Bart Ehrman: How Jesus Became God

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
At the recommendation of Etagloc I've watched a handful of lectures. I became an instant fan. The way he teaches, with humor and animation, leading the public into the universe of theological scholarship, is great for people like myself that have a strong interest in science and history. He never denies anyone's faith or attempts to prove his own. I thought these 3 presentations were the most intriguing so far:


I'd like to post the outlines he gave and a quick explanation of what I found to be his key points-

DID JESUS THINK HE WAS GOD?

- Gospel according to John
John differs in ways from the synoptic telling of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which were earlier accounts. None of the sayings in John that focus on Christ's divinity to such an extent are in those Gospels. I agree with Ehrman: it makes sense the author was expressing his interpretation of the meaning/role of Jesus by "putting words in his mouth."


-Problem with knowing what Jesus said
Scholars from the Jesus Seminar believe that within the 5 Gospels (they hold Thomas to be as valid historically), only 18% of the sayings could reliably be attributed to Jesus. 40-60 years passed between Jesus's death and the first Gospels.. There are multiple contradictions and discrepancies between them, along with the theological perspective that is imposed.

- A common scholarly reconstruction: Jesus the apocalypticist
The majority of modern scholars agree that Jesus is best understood as an apocalyptic prophet. This was in the period where apocalyptic thinking among the Jews was common. I disagree with Ehrman slightly here: Christ could also be using the popular medium of the day to relay deeper meanings. If we take the teachings literally Jesus held to a similar vision as other apocalypticists- "the Kingdom of God is at hand." Jesus spoke of the "Son of Man", a judge who will destroy the forces of evil and reveal the kingdom of God. Christ uses the phrase implying himself, and yet another figure in other passages.

There is enough evidence to think that Jesus did see himself as a prophet, a voice of God.

Ehrman believes Jesus also thought of himself as the anointed one, the Messiah (a physical, future King of Israel). He points out the verse where Jesus says that when the Kingdom arrives, his 12 disciples would be made rulers. Ehrman says that if He was teaching this to his apostles, Judas may have informed Pilate, leading to the accusations and trial. Erman doesn't believe Jesus planned to sacrifice himself. The disciples afterward started deciding that the messiah had to suffer, and thus CHRISTIANITY was born.

THE EARLIEST UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS' DIVINITY

-Divine humans and the ancient world
In the old world there were gradations within the realms of divine vs. human. Polytheists acknowledged lesser gods and divinities, and their gods could intermingle with humans. Moses, Enoch, and David were elevated in recognition as God. In ancient belief God could also become human, as in examples of the "angel of the Lord".

Ehrman argues that early Christians viewed Jesus in the same 3 ways, whether independently or as a combination: as human that became divine, divine human that was born of a union of God and a mortal (Mary), and a God that came to earth.

-Exultation christology
Exultation Christology is a study of the way we believe that Christ was exulted to the level of divinity. The first followers thought of Jesus as a 100% flesh and blood human, until the resurrection. If He was raised from the dead, they concluded He must have gone to heaven with God afterward, and was made into a divine being. Ehrman sites examples of pre-literary tradition sprinkled into the earliest writings (50AD or so). In the letter to the Romans Paul mentions Jesus born of the flesh of David, who became the son of God at His resurrection. Some scholars consider this a low level christology, the view that God "adopted" Jesus. This is an interesting side-note: Ehrman doesn't think the author of Romans is Paul, because Paul believed Jesus became the son of God before the resurrection.

-Backward movement of christology
Christians at some point started thinking that Christ must have been "the Son" earlier in His life. They went back to the baptism (where the "voice of God" was heard) and then to to His birth which by this reason must have also been a supernatural occurrence. That's why the earliest writings of Paul don't highlight the details of what was written in the (later) Gospels, ie the virgin birth.

Eventually the exultation was believed to take place before His birth! What do you know?! Christ was exulted from "eternity past." Again, the consensus among historians is that these were developments happening in the Christian community before Paul's writings.

-Incarnation christology

This is the theory that God, the Omnicient, becomes man. Paul is the first Christian author (that we know of), and his letters express this christology. Paul believed that before becoming human, Christ was an angelic being. The Phillipian Hymn Phillipians 2:6-11 is an example of this theology- Jesus was in the form of God and became human to suffer on the cross, and God then exalted Him. The saying ,"every knee shall bow" was taken from ISAIAH 45, in relation to submitting before the Almighty. Jesus is exalted to the level of God, worshiped and confessed to.

The christology of John is the most exalted in the NT. Here, Jesus is incarnated as the Word, which through Him the universe was created. Since the Word was God and with God, Jesus is now elevated beyond the plane of mere angels- HE IS THE CREATOR! Quite a journey of interpretation as the theology developed in the 1st century. But the story doesn't end here.

THE CHRISTIAN DILEMMA

The dilemma began among the first churches in attempting to agree on a concrete description of what/who Jesus is. Passages of scripture seemed to be at odds with one another. Different Christian groups emphasized different things. A paradox evolved- Jesus is 100% human, and 100% God. Was Jesus God or was God God? Sounds insane but this is what the early followers were arguing.

-Birth of the trinity

In the 2nd and 3rd century there were still debates over Christ's divinity and the nature of God. The established churches rejected contrary opinions. Modalism was one solution to the paradoxes; that God could have different modes of existence. The popes and bishops held this view. A theologian and intellectual Tertullian (the great-grand daddy of the trinity lol) wrote against Modalism, regarding it a heresy. He noted that God had a relationship with the son, therefore God is not the son. He devised the word "trinity" to describe God as three distinct but equal beings.

In the 4th century debates remained among scholars. The faith had grown and intellectuals were coming up with new solutions to the religious dilemmas. The teachings of Arius (that Jesus was subordinate to God the Father) caused a rift within the orthodox churches, which led to Constantine calling for a council to establish a set doctrine for the Roman populace. Arius lost the debate. Christ was now affirmed as equal to God, same powers and honor, and He always existed. The holy spirit was acknowledged in the doctrine of the trinity and together they were understood to be a mystery, a problem beyond logic.

Remarkably, Arianism survived and some historians think in the 4th century there were more Christians who held his view than not. The debates never ended. There are Christians who insist that if you don't follow their doctrinal interpretation, you're a heretic. Christianity, instead of being of Jesus, became about Jesus- and here we are today.
 

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
DID JESUS THINK HE WAS GOD?
Jesus absolutely thought and taught that He is God.


John 8 23Then He told them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24That is why I told you that you would die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

John 14 7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.” 8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” 9Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?



Erman doesn't believe Jesus planned to sacrifice himself. The disciples afterward started deciding that the messiah had to suffer, and thus CHRISTIANITY was born.
Erman cannot possibly have read the Gospels.


Matthew 21From that time on Jesusb began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!”

23But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
 
Last edited:

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
That's funny you're quoting from the Gospel who's narrative clearly stands apart from the others. "John" doesn't fit from a historical perspective. The bigger issue is that there were always disputes over the interpretation of passages.

Ehrman's probably forgotten more of the Bible than any of this forum will ever know. He's done more to raise interest in the subject of Jesus than anyone recently.

Ehrman is hypothesizing. He says Christ taught that many of his generation would see the apocalypse. Did Christ believe he would live long enough to be captured and killed?

Historians universally agree that the Gospels and letters were altered, mis-translated, lost ,etc. John was written 60 years after the event. I'd love to open the Vatican's crypts and read the originals, haha. There is enough proof to show that they were edited throughout the centuries, altered in many ways. That's a whole different subject.

Christ didn't teach the atonement, resurrection, virgin birth, or trinity. To me they're all metaphysical trappings that limit our connection to HIM.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
A OP piece on an unbelieving revisionist apostate? What it the Vigilant Citizen Forum coming to? ;-)

In all seriousness, it illustrates the spirit highlighted by other things I have watched...

 

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
That's funny you're quoting from the Gospel who's narrative clearly stands apart from the others. "John" doesn't fit from a historical perspective. The bigger issue is that there were always disputes over the interpretation of passages.
It's very simple.

Jesus Christ is God and has preserved and protected His story.

The Devil is a real being who controls the governments of the world which have rejected Jesus Christ as God.


Ehrman's probably forgotten more of the Bible than any of this forum will ever know. He's done more to raise interest in the subject of Jesus than anyone recently.
I am not impressed.


Ehrman is hypothesizing. He says Christ taught that many of his generation would see the apocalypse. Did Christ believe he would live long enough to be captured and killed?
But they did didn't they ?

It was truly an apocalypse for the Jews when the Romans took their gloves off.


Historians universally agree that the Gospels and letters were altered, mis-translated, lost ,etc. John was written 60 years after the event. I'd love to open the Vatican's crypts and read the originals, haha. There is enough proof to show that they were edited throughout the centuries, altered in many ways. That's a whole different subject.
Jesus Christ who is God has the power to preserve and protect His story.


Christ didn't teach the atonement, resurrection, virgin birth, or trinity. To me they're all metaphysical trappings that limit our connection to HIM.
You got all wrong. Not bad.
 

Renegade

Veteran
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
737
Jesus the"Word" the"Logos" (greek), the"Memra"(aramaic) from Jewish source..

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra
MEMRA (= "Ma'amar" or "Dibbur," "Logos"):

By: Kaufmann Kohler


"The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

—Biblical Data:
In Scripture "the word of the Lord" commonly denotes the speech addressed to patriarch or prophet (Gen. xv. 1; Num. xii. 6, xxiii. 5; I Sam. iii. 21; Amos v. 1-8); but frequently it denotes also the creative word: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Ps. xxxiii. 6; comp. "For He spake, and it was done"; "He sendeth his word, and melteth them [the ice]"; "Fire and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word"; Ps. xxxiii. 9, cxlvii. 18, cxlviii. 8). In this sense it is said, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89). "The Word," heard and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God: "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" (Isa. ix. 7 [A. V. 8], lv. 11); "He sent his word, and healed them" (Ps. cvii. 20); and comp. "his word runneth very swiftly" (Ps. cxlvii. 15).

Personification of the Word.—In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature:
While in the Book of Jubilees, xii. 22, the word of God is sent through the angel to Abraham, in other cases it becomes more and more a personified agency: "By the word of God exist His works" (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlii. 15); "The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world by the 'Ma'amar'" (Mek., Beshallaḥ, 10, with reference to Ps. xxxiii. 6). Quite frequent is the expression, especially in the liturgy, "Thou who hast made the universe with Thy word and ordained man through Thy wisdom to rule over the creatures made by Thee" (Wisdom ix. 1; comp. "Who by Thy words causest the evenings to bring darkness, who openest the gates of the sky by Thy wisdom"; . . . "who by His speech created the heavens, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts"; through whose "words all things were created"; see Singer's "Daily Prayer-Book," pp. 96, 290, 292). So also in IV Esdras vi. 38 ("Lord, Thou spakest on the first day of Creation: 'Let there be heaven and earth,' and Thy word hath accomplished the work"). "Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things" (Wisdom xvi. 12); "Thy word preserveth them that put their trust in Thee" (l.c. xvi. 26). Especially strong is the personification of the word in Wisdom xviii. 15: "Thine Almighty Word leaped down from heaven out of Thy royal throne as a fierce man of war." The Mishnah, with reference to the ten passages in Genesis (ch. i.) beginning with "And God said," speaks of the ten "ma'amarot" (= "speeches") by which the world was created (Abot v. 1; comp. Gen. R. iv. 2: "The upper heavens are held in suspense by the creative Ma'amar"). Out of every speech ["dibbur"] which emanated from God an angel was created (Ḥag. 14a). "The Word ["dibbur"] called none but Moses" (Lev. R. i. 4, 5). "The Word ["dibbur"] went forth from the right hand of God and made a circuit around the camp of Israel" (Cant. R. i. 13).

—In the Targum:
In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.
Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).
 

Renegade

Veteran
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
737
But more than that, in doing my research and thinking harder and harder about the issue, when I (a) came to realize that the Gospels not only attributed these things to him, but also understood him to be adopted as the Son of God at his baptism (Mark 1:9-11), or to have been made the son of God by virtue of the fact that God was literally his father, in that it was the Spirit of God that made the virgin Mary pregnant (Luke 1:35), and (b) realized what “adoption” meant to people in the Roman world (as indicated in a previous post), I finally yielded. These Gospels do indeed think of Jesus as divine. Being made the very Son of God who can heal, cast out demons, raise the dead, pronounce divine forgiveness, receive worship together suggests that even for these Gospels Jesus was a divine being, not merely a human.

But in a different sense from John. (And in a different sense from one another.)

Bart Ehrman
https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-as-god-in-the-synoptics-for-members/
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,908
God being Immanent in the Son doesn't make the Son itself God.
God is Immanent in all things.

Ps
I am a Christian
I have no answer
Therefore I'll just post some anti islam material
Derp.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
God being Immanent in the Son doesn't make the Son itself God.
God is Immanent in all things.

Ps
I am a Christian
I have no answer
Therefore I'll just post some anti islam material
Derp.
Hi @AspiringSoul

Imagine the frustration the Islamic contingent of the Forum might be if a new book, claiming to reverence Muhammad claimed a restored revelation of his identity as a pacifist Saudi goat-hearder? Picture the endless threads constantly attempting to rewrite the Qur'an and Hadith to select points that back up such a view!

Actually @DavidSon has done me a great favour today as I have had time to cross examine some of the logic of Bart Ehrman's philosophical stance. William Lane-Craig incisively deconstructs it here.

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/william-lane-craig-how-bart-ehrman-became-apostate.5228/

As regards negative anti-Islamic material, the guy in the clip simply brings out an inconsistency with the supposed Islamic respect for Jesus that is much vaunted in these discussions which seems germain to the topic.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
Anyone interested in cross examining Ehrman's claims might do well to take a look at the debate that took place between William Lane-Craig and Bart Ehrman. The debate and the transcript are both available on the following website:-

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/debates/craig-vs.-ehrman-college-of-the-holy-cross/

As I was reviewing the materials, I remembered the Sudarium of Oviedo. This seems to have been the folded linen facecloth which corresponded to the shroud of Turin. The symmetry and connection of corresponding blood stains indicate this cloth was placed below Jesus who appears to have been laid to rest in the tomb face down (perhaps due to the severe lacerations on his back).

sudarium_oviedo_light-1024x656.jpg

The facecloth has various points of connection to points on the shroud. In the same way the externally verifiable historic evidence for Jesus has various points of connection to gospel accounts, but not at every point.


To presume that in order for the gospel accounts to be true, they must satisfy Bart's requirement of connecting at every point is rather like expecting the marks on the facecloth to connect with every aspect of the image on the shroud.

I.e. it is a false standard of evidence to apply, which Bart himself would be unlikely to apply in any other areas of his life apart from his ongoing polemic against faith in Jesus as the Son of God!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
3,150
A OP piece on an unbelieving revisionist apostate? What it the Vigilant Citizen Forum coming to? ;-)

In all seriousness, it illustrates the spirit highlighted by other things I have watched...

Why do you bring Islam into a thread that has nothing to with Islam? Your true self must be longing for you to come back to the fitrah that God created you upon. I hope it works out for you.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
...To presume that in order for the gospel accounts to be true, they must satisfy Bart's requirement of connecting at every point is rather like expecting the marks on the facecloth to connect with every aspect of the image on the shroud.

I.e. it is a false standard of evidence to apply, which Bart himself would be unlikely to apply in any other areas of his life apart from his ongoing polemic against faith in Jesus as the Son of God!
I look forward to watching those debates along with video responding to Ehrman's hypothesis. Again, I've only known about him since joining VC.

I refute what your claiming here though, that Erhman wants to destroy faith. The excitement and passion which he imparts upon the subject of Christology (which he studied fervently for 30 years) could only elevate our faith. What's beautiful is he never ONCE attacks any group for their belief- he's only sharing a scholarly perspective on a much debated topic. Ehrman believes Jesus did walk on the earth. He points out that the majority of the thousands of inconsistencies between copies of the bible are trivial.

Evolutionary biology could never quench my firm belief that the Almighty made human beings. Quantum physics only confirms my belief in the One True God. I wouldn't post Ehrman's works (which are far from controversial) as an attempt to undermine faith. It's only to discuss the historical origins of the religion and theology, how Christianity was shaped over 2000 years- how does that impact us in 2019?

It would be impossible to say we love God and life but hate the logic we were gifted with.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
Why do you bring Islam into a thread that has nothing to with Islam? Your true self must be longing for you to come back to the fitrah that God created you upon. I hope it works out for you.
I think Bart is invoked by Islamic leaning @DavidSon because his particular line ties into the "Bible is corrupted" narrative that seems to be a popular Muslim line.

The intention is to create a Qur'an friendly version on Jesus by applying revisionist techniques imo.

The question to me is this:-

IF Jesus has been elevated by tradition and careful re-wording of the Bible to enhance his status from a good man and prophet to something far more, Christians will indeed have much to answer for before God.

On the other hand, IF Jesus was sent by his own Father to be the perfect sacrifice for our Sin, and us truly co-equal with God, then however respectful Islam may sound by calling him a prophet, it is an infinite demotion from his true position and Muhammad will have much to answer for.

The point of the video was as I mentioned to @AspiringSoul - Islamic sources do not appear to consistently reverence Jesus as is popularly claimed.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
I look forward to watching those debates along with video responding to Ehrman's hypothesis. Again, I've only known about him since joining VC.

I refute what your claiming here though, that Erhman wants to destroy faith. The excitement and passion which he imparts upon the subject of Christology (which he studied fervently for 30 years) could only elevate our faith. What's beautiful is he never ONCE attacks any group for their belief- he's only sharing a scholarly perspective on a much debated topic. Ehrman believes Jesus did walk on the earth. He points out that the majority of the thousands of inconsistencies between copies of the bible are trivial.

Evolutionary biology could never quench my firm belief that the Almighty made human beings. Quantum physics only confirms my belief in the One True God. I wouldn't post Ehrman's works (which are far from controversial) as an attempt to undermine faith. It's only to discuss the historical origins of the religion and theology, how Christianity was shaped over 2000 years- how does that impact us in 2019?

It would be impossible to say we love God and life but hate the logic we were gifted with.
Interestingly, Lane-Craig does point out the areas where even Ehrman cannot deny the historical evidence. Jesus died, was buried and that the tomb was subsequently found empty.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
Interestingly, Lane-Craig does point out the areas where even Ehrman cannot deny the historical evidence. Jesus died, was buried and that the tomb was subsequently found empty.
He's not trying to deny or affirm anything, only sharing current dialogue within the field. There is nothing "new" to these discussions, as I could probably fill a house with scholastic analysis of the old and new testament.

The accounts of the resurrection are conflicting, but no one denies they exist. I was the one who said they never meant as much to me in my understanding, but that has nothing to do with your belief system. Spirituality is a personal journey that no one could "disrupt."
 

DesertRose

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
7,596
Last edited:

Todd

Star
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,525
Most here seem to agree that when it comes to actions we are against extremism. However when it comes to belief we almost force others to choose one extreme or the other. Why is that?

On one extreme we have Christians who claim that Jesus is God and co-equal with the Father (whatever that means as it is term that is only used in discussing the abstract idea of the Trinity)even though it is not explicitly taught in scripture. On the other hand we have others who claim Jesus was just another prophet and they deny the resurrection again denying the testimony of scripture. Yet when one presents who Jesus is based on explicit teaching of scripture (that he was a man, but completely yielded to God, sinless, the anointed messiah and the prototype for all resurrected and redeemed humanity) it’s considered a “fringe” belief and relegated to the sidelines of the debate?

To me the crucifixion and resurrection is a greater and more moving miracle when viewed from the aspect that Jesus was not God. What is so special about an all knowing and omnipotent creature temporarily appearing to experience death foreknowing he already has the power to raise himself? It’s a much greater testimony of faith, sacrifice and obedience acknowledging Christ was a man and not God. The example of trust, faith and yielding to the will of God is infinitely greater from that viewpoint.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
3,150
I think Bart is invoked by Islamic leaning @DavidSon because his particular line ties into the "Bible is corrupted" narrative that seems to be a popular Muslim line.

The intention is to create a Qur'an friendly version on Jesus by applying revisionist techniques imo.

The question to me is this:-

IF Jesus has been elevated by tradition and careful re-wording of the Bible to enhance his status from a good man and prophet to something far more, Christians will indeed have much to answer for before God.

On the other hand, IF Jesus was sent by his own Father to be the perfect sacrifice for our Sin, and us truly co-equal with God, then however respectful Islam may sound by calling him a prophet, it is an infinite demotion from his true position and Muhammad will have much to answer for.

The point of the video was as I mentioned to @AspiringSoul - Islamic sources do not appear to consistently reverence Jesus as is popularly claimed.
You are basing your claim that "Islamic sources do not appear to consistently reverence Jesus as is popularly claimed" on a lame youtube video? good grief.
 
Top