Author Bart D. Ehrman and his works. A prominent critic of Christianity. Other scholarly works questioning Christianity

by

Author Bart D. Ehrman and his works. A prominent critic of Christianity.

My reviews of books by Bart D. Ehrman

  • I recommend these two books of his the most, as they have the greatest theological significance:
    • How Jesus Became God
    • Heaven and Hell
  • I have also read the books mentioned.
  • Ehrman is a great author who talks about several historical contexts, quoting the so-called Church Fathers, who are early Christian writers to whom the church refers. Their views are heretical from the perspective of the current church. Early Christian writers were all heretics, so the church must refer to them, although it does not tell believers the whole truth about them.
  • It speaks of the true history of Christianity and Christian dogmas, as they really happened, not as the church and believers would wish.
  • It is fascinating that believers do not know their own history.
  • It talks about the interpretation of the Bible, not as the church interprets it, but what the original author wanted to say with it.
  • The author is an atheist and a materialist, which he makes clear; it's evident in his articles. It gets on my nerves a bit, but otherwise, it's OK.
  • we have different opinions on some topics. For example, whether or not there are arguments in the Bible about the divinity of Christ.

Tertullian and his teaching on the divine trinity

In these parts, I am just adding my notes that are related.

Nicene Creed. Council of Nicaea

These are the thoughts that came to my mind in connection with reading the author's books, a supplement to the author.
  • It is interesting that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says nothing about one God.
  • The Son and the Holy Spirit are designated in them as subordinate deities to God the Father, which is a heretical idea from the perspective of contemporary mainstream theology.
  • Christians do not realize that the Council of Nicaea was not held for the good of the church. (More information in the publications mentioned. It was purely politics. The council was organized by Emperor Constantine, who was concerned about the division of society into different currents of Christianity and thus the political and power instability of the Roman Empire. The council was not convened at the initiative of the bishops but at the initiative of the emperor. Therefore, he openly called on the bishops to somehow agree and conclude a common unified statement, similar to what we call consensus or compromise in politics today. It was not just about Arians; there were many Christian currents. There were Christians who perceived the divine trinity as pure polytheism, other Christians were strict monotheists, monophysites , or modalists . And the result of this compromise was the first formation of the doctrine of the Divine Trinity, which is something between polytheism and monotheism. It is interesting that the Nicene Creed avoids a very sensitive topic of that time that extremely divided society. It says nothing about whether there is one or more gods. It only speaks of the existence of the Father and the Son, both of whom are gods, with the Son indirectly designated as a lower deity.

Scientific work by Pier Franco Beatrice: The Divine Trinity has a pagan origin

  • (Some notes in this article can be found in literature other than this professor's work; I am putting things into context. Pier Franco Beatrice is a prominent, recognized Italian professor of religious studies. His work titled "The Word Homoousios from Hellenism to Christianity" is one of the strongest scholarly works in terms of questioning orthodox Christianity. He speaks about the origin of the term homoousios, meaning "of the same substance." After reading this work, half of Christians will cease to be Christians because it strongly proves the pagan origin of Christianity. The term homoousios was later replaced in the church by the term hypostasis so that it would not sound so pagan. Beatrice says that the pagan terminology homoousios was ordered by Constantine himself, which is also written about by the church historian Eusebius. The Nicene Creed from the Council of Nicaea speaks of the fundamental God the Father and his subordinate God who are of the same homoousios.
  • If I understood Professor Beatrice correctly, the term Logos (also mentioned in the Bible in the context of the possible Divinity of Christ) is pagan terminology for deities, which a Greek author, originally a pagan convert to Christianity, borrowed from paganism.
  • The Father and the Son are the same as the gods Hermes and Thoth in pagan Hellenism / Hermeticism. The virgin conception of God in Hermeticism and Christianity also confirms the inspiration to manipulate the Bible according to pagan ideas, which is also proven.
  • It is interesting that the Church Father Tertullian also describes the Father and the Son in the same way as the gods Hermes and Thoth, comparing the sun (=Father) and the ray (=Son).
The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A89816070&v=2.1&it=r&asid=3536c4c6

http://www.dge.filol.csic.es/DGE-I/RBLG-D/CJO/Beatrice-202002.pdf

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/church-history/article/abs/word-homoousios-from-hellenism-to-christianity/A9C901BED414F2B52828E0587F15C6CD

Important terminology for understanding the professor's article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_Trismegistus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia

Less important links:

The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity. …. University of Cambridge journal https://www.jstor.org/stable/4146467

Pier Franco Beatrice, University of Padua, Department of Historical, Geographical and Ancient Sciences, faculty member https://unipd.academia.edu/pierfrancobeatrice

The Transmission of Sin: Augustine and Pre-Augustinian Sources by Pier Franco Beatrice (critical review by a Christian fundamentalist) https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/16/article/538496/pdf

A work in French by Pier Franco Beatrice: "Hellenism and Christianity in the first centuries of our era. Methodological and bibliographical paths"

This work confirms information from the English Wikipedia that a very lively and strong pagan community existed in the Roman Empire until the 6th-7th century, and therefore Christians did not engage in aggressive evangelization because they did not believe in original sin and the damnation of non-Christians.

Augustine (430) was the inventor of the perverse doctrine of original sin.

Professor Jeffrey A. Trumbower: Rescue for the Dead The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity

  • This is an American professor who is a Unitarian in his private faith. An extremely high-quality book that must have taken many years of hard work. The book was also published by the official Oxford University Press as a scientific publication.
  • While I am concerned with the absence of damnation for non-Christians in the Bible, the professor is talking about the topic of salvation for pagans. Christians believed in the salvation of non-Christians. This was changed by Augustine (who, by the way, was the first to come up with the idea of spreading Christianity by force).
  • Also, the professor was a little mistaken in his interpretation of the Bible when he forgot to quote many statements from the Bible and the Church Fathers, when the requirement for salvation is general ethics, not so much baptism and Christian faith. However, it is still an interesting publication.
  • It speaks of the Gnostics who believed in reincarnation, where the goal is to be freed from the need for reincarnation and to advance to higher dimensions.
  • It also speaks of several non-Gnostic apocrypha that confirm the belief in the salvation of the Gentiles.
  • Origen explicitly believed in reincarnation.
  • The Church questioned reincarnation at the council.
  • It talks about how Augustine struggled with the Bible and did not like the places in the Bible that question the original sin, that is, the permanent, endless hell for non-Christians.
  • This book is an atomic weapon against Christianity. It questions orthodox Christianity in its absolute foundations.
  • Professor Trumbower draws attention to the oldest complete manuscript of the Bible, Codex Sinaiticus . While Codex Sinaiticus (part of the canon) included the book of Shepherd of Hermas, contemporary Bibles do not contain it. The Shepherd of Hermas contains strong arguments in favor of the salvation of the Gentiles, which contradicts the teaching of original sin. The Church knew very well why it removed this book from the Bible.
  • The disadvantage of Professor Trumbower's work is that he deals with the issue from a narrow point of view. Not exclusively, but predominantly, he deals with arguments regarding the salvation of the pagans, such as posthumous baptism of pagans, prayers for the dead, although more direct claims could certainly be found. However, even this narrow point of view has great value.
  • The professor points out how Augustine strongly struggled with Jesus' words in the Bible that the punishment in hell is not eternal but only temporary.
  • One must be careful not to misunderstand the professor. Even after the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church did not change its teaching on original sin in any extreme way. It only offers a small hope, not a certainty, of salvation for unbaptized children.
  • Related:
Review of his work. Brief summary.

Church Fathers

  • All Church Fathers (=writers, theologians between Jesus' direct disciples and Augustine) before Augustine are, from the perspective of contemporary Christian theology, extreme heretics who question the teaching of the Divine Trinity or other extremely important dogmas, without which Christianity would not be Christianity. There is not a single Church Father who would not question contemporary Christianity in its absolute foundations. Nevertheless, even these heretics are taught in Christian theological faculties as positive people who laid the foundation for Christianity, because the Catholic Church has no other choice. Because then it would not be able to teach about the history of the church between the first and sixth centuries at all.
  • It's interesting that Christians don't know their own history. Because if they did, their Christianity would fall like a house of cards.
  • Nevertheless, the church has no choice but to teach the doctrine of the Church Fathers at the theological faculty, which is a sign of absolute despair, because there are no theologians other than "heretics" before the 6th century. Of course, teaching at the theological faculty is extremely manipulated, taught in such a way that they only take 1 of their statements out of context that do not contradict the church's faith.
  • Professor Jeffrey A. Trumbower points out that many writings of the Church Fathers have been manipulated. Manipulated translations, there are different versions of the same work, etc. Later scribes manipulated the content of the works of the Church Fathers to fit orthodox Christianity.
  • On the one hand, at the council, the church rejected Origen's writings, and on the other hand, the church still quotes him intensively, because until the 6th century there are only "heretics" and the church has no choice. A crazy paradox.
  • Several Church Fathers also tried to manipulate the Bible with their extreme interpretations, which did not find understanding even among contemporary conservative theologians. For example, Tertullian and others tried to forcibly interpret the Bible, claiming that the Bible confirms the divinity of Christ based on arguments about wisdom. His logic: Christ = wisdom + he quotes statements about wisdom from the Bible.
  • Tertullian radically diminishes the divinity of Christ in the Holy Trinity. He compares the Father to the sun and the Son to a ray. He compares the Son Jesus to angels. Today, Christians would consider him a mad heretic who should be burned. The problem is that at that time, all theologians were such heretics.
  • Church Fathers such as John Chrysostom or Augustine were obsessed with hatred against Jews. My opinion is that the reason for their hatred was that Jews who converted to Christianity strictly adhered to monotheism and rejected the divinity of Christ. However, the dominant converts to Christianity were pagans, so-called pagan Christians. It was difficult for them to switch from polytheism to strict monotheism, so they invented the doctrine of the divine trinity. The inertia of paganism was strong.

Other links

Moutafov Emmanuel, First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, 325.

An interesting work by a scientist. In his work, he emphasizes that the council was not so much ecumenical as dictatorial on the part of Emperor Constantine. Constantine ordered and the role of the bishops was to obey.

https://filozofia.nett.to/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/First_Ecumenical_Council_of_Nicea_325.pdf

AW Tozer Theological Seminary …. NICENE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY: REFUTING THE ETERNAL SUBORDINATION OF THE SON AND THE SPIRIT ….. Audrey E. McCormick

An interesting thesis by a theology student. Disputes about the Holy Trinity continue even today. The thesis mentions that in the USA, the theology of the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father is very influential. The author even states in the context that it is a majority theology (presumably in California and other US states). She even quotes publications by theologians who question theologians who preach the subordination of the Son and the Spirit, which indicates that this theological dispute is of enormous importance. Mainstream theology speaks of the equality of the three persons in the Trinity. The fact is that the subordination of persons is closer to Biblical teaching than mainstream theology.

My notes: If we give the persons in the Trinity a different hierarchy, then the argument that Christianity is not monotheism but polytheism-paganism is strengthened. Some theologians say that Adventists are polytheists.

https://filozofia.nett.to/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/NICENE_TRINITARIAN_THEOLOGY_REFUTING_THE.pdf

Formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Fourth Century ….. Victor Beshir

An interesting work by an orthodox theologian. If I remember correctly, he mentioned that the Church Father Basil or Gregory strongly emphasized that God and the Father are not the same and should not be identified in any way, which suggests the philosophy that there is one God to whom persons are hierarchically subordinate. This is also not in line with mainstream theology.

The concept of hypostasis

Another church scandal on the topic of the Holy Trinity. The term hypostasis was used by theologians to denote a person in the Trinity. However, the problem lies in the etymological meaning of this word. The word was known in Greek hundreds of years before Christianity existed. The meaning of the word is clear. The prefix "hypo-" means "lower" or "subordinate" in Greek. The term hypostasis reinforces the argument of the issue of the subordination of persons in the Trinity. What faith did the first Christians have? Did they believe in 4 Divine entities? A hierarchically supreme God to whom persons/hypostases were subordinate? This would be contrary to current mainstream theology, but in accordance with the interpretation of the Nicene Creed compiled by Emperor Constantine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_philosophy_and_religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

When did Gnosticism originate?

A little off-topic, but I'll put it here.

Ehrman took over the hoax of mainstream theologians that Gnosticism did not emerge until the 2nd century. He failed to notice the fact that there are several Gnostic elements in the Bible.

There are several theories among scientists:
  • traditional theologians argue that it was not until the second century, in order to weaken the argument that Christ himself preached Gnostic teachings
  • Another theory is that Christ began to spread Gnostic teachings.
  • Another theory is that Gnosticism existed even before Jesus and Jesus only popularized this teaching.
Gnosticism was strongly inspired by Hermeticism, as was mainstream Christianity. The difference, however, was that while mainstream Christianity took only the worst from Hermeticism, i.e., polytheism, Gnosticism chose the best from Hermeticism.

Teaching theology at the Faculty of Theology. Church History

  • The quality of theology education is extremely low, especially in Slovakia, because although the state pays for the education with its own money, the bishop decides who will teach theology. Most people who teach at the theological faculty are priests or religious fanatic laypeople. This is an extremely perverse logic in education. It stems from the Vatican treaty. The church has never had such enormous power as it has today, perhaps not even during the monarchy. Catholic priests never heard anything critical of the church during their studies. In countries where there is a clear separation of church and state, such as the USA or France, it can happen that theological subjects are taught by either a liberal theologian or a secular person.
  • The most important subject of theology is the history of the church, which, however, is taught at the theological faculty in an extremely manipulated way. The fact that until the 5th century there were no other theologians than brutal "heretics" from the point of view of the current church cannot be completely concealed, but in the teaching of theology these things are downplayed as much as possible.
  • The foundation of the Christian faith is built on strong manipulation and psychological enslavement of man. Even if a professor of theology knows the critical arguments against the church, he will not tell his students. The entire Christian faith is built only on an extremely uncritical view of the church through rose-tinted glasses. Nothing critical exists. Our church is perfect, a perfect work of God. …….. The church mentality is such that it is a lesser evil to cover up pedophile scandals than to suspend a pedophile priest and file a criminal complaint against him, which would damage the church's name. The main thing is to spread only the good name of the church. Even the slightest criticism of one's own church is unacceptable. This mentality is also transferred to the teaching of theology, that even if a professor of theology learned the truth about the history of the church, he would not reveal it to the students. ………. Also, theology professors themselves live outside of reality, in a bubble, where they themselves only read theology by intra-church authors and have no awareness of liberal theologians or secular church historians. They maintain themselves in self-deception.
  • If the whole truth about the church was taught at the theological faculty, 99% of students would not want to be priests.

Less important and less recommended literature

Author: Unitarian, liberal theologian, Andrews Norton 1786-1853

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001961831

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrews_Norton

The author is a rather conservative theologian, with a critical view of the divine trinity.

https://www.christianbook.com/short-history-of-the-early-church/harry-boer/9780802813398/pd/2813399

Non-Trinitarian theologian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Harnack

https://archive.org/details/historydogma01speigoog/page/n8/mode/2up

https://www.amazon.com/History-Dogma-Adolf-Harnack/dp/1579100678

A review of a book similar to Ehrman's

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-ecclesiastical-history/article/abs/formation-of-christian-dogma-an-historical-study-of-its-problem-by-martin-werner-translated-with-an-introduction-by-sgf-brandon-pp-xvi-352-london-adam-charles-black-1957-30s/A8E59905C37A0DFC39D58A773D7C60F8

Philip Schaff https://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Church-Christianity-D/dp/1520584636/

Conservative non-Trinitarian theologian, author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schaff

https://docplayer.cz/40110473-Dejiny-dogmatu-navrat-domu.html

Conservative non-Trinitarian theologian, author of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Berkhof

Unitarians, who consider the Bible to be an infallible revelation. Religious fanatics, but some of their arguments may be good, as mainstream Christianity does not follow the Bible. Books translated even into Czech.

https://focusonthekingdom.org/books/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Anthony_Buzzard-2C_3rd_Baronet

reaction review http://silverwarethief.com/datafiles/text/paulandlorriane.pdf

Conservative Unitarians, who consider the Bible to be an infallible revelation… Reformed Church of the 21st Century

https://21stcr.org