Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
There is a lot of garbage that is taught in these classes—through the lectures and reading material. In Misquoting Truth, Timothy Paul Jones confronts Bart Ehrman’s fallacies through his books Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities. You don’t need to be familiar with Ehrman to appreciate Jones’s work. You will appreciate this book for how it debunks some of the unorthodox claims of the past few years like whether there were conspiracies to silence certain “gospels” and only promote the ones that were aligned with the agenda of the early church fathers.
Ehrman has plenty of initials after his name, noting his so-called expertise in matters of scripture and church history. His books may be less of a product of his research and more of a product of his convictions.
I will mail out this book (includes free shipping) to the first person who comments on this post or on his or her blog regarding this question: In your opinion, what is the fascination of religious study professors at secular universities in promoting agnostic or atheist point of views? (Make sure you link back to this post to notify me of your answer)
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts: |
I think I heard Ehrman on NPR a couple of years ago when Misquoting Jesus came out. I thought he was an articulate speaker, though I disagreed with much of his read of early Christianity. I think the Church would do well to acknowledge that much of our doctrine came through the crucible of very human politics, but I don’t think that means we must discount the role of the Spirit in the shaping of those doctrines. The Church did silence many dissenting voices early on and often in a rather harsh manner, but the Church also left a lot of room open for voices who disagreed.
I was looking at the Publishers Weekly synopsis of The Lost Christianities and it asks, “What if Marcion’s canon-which consisted only of Luke’s Gospel and Paul’s letters, entirely omitting the Old Testament-had become Christianity’s canon?” Well, as far as we can tell, the Church would be greatly anti-semitic, would have undercut its own history in denying its Jewish roots, and would have little good to say about this world given Marcion was a gnostic who despised the physical world around him. That doesn’t sound like a fun religion to me. I don’t know if Ehrman makes Marcion out to be a hero, but he was guilty of far worse of what many scholars accuse the Early Church of doing in its canonization process — Marcion had room only for one Gospel.
If people want to read the gnostic Gospels like Thomas, that’s fine. I’m surprised that so many scholars hold them up as a better Christianity than what we get in the canonical Gospels. Jesus in Thomas is far more cranky and judgmental. Also, I’d much rather have Luke’s treatment of women than Thomas’.
By the way, I know I didn’t really answer your question in the comment, but wanted to give my two-cents on the direction of some modern scholarship.
I think the problem is that when students have their faith shaken by things they hear in class, such as why certain Gospels were left out of the Bible, the tendency is not to go back to the Bible, but rather to head in a downward spiral of being confused about what is true. Because some of what’s being taught tries to debunk the validity of the Bible, students don’t know where to turn to find the truth because now their faith in the Bible is called into question.
I’ve had a few friends who have begun this downward spiral, and it’s very difficult sometimes, to help them pull out of it. The main reason I’ve found is because they want to start arguing apologetics, and most of us are not well versed enough to have a true apologetic debate. It leaves me in a place where I can barely interact with the person, but just need to pray. I don’t know…I have very few answers about how to deal with this trend in this generation because this is going to become a growing challenge that the church and para-churches begin to face on a regular basis.
Jessica, I think you’ve articulated a central component of the problem: Neither churches nor para-church organizations have adequately equipped believers to deal with challenges to their faith in ways that are …
… intelligent [that is, understanding the opponent's side before attempting to dismantle it. So many times, I have been frustrated with Christians who argue against Darwinian evolution using arguments that are actually reactions to Lamarckian evolution ... or Christians who try to prove the truth of the New Testament by appealing to prophecies in the Old Testament, not recognizing that this is circular reasoning ... or using utterly false data, such as the supposed "missing day" that supposedly verifies the sun standing still for the Israelites ... and so on]
… articulate [that is, being able to state clearly and concisely one's own reasons for belief]
… gracious [that is, refusing to argue in anger or in ways that belittle one's opponent, regardless of how wrong she or he may be]
… and selective [that is, recognizing that, when interacting with a pre-believer, the only issue that really matters is the authenticity of God's consummate self-revelation in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead, many Christians become bogged down, talking with the pre-believer in political, millennial, and other vestigial issues that have no ultimate effect on the eternal status of one's soul.]