care to try again?

Again, I repeat myself. Ehrman readily admits he left Christianity
and theism not because of any issues with the Bible (he mentions
this very clearly in "Misquoting Jesus") but because of the issue
of profound evil in the world, and his inability to conceive of a good God
allowing this.

Apparently fZ he's not aware of the implicit error in certain comparisons of God to men.

How can God be genocidal if he intends to resurrect people for judgment some day? Can Hitler resurrect anyone? How about Stalin?

But that won't stop him from making the comparison if he's gone emo about it will it? Emo is more important to some people than a rational observation between the nature of man and God.

You realize that just because you resurrect someone, it doesn't make the initial act of killing them right...right?

I'm pretty sure sure that's what I was getting at.

and then send them to hell

I don't have a problem justifying my views.

I, for one, am confused as to why, after reading all of the man's work, could you not even formulate your own critique and simply linked ( as you usually do) to something else.

Why do you have to turn every thread you comment in into a hostile pissing contest? People were recommending books to read. If ehrman is off the mark, as you claim, people can read it, find out for themselves, and be the wiser for it.

Yes you do.

I'm a universalist on hell doctrine so I don't believe in eternal torment doctrine. I believe God will purify everyone but I don't know if purification involves any pain or not.

But if I were wrong on the universalism the fact God raises you to make final judgment means He's deliberative and not genocidal. Most genocidal maniacs will kill you without a second thought.

You seem to think God shouldn't be able to cut people off but in this world we cut people off for bad behavior all the time. It's called going to jail.

If people would listen to God then maybe they'd never go to jail. Read up on Jeffrey Dahmer. He said if he'd had Jesus Christ he'd never have committed his awful crimes.

Last post for me on this topic. I hate to derail this excellent thread further. But couldn't leave that unclarified.

I agree that Ehrman didn't become agnostic because of his studies into textual criticism and I'm not sure why you are even bringing it up. I would describe Ehrman as neutral because his books annoy both atheists who prefer Jesus Mythicism and fundamentalist Christians who prefer an inerrant Word of God interpretation. His overall point is that, just as Christians today have different interpretations of the texts, the early Christians had different interpretations of the life and works of Jesus. Furthermore, I doubt that a reading of that book would turn a (liberal) Christian into a non-believer, especially since Ehrman himself remained a liberal Christian for 15 years after starting his studies.

I didn't turn the thread into a "hostile pissing contest" at all. For
you to even suggest such shows your blatant biases.

Why would you think people are capable of finding out for themselves?

Lots of things aren't obvious in this world. That's why we have teachers and systems of education.

and the non sequitors just keep on coming.

My blatant biases against what? Theism? Have you noticed three other theists have posted in this thread (one who i have openly stated i dont particularly like) with no comment from me about the substance behind their posts?

And yea, that is what you are trying to do. In this thread (as in most of others you are involved in) the one who disagrees with you gets a condescending answer about how wrong they are.

you are just a bore, and you sidetracked this thread for no reason, let people just post reading material ffs.

They're capable of reading, aren't they?

And they're capable of misinterpreting or learning things the wrong way.

Isnt it just a little condescending to assume that the people here wouldnt properly understand what hey read? honestly.

Also, if i wanted a debate on the subject I can just as easily find one on youtube as FZ did.

He added nothing to a thread except to assert he sread ALLL of Bart Ehrman's work (uh huh) and then do a youtube search.

But whatever I dont wish to take the sidetrack any further im interested to see what others have read.

People misinterpret on here all the time. That's one reason why I make such bald posts.

You would be amazed at the number of people who misinterpret on here then have the nerve to try and state your position. It lands you into multiple posts to correct their misperception. They actually have the nerve to tell people on here what they think. It's like looking right is more important to them than understanding the other person's actual position or thinking. There are a handful of people on here who are good at getting down positions. bunny was good at it, Aaron W, NotReady, OrP....a lot of the other people are just agitators...they're more interested in prevailing then in understanding.

god did a pretty crappy job of making us since we can't even understand his word without the help of bible scholars

Would be kinda cool/novel if we could agree to stop derailing this thread imo.

The whole problem seems to be that we do understand the word and much of it doesn't exactly tie in with the idea of an all powerful, all loving god. So then we've got to read an apologist who will convince us that, if our hearts are open, then all those bad and nasty sounding parts we read aren't actually all that bad. We just need to do some mental gymnastics when 'interpreting' it and we're good to go.

Dear all,

Feel free to discuss whatever it is you are discussing here here.

If anyone is trying to turn this into a pissing contest, it is you.

If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

BTW, it's spelled "sequitur."

I wouldn't really say that this makes Ehrman neutral. "Annoying" the Jesus-Mythers isn't that hard to do since they've taken such an extreme position. Also, there really aren't that many of them in academia and not that many people take their position seriously.

I don't think Ehrman is neutral, but I also think it's hard to be neutral in the area of textual criticism.

That being said, I have no objection to the inclusion of his works in the other thread. "Neutrality" isn't the goal. It's just a place to create a collection of books and links to comments on books in the realm of "academic literature." I am glad that the side conversation has been excised into its own thread.

It is best to not read or listen to anybody since we/they could misinterpret stuff and be mislead.

I don't need to have 'faith' in Bart Ehrman, because the inconsistencies he showed me in the Bible are still there in my own copy, whether he has an ax to grind or not.