Here is the Wiki account of Ehrman's formal education and career:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman - 65k


"Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teen. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and to textual criticism, to which he attributes the inspiration for an ongoing critical exploration of the basis of his own religious beliefs, which in turn gradually led to the questioning of his faith in the Bible as the inerrant, unchanging word of God. He now considers himself an agnostic."


"It has also been claimed that much of Ehrman's contention with the veracity of the biblical manuscripts stems from assumptions he had as an evangelical Christian about what is meant by biblical inerrancy, as well as what is meant by the claim that the New Testament writings were divinely inspired by God.[1] Various Christian denominations have a different view of inerrancy than Ehrman did (sometimes using the term "infallible" instead), as well as a different understanding of what divine inspiration entails."

Shasha and others:

I'm looking for a relatively short, scholarly-sound treatment of the gospels, written palatably for the lay community, to recommend to you. And I think I have such a book on the way from Amazon. It shouldn't take too long to read, and then I can do a brief book review on this thread.

Wayne:

I moved your post, and my reply, to the thread "Divinity and consciousness: the differences."

Since it is fairly clear you have a weak grasp of Christian metaphyics and theology, at least in the orthodox sense, why not ask questions rather than assume certain similarities or differences? So far you're only attempting to get Christians here at SP to agree with you, and we haven't, which is for substantive reasons. This doesn't mean, however, that you can't go be a good Hindu or Buddhist or New Ager, and practice love and compassion, and not be appreciated by Christians who recognize some basic human connections that should be cultivated in spite of other differences. But the differences still can't be ignored when they reflect primary distinctions.

Wayne:


Your post belongs on the "Divinity and consciousness: the differences" thread, not here where we are discussing biblical history and faith as it pertains specifically to Jesus. Did you see where I had already asked you to stay closer to the thread topic? So I'm moving, yet again, your last post to that thread. You'll have to take responsibility for this from now on, or I'll just delete what you've written.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] Woa . . . . . I hit the mother-load!


www.ntgateway.com/xtalk/debate.html

(Click on the link at the bottom page of the link above, under the section "The Conversation Continued," and you'll find an exchange between these scholars easier to follow)

www.ntgateway.com/Jesus/E-List.htm
[/qb]

I've also slogged my way through the exchanges, and found them illuminating. Unsurprisingly, I found myself siding with Johnson throughout, and think his summary statement is excellent. I also noted that I was becoming increasingly angry with Crossan and Borg as the dialogue intensified, as it became clear that there really is an underlying agenda to their work, and it is to perpetuate a secularist view of Jesus that undermines Christian faith. Many of their questions and rejoinders (to Johnson) seemed to be more about obfuscation than the pursuit of truth. E.g., the whole idea that we meet "different Jesuses" throughout Scripture, and so which one are we relating to in our faith relationship? That would be like someone reading this forum being required to learn more about my life as a pre-requisite to dialoguing with and encountering my presence and character through our exchanges. What Crossan, in particular, would have the other do, would be to study my life, whereupon they would learn that I was:
- the oldest of eight children
- raised in south Louisiana (Cajun background)
- loved hunting and fishing as a kid
- received degrees in biology
- became a field naturalist
- began doing retreat work
- changed careers to become a campus minister
- married for 32 years
- raised three children
- was a substance abuse counselor for some years
- have written books on spirituality and theology
- learned computer skills; webmaster of several sites
- etc.

So Crossan would ask: who, really, is this Philip St. Romain? Which one is he? And he would say to forum readers, you cannot really know this guy or have relationship with him until you are straight on the details of all of the above!

What is missing from Crossan is the recognition that, when one encounters a person, they encounter the character and development that's come through a lifetime of living. Such is the case with Jesus as well -- the Jesus of faith is the Person who once worked as a carpenter, lived in Nazareth, spoke Aramaic, attended synagogue, had Jewish parents, etc. All of his roles, identifications and skills are present in and through his Person. When the need to relate about any of these matters comes up, He can do so. Same with me and anyone else. Readers of the forum might not know (or care) that I can easily recognize and distinguish a Harris Sparrow from a House Sparrow, but should we ever converse on such matters, you would be encountering the same person that you do in these kinds of discussions.

Hope that all makes sense.

Does anybody think the Messianic/Judaic Christian movement is related to this topic?

I spent quite some time a while back researching and reflecting on Messianic Judaism :

quote:

The central characteristic defining the Messianic Jewish movement as Christian, rather than Jewish, is its belief in the divinity of their Messiah, Jesus. This central tenet of belief is seen by the great majority of Christians and Jews as being the defining distinction between the two religions...

Similarly, Messianic Judaism differs widely from mainstream Christianity in adherents' observation of Jewish Law which is often discouraged in churches. These observances include observing the Jewish Sabbath, abstaining from pork, shellfish, and other foods banned by Jewish law, and observing Jewish holidays.

This movement believes that modern Christianity has incorrectly developed by falling away from it's Jewish roots. Now we may have many reasons for doing this, but these verses from Matthew always keep me wondering about whether they are right:

quote:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mat 5:17-19).

Have we left behind the Jewish Jesus and replaced Him with a Greek/Roman one. Is there any need to listen to the views of these Judaic Christians? Are we guilty of annuling a life system (The Old Testament laws for living) that God intended all people to live by, religiously, economically, politically and secularly? Why does the Old Testament seems to indicate that the Jewish laws should be kept by God's people for all time?

(p.s. i am not a messianic jew )

Jacques:

Haven't we been down that road before, with wopik? So there is already a thread (maybe more than one) addressing that concern. Not that the topic is entirely unrelated to this thread, but Phil has given some nuancing to it elsewhere, or posted a link somewhere. Of course Jews converted to Christianity may be carrying out an entirely legitimate form of the faith within the context of their ethnic background. And others may be attracted to them for non-ethnic reasons. So it is more a personal choice, in my view, than trying to resolve some ultimate concern.

So I doubt anybody here at Shalom would be saying don't listen to them, either. It's just not the emphasis I imagined for this thread. So maybe start a separate thread and see if you draw any interest. Sorry to put you off, but I don't want us repeating the utter futility experienced in times past on this subject you are bringing up.

Echoing w.c.'s comments, but adding that it's important to consider the message of the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letters when evaluating how the early Church came to understand its relationship with Judaism. The Council of Jerusalem, in particular (see Acts 15), dealt with this issue conclusively.
- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

Moved Reply:

Well, Volume 4 of John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew is due out in May. I'll see how wealthy I'm feeling when it comes out.

Moved Reply:

Derek:

Have you read the first three volumns?! I'm only near finishing the first!

Moved Reply:

I've looked up sections I was interested in. Those volumes are rather large to read from cover to cover.

Moved Reply:

Yes, I may not be as ambitious with the second, which looks and feels heavier, perhaps just from having read nearly all the first.

I just came across a good summary of some of the issues with Marcus Borg and the Jesus Seminar folk, fwiw:

- see http://www.intotruth.org/apostasy/J-Seminar.htm

Bart Ehrman's new book, "Jesus Interrupted," is getting lots of red-hot press lately, much like the "Jesus Seminar" stuff does. Why? The subtitle says it all: "Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)." And what are these contradictions? Silly, piddly stuff -- like the mustard seed Jesus spoke of in one of his parables isn't really the smallest of seeds, that one author says he spoke thus from the cross, while another has different quotes, etc. This is nothing the Christian community hasn't been aware of for almost 2,000 years, yet Ehrman pulls the usual fallacy of assuming that Christian faith isn't worthy unless we have a completely pure, indisputable understanding of the history of Jesus -- his life and works. The New Testament provides no such account, of course, but it does tell us much that we can, in fact, rely upon. In the end, however, faith is not a matter of believing facts, but of opening oneself to the Person described in the texts. Ehrman, an agnostic (and "recovering fundamentalist") has nothing to say about this, but, then, he's only out to "enlighten" us that we might make sound religious decisions.

Check out the reviews on Amazon.com and some of the comments on them. It's distressing to see the positive ones, and how gleeful some of them are. There's a good one-star review by Marc Axelrod and yours truly added a comment.

What times these are!

I've read one of Bart Ehrman's books. I get the impression they're all a reflection of his personal journey. At one time he was a literalist, but then he went to college to study the Bible and realized this position was untenable. All his work since then has been a reiteration of this "discovery" of his.

Here's a good source for orthodox rejoinders to the post-modern portrayals of the historical Jesus. Most of us run across these questions about the gospels, the resurrection, the empty tomb, the validity of Scriptural accounts, etc. Those of you looking for a shorter book on various subjects might find some of your interests or concerns addressed here:

www.christiancadre.org

That's a marvelous website, w.c. I've bookmarked it.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
Yes, I may not be as ambitious with the second, which looks and feels heavier, perhaps just from having read nearly all the first.

I have just received Volume 2 from Amazon. 1,134 pages. Expect a book review in about a year's time LOL.