Professor Bart Erhman is non-stop
- Has anyone taken a look at Erhmans latest works ? I cant grasp what the guys motives are at this point he seems to be athiest or gnositc maybe. He certainly has a bone to pick with the "gate-keeper" of ancient Christianity. he talks indepth of the early church and the gnostic component of same....
Ive read a couple of his books...
God never said Love religion (except old testament),many mens hands were involved in religion,Jesus never called his movement Christianity, and Jesus taught us to love and help each other. Jesus taught us not to tarry in anger and hate,Jesus didnt teach us to pray to him but his Father..Just know and love God...Be good and Godly. There is no man on earth that can buy us a ticket to life with God as there is none than repeal our ticket. My journey with Ehrman started in a quest to anserw 2 questions
1. what did all 12 of the disciples have to say?
2. who and why were only 4 deemed valid to hear from ?
So Ehrman has done a good job in researching and his quest for the process of our religion. Who cares of his opinion or summation of God (does he ever make one ?)?its only relevant to religion. For man has had his hand in religion since Jesus left us and has had his hand on the throat of others neck since then too. The same early holy men has put the sword on many mens neck while simultaneously cementing our religion. All in thier self-professed Holy name of God.Im gonna keep it simple..do as Jesus instructs..love not hate, not fight and tarry ,not worship man. Soo Ehrman ? all Im qualified to judge of him is that he is a diligent researcher.
- I often find Erhman's writings interesting from the stand point that it is taken from a standpoint of what is questionable and what might might not be. He is very mellow in relation to Ahmed Osman, Moustafa Gaddalla or Ra Un Nefer. They are on a quest that stretches the history of mankind' "religion" and is not limited to Romes interpretation of Christianity and it's struggle against Christian Gnostics. I hope that he continues to push the envelope and stretch the limits of questioning the "Orthodox Christian doctrines" of Rome and their Hinchmen that have followed. As Greenslee wrote, "there are no sects, but only gnosticism". I would enjoy Ehrman reaching beyond the history of "Christianity" and "Christian Gnosticism". To actually begin with the commonality of Christianity with it's religious fore fathers. Greetings all! D. Tackett, Nazgno
- Ehrman is athiest. He lost his religion after spending decades studying its origins and traditions. Many scholars do. Unless anyone else here has spent decades studying the real stuff up close and personal, I would not judge the validity of his choice. He's learned and forgotten more on the subject of Christianity than anyone on this list can ever hope to (barring the presence of any other Ph.D's we haven't seen yet, of course).
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
- --- In email@example.com, "bill" <jake0840@...> wrote:
>I usually see Bart Ehrman described as an agnostic:
> Has anyone taken a look at Erhmans latest works ? I cant grasp what the guys motives are at this point he seems to be athiest or gnositc maybe.
As a theological student that has studied religion for several decades and worked on several degrees including a P.H.D. I have found my understanding shifting as the sands in the desert. It is hard to classify things when they are constantly failing the acid test of logic, reason and gnosis.The lies are many and the deceit is endless. This is the history of religion. Western religion for sure. Rome has created a mess that is beyond truth and built of the egotistcal human mind. Roman Christianity is a magical weave of doctrines that conceal the obvious, the Divine within all of us. I think that this is the center of Ehrman's efforts. It has become mine. Doctrine does not save, gnosis does. A gnosis that does not come from reading about it, but rather livivng it. I have become disheartend with the treatment that gnosis receives even from it's supporters. Peace to all. D. Tackett, nazgno
- wow ! thats your assessment as a theological major ! well I think that Im very averse to titles at this point , dont call democrat nor repub..dont call me a christian, muslim nor knostic..I simply agree that we are a part of God and he dwells within us as stated in doctrine in numerous instances . " he made us of mud and breathed life into us" .."ashes to ashes , dust to dust" and so forth. I do agree tht this is not a secret to early religious scholars and it certainly seems that the bible hides this from us and even has us back to worshiping man ! missing God.
- hmm? im not sure anyone mentioned judging anyone..how did you articulate that ? but another question to me is he atheiest or agnostic and whats the fine granularity of the two ? One says he believes not in a God..I never really heard him say tht . the other says he believes not in religion..again i havent heard him say that either but it seems the case.
- Ra Un Nefer ?Ive read one of his works..11 laws of Maat ? good piece but hmm..if i had to put a label on it would it be knosis ? it seems to lean toward spiritual development and not specific to a religion but then again the ancient egyptian religion is the basis for its principals. or am i digressing ?knosis can be a part of any religion it seems , based on hebrew, chrisitan and egyptian modalties ,huh ?
- My interest has always been the history of religious development with an emphasis on the shared traits that have been adopted by various religions. Gnostic traits being very much universal to mankind. As written in the temples of Egypt "Man know thyself". This much as "above so below". Modern religion for the most part denies this lineage and deny it's legitimacy. Answers are found on the imprint that the Divine has left on us and not in the pages of doctrine that refutes the most basic truths of the ancients. Mythology becomes literal truths and meanings of esoteric teachings are lost and polluted. Spiritual development is usurped for the simple doctrine of accepting and believing. The roadmap for gnosticism is lost and banished, forcing mankind deeper into his isolation from the very Divine that is inside of him. Bart Ehrman questions more than he answers. He points to fallacy without adding his personally sanctioned alternative. If you ever get a chance to hear him lecture, do it. I feel that He is at his best there. Peace! Nazgno
- An article on a CNN website stated that the reason he abandoned organized religion was that he had a bad experience with one of his child hood mentors ( a bishop of some sort). This did, however, occur after he had some education in religion.
NealGnostic and other Judeo-Christian materials/ subjects at
From: william unowho <jake0840@...>
Sent: Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:57 am
Subject: Re: [Gnosticism2] Re:Professor Bart Erhman is non-stop
hmm? im not sure anyone mentioned judging anyone..how did you articulate that ? but another question to me is he atheiest or agnostic and whats the fine granularity of the two ? One says he believes not in a God..I never really heard him say tht . the other says he believes not in religion..again i havent heard him say that either but it seems the case.
From: "mowthpeece@ gmail.com" <mowthpeece@gmail. com>
To: gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wed, February 10, 2010 8:45:45 AM
Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re:Professor Bart Erhman is non-stop
Ehrman is athiest. He lost his religion after spending decades studying its origins and traditions. Many scholars do. Unless anyone else here has spent decades studying the real stuff up close and personal, I would not judge the validity of his choice. He's learned and forgotten more on the subject of Christianity than anyone on this list can ever hope to (barring the presence of any other Ph.D's we haven't seen yet, of course).
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
- yeah..i read about struggle in the preface of one of his books. it goes on to explain the difference between an agnostic and an athiest too