Author Topic: Ehrman, Ian and Little else  (Read 1364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ehrman, Ian and Little else
« on: April 19, 2009, 03:57:07 PM »
What an incredible waste of time. This show could have been good if the host would have asked any insightful, meaningful questions, and if the guest would not have restricted the questions in the first place.

I am just speechless (almost) how bad this show was. There was so much that could have been discussed, but instead they chose to engage in mental masturbation for 3 hours.

Questions like why Ehrman really quit christianity, why Judas isnt a saint, why reincarnation is excluded from so called christianity, etc, etc.

In the words of Dennis Miller.... weak cheese .

Re: Ehrman, Ian and Little else
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2009, 04:24:35 PM »
Well, I liked it a lot.  Because I have friends in the clergy, I wasn't at all surprised at the inconsistencies - I have ample opportunity to discuss that.  But what I wasn't as aware of were the details of why some things were deliberately changed.  Now I want to read the book.


Re: Ehrman, Ian and Little else
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2009, 04:38:58 PM »
Well, I liked it a lot.  Because I have friends in the clergy, I wasn't at all surprised at the inconsistencies - I have ample opportunity to discuss that.  But what I wasn't as aware of were the details of why some things were deliberately changed.  Now I want to read the book.

Maybe I am just jaded because I have heard a lot of this before. As they pointed out about 20X, it was nothing new. It seems that the good professor doesnt think there were any conspiracies involved (he also said that about 20X). I would have to disagree with him there. He was engaging in research by proclamation. He has no evidence that there wasnt a conspiracy to create the form of the present day church. I have not read his books, but I have read Eileen Pagels . She does a pretty good job convincing me that the present "christian church" was an intentional creation by the people in charge. Ehrman seemed to waffle around so much I want sure what he was trying to say sometimes.
What was abundantly clear, though, was that he was not bringing his A material forth (if there is anything). He wants you to buy his book. It was clear that Ian was asking his permission to ask questions, which I find abhorrent. Why , to sell books. Doesnt work for me. I have bought plenty of books after hearing all the evidence.
Bottom line for me is this, if a topic is so damn important as to warrant a 3 hour radio show, they need to bring the goods. Based on that interview and its obvious preconditions, I would never buy his books. After all, it is nothing new ? or is it? Why did he write the books then ? So many questions, so little time.

Re: Ehrman, Ian and Little else
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2009, 06:07:14 PM »
It seems that the good professor doesnt think there were any conspiracies involved (he also said that about 20X). I would have to disagree with him there. He was engaging in research by proclamation. He has no evidence that there wasnt a conspiracy to create the form of the present day church.

I didn't think he addressed that, actually.  There is no doubt that plans were made, for good or ill, and executed by the "church fathers" over the centuries.  However, what that does not necessarily mean is that the "cannon" as it stands was one massive conspiracy.  Smaller things happened along the way.  At least, that's how I understand it.


Based on that interview and its obvious preconditions, I would never buy his books. After all, it is nothing new ? or is it? Why did he write the books then ? So many questions, so little time.

The average Joe or Jane - whatever their opinion of "the church" isn't aware of even the things they did say. I don't think they were talking to those who do have some knowledge of the bible from a historical perspective. They were talking to the kind of people who wrote to Ian saying he was the "tool of Satan"  for having Ehrman on in the first place.

That said, was it a book pitch?  Sure - it absolutely was.


Centurion73

  • Guest
Re: Ehrman, Ian and Little else
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2009, 11:45:10 PM »
I thought the show was OK but Ian knew he was well out of his element with the esteemed guest and tread lightly as he could not to look the fool.

Posted by: nika01
Quote
I am just speechless (almost) how bad this show was. There was so much that could have been discussed, but instead they chose to engage in mental masturbation for 3 hours.

All that lays at the feet of the so called "host" would Knapp or Art had questions to ask? I think they would but we are dealing with less thans here with Noory and Punnett.

Quote
Quote from: nika01 on Today at 04:38:58 PM

    It seems that the good professor doesnt think there were any conspiracies involved (he also said that about 20X). I would have to disagree with him there. He was engaging in research by proclamation. He has no evidence that there wasnt a conspiracy to create the form of the present day church.

He is a learned man and has backed up all his facts & suppositions as best he can dealing with the many centuries that have since passed. Do you have any evidence that there was a conspiracy to create the form of the present day church? Evidence for or against is very hard at this stage and one would also have to define what is evidence. None of this is meant to be confrontational it is an attempt to understand on my part.
 
Quote
Quote from: nika01 on Today at 04:38:58 PM

    Based on that interview and its obvious preconditions,

I missed the first few minutes but did I miss that there were or are in fact "obvious preconditions" on what would be talked about and not and if so who or whom set that up the Dr. or Ian? If you know please share with me as I said I missed a few minutes of the show.

Quote
Ehrman seemed to waffle around so much I want sure what he was trying to say sometimes.
What was abundantly clear, though, was that he was not bringing his A material forth (if there is anything). He wants you to buy his book. It was clear that Ian was asking his permission to ask questions, which I find abhorrent.

He did not bring his "A" game to a "C"student why would you? Ian is the one to blame if you feel he was asking permission to ask a question no Ehrman.

I have three of his books and have read them and he does make me think at least that is what I like, I have heard one lecture from him and he does not play the I am a Ph.D so your questions and concerns have no meaning in my life, he is a very gracious man. I agree the show could have been and would have been better with Art or Knapp but all we have is Noory and Punnett. Look on the bright side at least is was not DB Cooper, Sonny Bono, Lindberg Baby, Smiley Faced (fake) Killers, again this week.

I think it was more for people who believe the bible was written by god it self and Ehrman tried t point out that is not the case. I hate to admit it because I am not his # 1 fan but I liked the show for the guest but could have been better but that is you know who's fault.

Re: Ehrman, Ian and Little else
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2009, 06:45:08 PM »
I have not read his books. Eileen Pagels is my main source for this topic, among others. I think it is beyond dispute that the so called catholic church drummed the so called gnostics out of existence. In my mind this is quite clearly a conspiracy. Every church council was a conspiracy to exclude those  not in power. The notion of reincarnation was excluded from the faith some 300 years after the death of jesus by a church council. It is interesting to read why this was done.

I am sorry, his alleged scholarship did not shine through for me in this interview. I know many phd's that cant find their ass with a flashlight, so erudition means little to me. Its what you do with it that counts. To point out that there are inconsistencies in the bible is like a big, giant DUH , which is how this show struck me. Duh.

What would have made the show interesting is how inconsistent and illogical the so called christian faith is. This comes directly from the notion that the bible is inconsistent. For example, if jesus came to die for our sins, why did he teach ? Why isnt Judas a saint because he made the crucifixion possible. I could go on and on, but I wont. Suffice it to say they both butchered the interview (in my opinion) because the guest had nothing new or the slightest bit interesting to say and the host was too busy trying to be so unctuously clever.

Regarding the interview preconditions; Ian asked him if he could ask a question. This in itself is very strange. Of course I dont know this for a fact, by I am inferring by the lack of content that the interviewee brought forth.  I have heard Ian many times before, and he is usually a bully, telling the guest what he wants to talk about. It was clear to me that he didn't want Ian to ask for a list on inconsistencies and go at them as time allows. He wants to sell his book, not give a free interview. If what he has to say is so important, he should have spilled it. This is why I feel he was somewhat disingenuous.

Of course, this is all my opinion, based on my experiences. Others may have loved it. I simply wanted more read meat.

Centurion73

  • Guest
Re: Ehrman, Ian and Little else
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2009, 09:03:37 PM »
Quote
Eileen Pagels is my main source for this topic, among others.

I have read her Gnostic books as well and she as Ehrman does pushtheir own agendas. This does not mean neither is more right than wrong, I would like to sit in a debate held by them then we would find out a lot of interesting things.

Quote
In my mind this is quite clearly a conspiracy.

Just because it is in "your" mind does not make it so but only to you. I agree that it may seem and appear to be one but it is all still theory on all sides.

 
Quote
To point out that there are inconsistencies in the bible is like a big, giant DUH , which is how this show struck me. Duh.

Fair statement but I think most Ian's shows are a duh for me, I think he was the problem not the guest but I may be wrong as it sounds as though you do not like the path that Mr. Ehrman takes and that is your right to do so.

Quote
What would have made the show interesting is how inconsistent and illogical the so called christian faith is.

True if you ever read any of my musings, however, a lot of faiths have the same issiues.

Quote
Regarding the interview preconditions; Ian asked him if he could ask a question. This in itself is very strange. Of course I dont know this for a fact, by I am inferring by the lack of content that the interviewee brought forth.  I have heard Ian many times before, and he is usually a bully, telling the guest what he wants to talk about. It was clear to me that he didn't want Ian to ask for a list on inconsistencies and go at them as time allows. He wants to sell his book, not give a free interview. If what he has to say is so important, he should have spilled it. This is why I feel he was somewhat disingenuous.
No doubt he was out shilling his book but that is what c2c has become.

You are blaming the victim here all of what you wrote is ALL 100% Ian's fault not Ehrman. I have heard Ehrman answer such questions as you have postulated, you have to have a host whom is not afraid to ask them. I think Ian was afraid to show how much he does not know about religion and that limited what he would ask or say. Ian purports that seminary taught him well but by that interview I think he felt inferior to a Princeton seminarian but that is my opinion only.

Quote
Of course, this is all my opinion, based on my experiences. Others may have loved it. I simply wanted more read meat.

Could not agree with you more as I felt the same way. They are dumbing down c2c like they did Newsweek and Time and they have two of the best host to do that with now Punnett and Noory.