Comments on: The Ironies of Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted

By: JMH

JMH — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:40:50 +0000

Drew, I don’t know how much exposure you’ve had to Ehrman, but his idea of inconsistency is when 2 authors use different words. It really is absurd. By his standard you could never have 2 accurate eyewitness accounts of anything.

Also, your use of “vitriol” to describe Mike Kruger’s incredibly reasoned and detailed analysis of Ehrman makes me wonder if you know what that word means.

By: DKulp

DKulp — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:14:18 +0000

Kruger=Stud.

By: Review of Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted « Theosophical Ruminations

Review of Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted « Theosophical Ruminations — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:16:37 +0000

[...] HT: Justin Taylor [...]

By: NiftyDrewFifty

NiftyDrewFifty — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:38:11 +0000

whatever Erhman’s ironies (or own faults) are, he points out so many discrepencies and mistakes in the Gospels in that book that its takes a whole lot of justification and vitreal from Christian reviewers like Kruger to still have us believe that this book is “inerrant.”

If the Bible is still labeled “inerrant” by these guys than that word has no meaning anymore.

By: JMH

JMH — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:51:58 +0000

Learn this now, fellow readers: You do not want to be on the receiving end of a theological (or epistemological, or philosophical) smackdown from Mike Kruger. I say this as a friend.

By: SJB

SJB — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:30:28 +0000

After listening to a number of talks by Ehrman, it seems clear to me that he has a sadistic desire to attack the Bible and the faith of those who believe it, while elevating his own perspective and knowledge. I don’t know Ehrman’s heart, but when I hear him speak (including the sarcastic, haughty humor) I’m reminded of the devil’s question in Genesis 3: “Did God actually say…?” The spirit behind a leader whose life work is destructive (causing doubt about God’s Word) and misleading (promoting his own belief system of skepticism and agnosticism) seems to me to stem from unseen evil principalities. When I hear him speak I think, “It takes no guts whatsoever to raise hard questions. It takes guts to raise hard questions AND do honest work to help answer them.” Ehrman does the wimpy job of raising questions, but wimps out on showing valid answers that have been suggested.

By: MarkO

MarkO — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:01:29 +0000

I come to much the same conclusion when I am reading Erhmnan. The reason I say this is not because I have anything up on Mr. Kruger, but that Erhman’s anti-god bias is plainly obvious. He says he is agnostic and suggests by this that he is mostly neutral on “god.” However, his own analysis of Scripture or other theistic writers leans hard toward the same conclusions that atheists make. Erhman has created for himself an “intellectual safe zone” by being a closest atheist who calls himself an agnostic. Yet, he seems to be quite very sure that “this is all there is” (last page of God’s Problem).

By: Brendt Waters

Brendt Waters — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:36:25 +0000

I think Kruger is being very generous/gracious to use the word ‘ironic’.

By: Z. J. Kendall

Z. J. Kendall — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:40:00 +0000

Pwned!