Thread: Jesus Interrupted: Ehrman is at it again

Coming to a bookstore near you!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...SIN=0061173932

Product Description

Picking up where Bible expert Bart Ehrman's New York Times bestseller Misquoting Jesus left off, Jesus, Interrupted addresses the larger issue of what the New Testament actually teaches—and it's not what most people think. Here Ehrman reveals what scholars have unearthed:

* The authors of the New Testament have diverging views about who Jesus was and how salvation works

* The New Testament contains books that were forged in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later

* Jesus, Paul, Matthew, and John all represented fundamentally different religions

* Established Christian doctrines—such as the suffering messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the trinity—were the inventions of still later theologians

These are not idiosyncratic perspectives of just one modern scholar. As Ehrman skillfully demonstrates, they have been the standard and widespread views of critical scholars across a full spectrum of denominations and traditions. Why is it most people have never heard such things? This is the book that pastors, educators, and anyone interested in the Bible have been waiting for—a clear and compelling account of the central challenges we face when attempting to reconstruct the life and message of Jesus.


About the Author

Bart D. Ehrman is the author of more than twenty books, including the New York Times bestselling Misquoting Jesus and God's Problem. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the Bible and the life of Jesus. He has been featured in Time magazine and has appeared on NBC's Dateline, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN, The History Channel, major NPR shows, and other top media outlets. He lives in Durham, North Carolina.

How do they supposedly represent truly different religions?

quote - "This is the book that pastors, educators, and anyone interested in the Bible have been waiting for—a clear and compelling account of the central challenges we face when attempting to reconstruct the life and message of Jesus."



I've been waiting for? Hardly. This is the liberal stuff repackaged. I guess he's now an Uber-Lib. Sigh.

I recommend this.

http://ntresources.com/documents/Ehr...que_BFS_07.pdf

Originally Posted by Grymir

quote - "This is the book that pastors, educators, and anyone interested in the Bible have been waiting for—a clear and compelling account of the central challenges we face when attempting to reconstruct the life and message of Jesus."



I've been waiting for? Hardly. This is the liberal stuff repackaged. I guess he's now an Uber-Lib. Sigh.

Nice! Yep, orthodox Christians have REALLY been waiting for this!!!

Oh sorry but I am so tired of this garbage. This dates back to the 18th century or even the 17th to some extent. Boring...

Instead read Bavinck. And Machen.

The Gospel is foolproof. Unfortunately, they've come out with new and improved fools.

Theognome

Originally Posted by Theognome

The Gospel is foolproof. Unfortunately, they've come out with new and improved fools.

Theognome

I think that the libs should have to answer Machen before they write another book in the name of Christianity. They haven't yet.

Ehrman! What do you expect from an old Presbyterian? Princeton sure didn't do for Ehrman what it did for Van Till!

Full disclosure: he was also a Moody and Wheaton grad! Ouch!

Funk approached his work with the Jesus Seminar with an evangelistic zeal to disabuse ordinary Christians of what their pastors had been taught in seminary but were "afraid" to tell the laity. Dr. Ehrman seems to operate out of the same kind of inner compulsion to air academic Christianity's "dirty linen." He reminds me of the unhappy child who goes around informing younger kids that there is no Santa. Nobody is as "evangelistic" as a former fundy.

Unfortunately, it seems as if Ehrman is being used as a tool of the diabolos to attack, primarily, the veracity and reliability of the Scriptures.

The only recurring thought I have when hearing his name (and I know nothing of Jesus Interrupted) is that he come across as someone who "popularizes" already extant academic views. From the little I have heard of him, it seems as if he offers very little to the academic community (or even "the world") in terms of academic research and new information. Rather, he just presents things that have been known and debated for upwards of a hundred years in a nouveau, "cutting edge" fashion.

It is ironic that the anti-Christians will portray C.S. Lewis (and I realize there are differing opinions on the man) as an imaginative, populist summarizer, and yet manage to "pimp" Ehrman as a scholarly maverick.

That being said, if anyone was actually influenced by Ehrman, I would assume that they had done very little study in the field of religion, Scripture, etc. That is not to bury my head in the sand and just whistle away; rather, I just assume that any sincere Christian with an adept mind (1) and the resources (2) [which most Americans have] will have studied through these things (given time) in their studies of Christianity.

If I wanted to think through these issues, I would turn to the academic sources and fountains (not Ehrman). And if someone is really swayed by him, then I would assume that they have not invested their time in more diligent study.

Of course, we all have our introduction to various areas of knowledge at one time or another, and in most respects we are all ignorant adepts.

It is just ... "odd" ... to watch the "splash" that some people can make... especially in the absence of any new or pertinent information (at least as far as I can tell...)

Granted, I have not read his books. That being said, in summaries of his arguments from both non-Christians and Christians, my suspicion, thus far, has rang true.

Nothing new under the sun.

Originally Posted by Tim

Nothing new under the sun.

Ditto! Same rot, different faces!

I shall probably read Ehrman's new book when it is available in South Africa. I find that he tries to be honest to himself, yet a an atheist he is thinking along the same lines as when he was a Christian. He has boxed himself in and is busy fortifying himself against the possibility that everything in the Bible and in Christianity is not fiction.

The danger with Ehrman's views is that good scholarship is driven by a fundamentalist atheist agenda. He seems to have become a bit like Paul's evil twin brother. Everything is just the otherway around.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Ehrman! What do you expect from an old Presbyterian? Princeton sure didn't do for Ehrman what it did for Van Till!

Full disclosure: he was also a Moody and Wheaton grad! Ouch!

Ehrman was Metzger's final doctoral student from what I hear, but I guess Metzger didn't wear off on him.

I am a Moody grad, and he is a little bit out of touch. Back when he studied there, I think Moody tended to be a little bit more fundamentalistic when it came to textual criticism. Now the school is much more eclectic. We used Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament" as our TC curriculum. He should like that one, sicne he edited the newest edition. From what I have heard of Ehrman, he doesn't even understand the positions of Moody and Wheaton when it comes to textual criticism and the transmission of the canon.

So I am offended at your "ouch!" comment.

-----Added 2/5/2009 at 12:22:18 EST-----

Originally Posted by Elimelek

The danger with Ehrman's views is that good scholarship is driven by a fundamentalist atheist agenda. He seems to have become a bit like Paul's evil twin brother. Everything is just the otherway around.

He actually considers himself an agnostic (see the Steven Colbert interview to find out what Colbert thinks of that!). His wife considers herself a Christian (Episcopalian).

Ehrman is the Richard Dawkins of theology. Repackage the old stuff in a slick manner and make a lot of money with it at the same time.

I wish Ehrman would make up his mind. On the one hand, he debates people like James White and insists we have no idea what the Scriptures actually said in their autographs and on the other, he thinks he knows what Jesus said. Maybe he's of the Gnostikoi because the theological conclusions he draws don't flow from his skeptical premises.

He should be writing books called: I don't know why I'm writing another book about Jesus because none of us know what He said anyway...