Sam Harris interviews Bart Ehriman

[Lon]

Lon, if you were able to successfully pass the bar exam, or complete your course of study and residency to become a certified lawyer or doctor, practice many years, become a reputable expert in your field...then suddenly change religions....do you think you would be suddenly unqualified in your field?

Doser answered and his reply stands, but for any kind of addition that might help, I've also gone ahead and answered this post.

There is an incorrect equivocation here that I'll point out in a moment BUT, yes, it is malpractice. Yes they lose their license. "IF" you respect the doctor's degree after that, it is okay, I guess, but the guy is no longer allowed to practice medicine.

In this case, the problem is 'Who' is giving credentials. As believing Christians, it is ALWAYS the Lord Jesus Christ that gives the credential. Read the Bible. It is as clear as day.

Like say.....let’s say you were a doctor who happened to be Jewish, but you wished to marry a woman who was Catholic, so you converted to her religion, should you be disqualified as a practicing doctor?

This isn't the same. It'd be like a doctor in the U.S. marrying a witchdoctor in Africa AND joining in that practice, in order for it to be closer to actuals. Hope that helps you grasp the problem. The most important thing for you to get, is that the Lord Jesus Christ gives credentials. The Bible is very clear what to do if those in the church leave the faith. Can you respect him for his college job and his grasp of languages? Yes. Can you respect his lack of ability to reason through Christian doctrine? :nono: You can try, but it is extremely important to recognize that just run of the mill language scholars like me, find him disreputable. Shoot, listen to the interview: Bart himself laughs at serious matters that are supposed to be his degree. Take your doctor analogy: If a doctor told you that you had cancer then started laughing at your 'options' that he didn't like, you'd 1) question his unorthodox practice given up instead and 2) wonder why no other doctor bought into his weird ideas. You don't, because you 'like' the alternative methodology, probably with a proclivity of already having those unorthodox views already (both medicine and theology by analogy).

Obviously, that is a rhetorical question because the answer is no. A persons professional qualifications are their own achievement, and it’s not based on religion. You don’t like what he has to say, you don’t share his beliefs, but you don’t have the right to consider him not expert in his field.

Having a similar degree? Incorrect. You are simply saying you like what is not orthodox when it comes to Christian considerations. Ehrman has nothing to teach me.

It seems you wish to avoid admitting that you were mistaken regarding the comments you made about him being a bible scholar.

I said "...he thinks he's a scholar..." Bible certainly was implied because I immediately said he makes rookie mistakes that no bible scholar I know of 'could' make. Sorry, it is just this bad. He doesn't know his or anybody else's bible when he doesn't know what God requires. It is as sad as that. Did you listen to his interview?

Why? I’m not sure if it’s pride on your part, or the bias that would allow you to dismiss his work as misguided so as to not influence your own beliefs.

:doh: If it is pride, it isn't 'false' pride, but pride in orthodox truth. Ehrman LOST that, even by his own admission. You want to look up to him? Go ahead. I'm not going to stop you. He's a witchdoctor when it comes to theology any longer. He's a best-seller. Among Christians? :nono: Not unless they want to rebut him and warn others away from him.

Doesn’t make any difference to me. I only support and stand behind my statements in this thread about factual, verifiable information pertaining to manuscript variation.

CAN you read Greek? If not, you've no stance other than depending who your guru is. You are stuck following a man. I know and have those variants.

Dr. Ehrmans personal beliefs are inconsequential to my understanding of truth. FWIW.

It doesn't add up. You are concerned entirely with Ehrman and naught but in this thread with me.

 

[Lon]

this is the reason i don't spend much time and effort on unbelievers like guvyer

My prayer is God will open eyes 'for those who have eyes to see.'

 

[Lon]

If anyone around here has been Christian long enough to remember when Amy Grant went secular, you’ll understand this.

It was a real bummer for many Christian people when Amy Grant went secular, as it was when Jimmy Swaggart got caught with prostitutes. It was a difficult thing. It was sort of a blow to the faith of many people.

Some of those Southern gospel folks, but they didn't like her to begin with. Many Christians? :nono:

Same with Swaggart: He is a Pentecostal. His fall had mostly to do with his church. He lost funding for his television broadcast as well. Did it rock the rest of our faith? No.

Ehrman is the same way. He's just a guy. One of many many many Christian representatives in the sea. The ones on television have a bigger audience. Amy has never denied the faith.

But, not one could say that Amy Grant was not a musician, because she was. People probably didn’t want to listen to her music after that....but it doesn’t mean she wasn’t still making music.

:nono: No, no. This is like saying Bart Ehrman isn't a dad (if he is one). One has nothing to do with the other. Its a false comparison.

It just means that people didn’t want to hear her brand anymore.

True, though she never left Christian music. She simply added love songs and other songs of family and social values that still reflected her faith. Rather, if she started playing on a garbage can meowing like a cat? Yeah, she'd have none of us former listeners listening.

I think we’re dealing with a similar situation here. As an aside to the real points of meaningful debate or discussion in this particular topic.

It would not hurt his seminary to revoke his degrees. I had his 'textual criticism' book at one point. It was okay for reading, but nothing I wasn't already aware of, nor any additional information than I already had by the time I'd gotten to it.

 

[Guyver]

It would not hurt his seminary to revoke his degrees. I had his 'textual criticism' book at one point. It was okay for reading, but nothing I wasn't already aware of, nor any additional information than I already had by the time I'd gotten to it.

Revoke his degrees? Wow. I'm really surprised to hear such thinking, especially from you Lon. You said you were pursuing a higher education but you seem to be completely uninformed as to how acadamia and even corporate America work. People are actually protected from such bias legally. You can't revoke a person's degrees or even dismiss them from their position because you don't like their religious beliefs. And that is how it should be since everyone's beliefs and opinions differ.

Ehrman is a respected professional scholar. He's probably had tenure for over twenty years.

"Ehrman has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He was the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching." Wikipedia.

The idea that he should be rejected from his professional position or have his degrees revoked is just inconceivable to me in today's modern world. There is no requirement that a person be a born again Christian in order to be a bible scholar. In fact, thinking back to my own born again days, I remember quite clearly that it was commonly thought most of the bible scholars were actually not believers in the bible being the "word of God."

 

[Guyver]

Some of those Southern gospel folks, but they didn't like her to begin with. Many Christians? :nono:

Lon, this thread isn't about Amy Grant. But, you just poo-pooed the idea of how popular she was. Again, you are just mistaken. This demonstrates that many of your beliefs and ideas are not actually based on any factual information......but instead, your own flawed perception of things. I don't mean to insult.....but I am a stickler for truth, because it's important to me. the following from wiki.

"Amy Lee Grant (born November 25, 1960) is an American singer, songwriter, musician, author and media personality. She is known for performing contemporary Christian music (CCM) and for a successful crossover to pop music in the 1980s and 1990s. She has been referred to as "The Queen of Christian Pop".[1][2]

As of 2009, she had sold more than 30 million albums worldwide,[3] won six Grammy Awards and 22 Gospel Music Association Dove Awards, and had the first Christian album to go Platinum."

First Christian album to go platinum. Repeated for emphasis.

 

[Guyver]

Doser answered and his reply stands, but for any kind of addition that might help, I've also gone ahead and answered this post.

There is an incorrect equivocation here that I'll point out in a moment BUT, yes, it is malpractice. Yes they lose their license. "IF" you respect the doctor's degree after that, it is okay, I guess, but the guy is no longer allowed to practice medicine.

In this case, the problem is 'Who' is giving credentials. As believing Christians, it is ALWAYS the Lord Jesus Christ that gives the credential. Read the Bible. It is as clear as day.

Lon, okdoser's response wasn't even in the form of a complete sentence. Yet, you consider that an acceptable reply? Wow. We are losing ground.

Regarding the part in bold. I am sorry to inform you of this Lon, but in today's modern world, the Lord Jesus doesn't offer any academic credentials. One must attend an accredited university if they would like to have a credential.

Everything else is make-believe. Dr. Frederick K. Price claims that he has been made an Apostle by the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you accept his credentials? Is Reverend Price an apostle by credentials of Jesus?

 

[ok doser]

Lon, okdoser's response wasn't even in the form of a complete sentence.

here's a complete sentence for you:

you're an idiot

 

[Guyver]

here's a complete sentence for you:

you're an idiot

Lol. That’s good. I’d like to make that my signature.

 

[Lon]

Revoke his degrees? Wow. I'm really surprised to hear such thinking, especially from you Lon. You said you were pursuing a higher education but you seem to be completely uninformed as to how acadamia and even corporate America work. People are actually protected from such bias legally. You can't revoke a person's degrees or even dismiss them from their position because you don't like their religious beliefs. And that is how it should be since everyone's beliefs and opinions differ.

I realized that. The problem is that whatever institution you graduate from, carries your credentials and thus is associated with it. Can they revoke his degree? No. It just "wouldn't hurt." Try to understand my quotes.

Ehrman is a respected professional scholar. He's probably had tenure for over twenty years.

"Ehrman has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He was the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching." Wikipedia.

The idea that he should be rejected from his professional position or have his degrees revoked is just inconceivable to me in today's modern world. There is no requirement that a person be a born again Christian in order to be a bible scholar. In fact, thinking back to my own born again days, I remember quite clearly that it was commonly thought most of the bible scholars were actually not believers in the bible being the "word of God."

Again, try not to read between the lines of my quotes. I'm careful with them. Look what I said "It wouldn't hurt his seminary to revoke..." That's it. Gonna happen? :nono: Just saying it would be better for all if the association wasn't there.

 

[Lon]

Lon, this thread isn't about Amy Grant.

Spoiler

But, you just poo-pooed the idea of how popular she was. Again, you are just mistaken. This demonstrates that many of your beliefs and ideas are not actually based on any factual information......but instead, your own flawed perception of things. I don't mean to insult.....but I am a stickler for truth, because it's important to me. the following from wiki.

"Amy Lee Grant (born November 25, 1960) is an American singer, songwriter, musician, author and media personality. She is known for performing contemporary Christian music (CCM) and for a successful crossover to pop music in the 1980s and 1990s. She has been referred to as "The Queen of Christian Pop".[1][2]

As of 2009, she had sold more than 30 million albums worldwide,[3] won six Grammy Awards and 22 Gospel Music Association Dove Awards, and had the first Christian album to go Platinum."

First Christian album to go platinum. Repeated for emphasis.

LOL, and then you go on to talk about Amy Grant :chuckle: ( not at your expense), I just can't address Amy Grant when you don't 'want me to talk about Amy Grant.'

Lon, okdoser's response wasn't even in the form of a complete sentence. Yet, you consider that an acceptable reply? Wow. We are losing ground.

Reread it, he 'corrected' your sentences by adding a correction. They were complete sentences. Didn't you notice?

Regarding the part in bold. I am sorry to inform you of this Lon, but in today's modern world, the Lord Jesus doesn't offer any academic credentials. One must attend an accredited university if they would like to have a credential.

Everything else is make-believe. Dr. Frederick K. Price claims that he has been made an Apostle by the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you accept his credentials? Is Reverend Price an apostle by credentials of Jesus?

The church has to recognize the authority and authenticity of faith. Would you, by extension, hire a Hindu to preach and teach about Christ? A Buddhist? Why or why not?

 

[ok doser]

The church has to recognize the authority and authenticity of faith. Would you, by extension, hire a Hindu to preach and teach about Christ? A Buddhist? Why or why not?

:thumb:

 

[Guyver]

The church has to recognize the authority and authenticity of faith. Would you, by extension, hire a Hindu to preach and teach about Christ? A Buddhist? Why or why not?

I understand that’s the way you would like it to be, and I don’t blame you because I understand your position. Which is fine because you are religiously zealous and I get it. You have that right and I’m not judging you for it.

But that’s not the way things are. And, I’m sorry to have to be the one to point this out, but if one does not accept what is, they are make believing.

In any event, I see that you had nothing to say about the Apostleship of Frederick K. price, and I’m sorry to see that because it actually ties into your “authority of the church” piece. I was actually interested in your opinion on that one.

 

[Guyver]

LOL, and then you go on to talk about Amy Grant :chuckle: ( not at your expense), I just can't address Amy Grant when you don't 'want me to talk about Amy Grant.'

We already talked about Amy Grant. You said she was no big deal, not received by that many Christians, and I corrected you again by posting up the stats.

But you obviously do not like to be corrected, especially by me.....maybe. So, moving on.

 

[Guyver]

Reread it, he 'corrected' your sentences by adding a correction. They were complete sentences. Didn't you notice?

You mean didn’t I notice that he attempted to insert a false analogy? No, I noticed it Lon, it’s just that sometimes silly things don’t even need to be mentioned. In an adult conversation anyway.

It’s a faulty comparison because I never stated or implied that the doctor was negligent in his professional duties. I said he changed his religion - that’s all. Talk about reading into things, man you fell for that foolishness.

If a professional is negligent in their professional duties or found guilty of unprofessional or illegal conduct, they can be dismissed (by process) in virtually every professional position. This is common knowledge....it’s stuff everyone should already know.

But, while we are at it....do you happen to have any idea the number of professionals..scientists of many varieties that have studied and continue to study the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you know anything at all about them? I mean, since nothing can be assumed around here - obviously - I had to ask. There are many people who have devoted their lives and careers to the study of these artifacts. They have published some of their work already. It’s available for free online.

That should be a big deal to a Christian....but you know what? According to your standards of “church authority” they are unqualified to work on it. That’s a bit of a tangle...isn’t it?

 

[ok doser]

:doh:

 

[Lon]

you are religiously zealous and I get it.

In any event, I see that you had nothing to say about the Apostleship of Frederick K. price, and I’m sorry to see that because it actually ties into your “authority of the church” piece. I was actually interested in your opinion on that one.

These two tie together a bit. I am zealous, that is true, but for the truth and I think you get the part of Bible doctrine and Protestant truth and values. Shoot, I'd hope you are zealous to stand behind what is true whenever what you know to be true is challenged. Truth matters. We are in a time where our truths are being attacked often. Truth stands by itself, but drawing that line in the sand about where you stand is no poor thing.

Let's visit Frederick K. Price for a moment: 1) I believe the mark of an Apostle (from scriptures) is that they are hand chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ. He had more than 12 disciples, but only 12 Apostles. The 11 chose Matthias by casting lots, but the Lord Jesus Christ chose Paul.
2) That the mark of Apostleship, including those supernatural gifts is over. It was specifically to authenticate the message, and not just by supernatural means, but certainly that too. It was preliminary of better things to come: Healing of our whole being, blessings in God with no want or need, etc. 3) Whatever Frederick K's position it is only authenticated by his particular church and perhaps his denomination. He couldn't come into my church with that claim, for instance. 4) Any authority we carry, is only authenticated by the receiver. The Lord Jesus Christ was authentic because God the Father sent Him, but if none listened, It wouldn't have mattered if He had the 'credentials' or not. Similar with Ehrman: he has a whole new audience, not the same as when he revealed his lack of faith. It is the thing that we hold and cherish, and against Bart, by many scholars as academically sound. It has always been a position of faith, the bible makes that clear, but it is a sound faith.
5) God would have to authenticate Frederick Price' position if he wanted to be an Apostle to the world, but I don't think he knows what the title means. He is just an 'authority figure' in his own church. His congregation/denomination must believe in modern day apostles. It is a huge stretch. There is only one Mediator between God and man, and we have a complete Bible. There is no need for an apostle at this time. 6) Revelation says that the next ones to come will be 'witnesses.' There is no mention of future Apostles. 7) Paul was the exception to the rule: All Apostles first were Jesus disciples and walked with Him directly, for 3+ years. For me, kind of eliminates any further contenders. :e4e:

 

[Lon]

We already talked about Amy Grant. You said she was no big deal, not received by that many Christians, and I corrected you again by posting up the stats.

I never said that? I said she hadn't lost the faith. Where did I say she wasn't 'received by that many?'
I had thought I was supportive at that point? Why are we still talking about Amy Grant?

But you obviously do not like to be corrected, especially by me.....maybe. So, moving on.

If it is an actual correction, correct away, but please read more carefully. Don't just throw out corrections that pop into your head. This is like
"Ehrman deems he is a scholar" (true, right? No correction?) or "It'd be good if they [could] revoke[d] his credentials....I guess that addendum 'it'd be better for everyone involved to distance' was a correction and so I'll accept it but it seems more a need of clarification.

I'm okay if you are nitpicky. You haven't seen complaints from me, just clarification statements and a request to read me a bit more carefully :e4e:

 

[Lon]

Talk about reading into things, man you fell for that foolishness.

1) I said he used complete sentences and 2) if they were foolish, he wasn't trying to be juvenile, he was trying to show, by changing your scenario, how he felt 'credentials' applied to the scenario.

But, while we are at it....do you happen to have any idea the number of professionals..scientists of many varieties that have studied and continue to study the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you know anything at all about them? I mean, since nothing can be assumed around here - obviously - I had to ask. There are many people who have devoted their lives and careers to the study of these artifacts. They have published some of their work already. It’s available for free online.

Sure I do, it was part of my degree studies. :up:

That should be a big deal to a Christian....but you know what? According to your standards of “church authority” they are unqualified to work on it. That’s a bit of a tangle...isn’t it?

A little different. First of all, none of the N.T. is involved in the Dead Sea Scrolls except for there being some corroborated time-frame materials. It is O.T. studies and that belongs to the Jews. It is Christian history by extension, but it is a peripheral. Next, there is no problem of anyone 'corroborating' truth. Ehrman is 'attacking' truth in obvious ways that have already, long ago, been rejected by scholars. Ehrman joined ranks with German higher criticism and the likes of James Cameron in trying to debunk the N.T. It'll never be seen as good scholarship. It is an attempt to rewrite history. It is sad he didn't/doesn't actually READ the books themselves. There is no way to get into them, and them into you, without pouring into them daily.

 

[Guyver]

1) I said he used complete sentences and 2) if they were foolish, he wasn't trying to be juvenile, he was trying to show, by changing your scenario, how he felt 'credentials' applied to the scenario. .

No, he didn’t use complete sentences Lon, and as an educated person you should know this. I hate to be “that” guy, but again I must correct you.

Proper sentence structure requires the use of capital letters at the beginning of each sentence Lon, what okdoser did was write in incomplete sentences....which is the same thing as saying “not using sentences.” FWIW.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, he didn’t use complete sentences Lon, and as an educated person you should know this. I hate to be “that” guy, but again I must correct you.

Proper sentence structure requires the use of capital letters at the beginning of each sentence Lon, what okdoser did was write in incomplete sentences....which is the same thing as saying “not using sentences.” FWIW.

His "incomplete sentences" were completions of his corrections to your post, and were meant to be read as such.

I bet you didn't even bother to look at his quote of your post when you read his post.