I still don't understand why Bart Ehrman is so highly regarded among so many critics of Christianity. Here are some comments from a recent thread on his resurrection debate this year with Mike Licona:
"After listening to just a few minutes of Ehrman I have a feeling that the President and professors of this Baptist College are thinking to themselves, 'Oh S%*t, what the hell were we thinking!' I had to laugh a little. But kudos to them for being willing to expose their students to Ehrman. I only wish my Baptist college had been willing to do the same... maybe I would have begun to think more clearly and rationally before spending 20 years in full-time ministry."
"Those responsible for inviting Erhman to this debate must have been gobsmacked. How could anyone hear Erhman and not leave with serious questions concerning the reliability of 'sacred' text."
Many of the other comments in the thread are similarly ridiculous. Evangelicals frequently arrange debates like this one, and they publish the results in video and book formats, for example. Maybe if these skeptics knew the issues better, they would understand why Evangelicals keep doing that and why Ehrman didn't do as well as they think he did.
I wrote a review of the debate here.
No comments:
Post a Comment