Dr. Bart Ehrman is a Prime Example of Why Being Educated on the History and Development of Christianity can easily lead to Apostacy

[ResidentHell]

He is one of the most renowned Biblical scholars in the world. This is an extract from his Wikipedia biography that summarizes his accolades:

He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Most but not all Christians are naïve or ignorant compared to apostates who were previously Christian. I say this confidently because I'm pretty sure the vast majority of self-identified Christians in the world have not thoroughly educated themselves on the history of Christianity and how it has developed over the past two-thousand years

If all self-identified Christians who have above-average IQ thoroughly studied the history and development of Christianity and Christian manuscripts, I'd bet most of them would inevitably experience a religious crisis upon discovering how Christian manuscripts contradict each other, and how they come into conflict with the actions and behaviors of other people in the outside world


Another Wikipedia extract on how Dr. Ehrman become apostate despite coming from a Christian background:

His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to study ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and textual criticism. During such studies at Princeton, however, he became convinced that there were contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:

I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years [...] I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text [...] If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn't he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.

I’m willing to bet that Dr. Ehrman is more studied on Christian literature than 99.99% of self-proclaimed Christians in the world, and Dr. Ehrman was raised by a Christian community. Yet he became apostate as a result of his studies on the history and development of Christian manuscripts. For anyone else out there who does not identify as a believer in “divine salvation” via Jesus Christ, I can say for sure that any Christian who tries to talk you into Christianity is almost certainly naïve and has not rigorously studied the history of Christian literature by himself, or else they either wouldn’t identify as a Christian, or they wouldn’t try to talk you into becoming a Christian

TLDR Christianity is mostly for naïve and ignorant people. As a Christian, throroughly educating youself on the history of Christianity can easily lead you to go apostate unless you're low IQ. Dr. Ehrman, who is one of the most studied people in Christian literature, is a prime example

 

[The_word_made_flesh]

There are many educated Christians ,Bart the fart Ehrman does not even make intelligible arguments for his case .I have never read his books but have seen him on youtube.

If you look at it Bart the fart is in minority of people who truly researched the truth of Christ

 

[Blackpill Monk]

There are many educated Christians ,Bart the fart Ehrman does not even make intelligible arguments for his case .I have never read his books but have seen him on youtube.

If you look at it Bart the fart is in minority of people who truly researched the truth of Christ

 

[Pikacel]

Yeah way too much innovation to be believable

 

[RandomGuy]

There are many educated Christians ,Bart the fart Ehrman does not even make intelligible arguments for his case .I have never read his books but have seen him on youtube.

If you look at it Bart the fart is in minority of people who truly researched the truth of Christ

Religion is a pious fraud.

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/HOe8oje_G8w?si=A-E01p6BvStNwRV-

 

[AsiaCel]

I think Christianity is more about culture these days. Among many Christian's you will find some who are agonistic.

 

[solblue]

Ethnically Jewish name, btw

 

[ResidentHell]

I think Christianity is more about culture these days. Among many Christian's you will find some who are agonistic.

I agree

Ethnically Jewish name, btw

I noticed this as well. I have a suspicion that Bart Ehrman is possibly one of those soychuggers who also happens to be high IQ. They are capable of reason and are sophisticated in their area of study, but they have a strange affinity for woke things like feminism and LGBT

 

[dumbozhina]

that's why i suspect these catholic cardinals with access to tons of confidential archives and historic documents are not true believers.

 

[romanstock]

It doesn't take much study nowadays. Christians are just like leftists, they don't care if what they believe is actually a lie, they have ulterior psychological motivations for believing it.

 

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't take much study nowadays. Christians are just like leftists, they don't care if what they believe is actually a lie, they have ulterior psychological motivations for believing it.

 

[BeanChud88]

Y

I think Christianity is more about culture these days. Among many Christian's you will find some who are agonistic.

Yeah even the so called Christian nationalist nick Fuentes is a degenerate human being himself people like the aesthetics of it and I’m guilty of this too unfortunately

 

[HyperboreanCavalier]

He is one of the most renowned Biblical scholars in the world. This is an extract from his Wikipedia biography that summarizes his accolades:


Most but not all Christians are naïve or ignorant compared to apostates who were previously Christian. I say this confidently because I'm pretty sure the vast majority of self-identified Christians in the world have not thoroughly educated themselves on the history of Christianity and how it has developed over the past two-thousand years

If all self-identified Christians who have above-average IQ thoroughly studied the history and development of Christianity and Christian manuscripts, I'd bet most of them would inevitably experience a religious crisis upon discovering how Christian manuscripts contradict each other, and how they come into conflict with the actions and behaviors of other people in the outside world


Another Wikipedia extract on how Dr. Ehrman become apostate despite coming from a Christian background:


I’m willing to bet that Dr. Ehrman is more studied on Christian literature than 99.99% of self-proclaimed Christians in the world, and Dr. Ehrman was raised by a Christian community. Yet he became apostate as a result of his studies on the history and development of Christian manuscripts. For anyone else out there who does not identify as a believer in “divine salvation” via Jesus Christ, I can say for sure that any Christian who tries to talk you into Christianity is almost certainly naïve and has not rigorously studied the history of Christian literature by himself, or else they either wouldn’t identify as a Christian, or they wouldn’t try to talk you into becoming a Christian

TLDR Christianity is mostly for naïve and ignorant people. As a Christian, throroughly educating youself on the history of Christianity can easily lead you to go apostate unless you're low IQ. Dr. Ehrman, who is one of the most studied people in Christian literature, is a prime example

Well, there are reasons why high IQ people would be Christian, for example Charles Mauras created a catholic fundamentalist group despite being *believed* to have been an agnostic, because he saw that it kept order and civility in France, and he didn't want to tear a culture down because he couldn't privately believe, the French masses needed it and without it would decay to the France we see today. You see this right through the society from the low-iq peasant, the fanatics so to say all the way to the sophisticated intellectuals and the elites such as Charles Mauras, you can see this back in ancient times as well. But I am not a Christian btw just pointing this out that there are ulterior motives other than blind faith to be Christian

 

[ResidentHell]

Well, there are reasons why high IQ people would be Christian, for example Charles Mauras created a catholic fundamentalist group despite being *believed* to have been an agnostic, because he saw that it kept order and civility in France, and he didn't want to tear a culture down because he couldn't privately believe, the French masses needed it and without it would decay to the France we see today

I understand this, Christianity as an organized religious movement has proven to be an effective tool for preserving order and stability in countries and nations that would have descended into widespread anarchy and barbarism without it. I agree there can be political reasons for why one will support a religious movement, even if they don't agree with the doctrines of that religion

Normies and foids really need an organized religion with a divine figurehead like Jesus Christ, because they would be dysfunctional or baseless beasts without it. If I were in the same position as Charles Mauras and I cared about preserving order and stability in France, I would have done the same thing, even if I doubted the doctrines relating to Jesus Christ and the New Testament

 

[HyperboreanCavalier]

I understand this, Christianity as an organized religious movement has proven to be an effective tool for preserving order and stability in countries and nations that would have descended into widespread anarchy and barbarism without it. I agree there can be political reasons for why one will support a religious movement, even if they don't agree with the doctrines of that religion

Normies and foids really need an organized religion with a divine figurehead like Jesus Christ, because they would be dysfunctional or baseless beasts without it. If I were in the same position as Charles Mauras and I cared about preserving order and stability in France, I would have done the same thing, even if I doubted the doctrines relating to Jesus Christ and the New Testament

I'm glad you can see the utility in religion, I find too many athiests smugly reject religion and say it has no uses in a modern society. When clearly as we both know, the peasant classes never change, they need stuff too have meaning, what does a wedding mean? What does death mean? What does war mean? They need meaning and to ground themselves in it for society to function, otherwise we get what we have today, a society full of hypergamy, faggotry and other such degeneracy. Our ancestors who created these religion knew that without them this would happen, and they are vindicated a thousand times over.

 

[Senzatetto]

Dr.Hillman tries to make Jesus look like a terrorist but the Dr.Hillman Jesus is more badass.