Tuesday, April 11, 2017
The Snake Oil For Atheists...
One great example of how neo-Atheists get snookered by traveling sideshow atheism, making the rest of us look bad, is Bart Ehrman.
This one is almost comical. Ehrman’s whole shtick is that the gospels don’t all align, exactly, on the details of the events which they describe.
Ehrman gets up before a crowd and hammers the podium and shouts things like (and I paraphrase), “did Jesus die at noon or at 3:00 pm? It depends on which gospel you read! Were there 2 people at his grave or 3? It depends on which gospel you read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
His point? Good question.
Do the gospels describe the same basic events? Yes.
Do they vary on the details? Yes, yes they do.
As you would expect, different accounts differ on details. Just ask traffic cops who’ve been to a few accidents in their time. People see and remember things differently. But they usually describe the same general event.
The gospels all tell the same basic tale. A dude named Jesus taught things, had followers, was put to death and then was said to have been seen by some resurrected.
So what exactly is Ehrman’s point? What is he even arguing?
Ehrman is just doing the classic bait and switch. You see, what he is really arguing about is the subject of supernatural biblical inerrancy, not historical records or accounts.
His selling point is that he is arguing from a professional, secular, historian’s perspective.
But he ain’t.
Biblical inerrancy is a THEOLOGICAL presupposition that addresses the iffy subject of DIVINE (meaning supernatural) inspiration.
Divine inspiration is the suggestion that God (SUPERNATURALLY) inspired the writers of the various books and letters of the bible to write said books and letters.
The relevant and important question is, what exactly does it mean to be inspired by the spirit of God to write? Does it mean men were inspired to write down what they remembered, or does it mean that they were, essentially, possessed by the spirit of God, who used their physical bodies to write things down.
There is no real consensus among believing theologians or laymen on the issue.
And yet.... Ehrman’s entire publishing and speaking career is based upon an argument from a narrow and denominationally-particular presuppositional supernatural construct on what divine inspiration may mean and possibly entails.
In other words, Ehrman is not arguing from a secular historian’s position.
His fundamental arguments about biblical accounts are theological and supernatural based, not historical.
This is why he has run afoul of the Jesus Myth people.
His arguments were never about historical facts, they were about what supernatural inspiration should or would look like. And absent an appearance by the almighty himself to clear it up, that’s a ridiculously impossible subject that can only ever be wildly speculated about.
And how many of you fell for it?
I would bet that even professional quacks like Pat Robertson aren’t as dogmatic as Ehrman is in regards to the notion of what divine (supernatural) inspiration of ancient texts means and how it worked.
Don’t feel bad though. Live and learn.
Ehrman isn’t alone.
The post-2000 era has seen an endless stream of McAtheists show up and peddle their shitty generic version of the real thing.
Sad thing is they’ve gotten rich doing it. Much like their televangelist counterparts.