Agnostic Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman on the difference between fundamentalists and other Christians

[Coldwinterskies]

The part I thought might be relevant here starts around 41min26sec if the video doesnt automatically start there.  

[EmCatlyn]

Thanks for posting.  I enjoy Ehrman's books, but I had never seen him talk before.  I agree with his point about real freedom from/of religion.  I also agree with his idea that we teach/convert with love, not ranting.

However, I disagree with his assertion that only fundies would find offensive his claims that Jesus did not see or present himself as God and that Jesus was not buried in a grave and rise on the third day.  My husband is not a Fundie and he would find these claims offensive since his sense of Christianity centers on Jesus as God and belief in the resurrection.

I am much less religious (a cultural Catholic turned Episcopalian after a long stint among the Unitarians), but though (when I first read Erhman's book about the historical Jesus) I had no problem with the idea that Jesus didn't identify himself as God, I remain much less comfortable with Jesus in a pauper's grave and no resurrection.  

Even so, Ehrman's work is fascinating for what it tells us about the historical context and the Gospels.

[gustava]

I've seen him in person and read many of his books.  Thoughtful and provocative.

[Iamhispurity]

His theories are nothing really new though. Most of these thoughts have been voiced by very respected theologians more than 50 years ago. They are not regarded as universal truth, though and are highly debated even among liberal theologians. Especially because there is very little known for sure about the historical Jesus and most is based on speculation and at the moment not very commonly researched, because they seem to be seen as so speculative.

And there of course are doctrines that are not biblically based (2 natures of christ, trinity), but rather historically grown.

Some of his claims are a bit dubious though, but he fits pretty well into his theological school. I do not agree that much of the New Testament was assembled for political reasons (there was a huge debate about the authenticity of scriptures in the early church) and a lot of the New Testament was altered (Qumran proves this partially wrong and especially textural research shows that a lot of pauline letters are pretty true to its probable original text). BUT: he has a lot of theories that one might well argue and that are perfectly supportable. They do not represent the main theological research, though. At least to my knowledge.

 

[jerkit]

I stopped watching.

Fundamentalist =/= evangelical Christian.

"Smart" Christians aren't necessarily ONLY liberal, mainliners.

Believing that Jesus did indeed claim to be God =/= fundamentalism.

[HereticHick]

I am a big Bart Ehrman fan. Go Heels!

[Coldwinterskies]

Glad some of you enjoyed this. I really appreciate what I have learned from Dr. Ehrman. When I learned more about the historical context in which the Bible was written, it really changed my perspective. 

Here's another interesting talk he did for those of you who haven't already read his works: