I was wondering if his views have ever been discussed here at RFM and is he a reliable academic?

He's a good researcher and well respected. There are also well researched and respected dissenting views from his.

His better known books are simplifications for the layman of his more scholarly writings. I enjoy those books and learn from them.

For a strong departure from the more conventional interpretations Spong writes similar simplifications of Goulders work of the Gospels as Haggadic Midrash. "Biblical literalism, the gentile heresy" is interesting in that vein. Spong is quite unorthodox for a believer.

On the opposite side of history interpretation is Richard Carrier. Many decry his work but I think he makes some valid critiques on the various "Criteria" Bible scholars apply that really aren't used anywhere else in histrlorical analysis.

Being a believer still (not of Mormonism!), I was avoiding Bart Ehrman. But after watching this Mormon Stories episode, I have a great deal of respect for him. He teaches that Jesus did exist, even though he doesn't believe he was divine or anything. He respects the right of others to continue to believe, even though he does not. He knows of New Testament scholars like himself who still believe, and he is friendly and doesn't put them down. Most of the problems that Dr. Ehrman complained about with the NT, I had already learned about from other sources. Some of it I had learned in Sunday School when I was growing up! It wasn't a fundamentalist church.

Good author and one of the better known NT scholars.His book on the historical Jesus explains the almost universal view among scholars that Jesus lived and gives the evidence. It was hastily written and he really didnt want to waste his time on a book whose subject isnt really debated. Carrier accused him of many mistakes and in most cases Ehrman proved that he was right rather than Carrier. The few that he got wrong were minor and nothing to do with the premise that there was a historical Jesus. One that comes to mind was a dispute on what exactly non scholar and hack, Achyra S had to say about some artifact in the Vatican Museums.Another was whether Pilate was a prefect or procurator. Actually he used both terms and Ehrman got it right.FWIW he is an agnostic who leans toward atheism.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2018 09:57PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good author and one of the better known NT
> scholars.His book on the historical Jesus explains
> the almost universal view among scholars that
> Jesus lived and gives the evidence. It was hastily
> written and he really didnt want to waste his time
> on a book whose subject isnt really debated.

What?

Please give quotes from Bart that he 'didn't want to waste his time on a book whose (sic) subject isnt (sic) really debated.'

The existence of Jesus isn't debated?

???

'universal view among scholars that Jesus lived and gives the evidence...'

Okay...

That's not how he defines himself so not sure why you do?

https://ehrmanblog.org/am-i-an-agnostic-or-an-atheist-a-blast-from-the-past/

He has defined himself that way in some of his books.

That quote is in the book itself. Read it.I am referring to the quote about not wanting to write the book. He was more interested in writing his subsequent book'How Jesus Became God'.I think. I said the existed of Jesus is pretty much accepted among scholars and it is. Most mythicists are bot scholars-at least in relevant fields such as history or Biblical studied.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 02:12AM by bona dea.

I have read several of his books. I think he does a good job.

gettinreal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have read several of his books. I think he does
> a good job.

'a good job'

Of what?

Yes, discovered him back around 2007 I think.

I initially checked a few things he spoke about and he was spot on. A great example of a Theologically educated guy.

Before Mormonism I studied with Christadelphians. I discovered some theological interpretation holes myself with them and a slight lack of accurate biblical history knowledge etc, so I asked if any Christadelphians had ever studied Theology in detail at University level.

My Christadelphian tutor (nice chap) said yes, he knows of two Christadelphian brothers who studied formally. I asked what happened, he said they both left the church so we don't recommend it.

That was a big red flag for me. I tried Mormonism after that and realised afterward that JW's, Mormons, Christadelphians etc are all founded by men with no formal theological education and instead of trying to learn properly why the established churches believed what they did they decided they simply knew better how to interpret the bible.

Joseph Smith was the biggest con man of them all though. The other two like John Thomas (Christadelphians) and Charles Russel (JW's Watchtower) may have been sincerely deluded, though Russel did have a Miracle Wheat scam going.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2018 06:28PM by Zeezromp.

I remember, when I was a teen and young adult, reading and hearing Mormon condemnation of theological study and grounding. It was supposed to be a foolish waste of time, because all the denominations out there were corrupt and Mormons alone had the "Spirit" to guide them.

I wish I hadn't been stupid enough to believe them.

I’m with the wavers on this one:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2103359



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2018 07:19PM by steve benson.