A fascinating and scholarly discussion asking (and answering convincingly!) how a Jewish prophet became the Second Person of the Trinity.
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, God, History
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Blogging Theology 
I’m not sure how any serious scholar can look at Jesus statements and claims in the New Testament and not see that Jesus was fully aware of His own divinity. Then again, I’ve read Ehrman and have a hard time calling him a serious scholar.
LikeLike
Bart is a highly acclaimed scholar – by other scholars. I assume you have read none of his academic work?
Have you read:
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament
Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
LikeLike
I probably have to listen to this interview and read dr. Ehrman’s book for the second time, but I did not find the case he put forth in his book very convincing. The engagement with Paul’s Christology was quite minimal, the discussion of whether or not Jesus was buried even worse (For a few comments, see here http://gregmonette.com/blog/post/how-bart-ehrman-gets-jesus-burial-wrong-part-1 and here http://gregmonette.com/blog/post/why-bart-ehrman-gets-jesus-burial-wrong-part-2), lacking almost any engagement with the secondary scholarly literature. And the discussion of Jesus his own view of himself and his role in God’s plan was almost embarrassingly shallow.
LikeLike
Bart Ehrman’s scholarship is penetrating and thank God he can also make it accessible to the lay public.
I have listened to this and it is indeed very convincing.
His scholarship is not even needed.
A reading of all the statements of Jesus in the Red lettered Bible make it obvious he did not consider himself to be God.
If he thought he was God, he would have been clear, explicit, repetitive, and emphatic in saying that “I am God” and he would not have said statements that would contradict that hypothetical proposition (many of his actions and saying contradict such a supposed idea).
Even beyond that, looking at how his disciples treated him make it blindingly obvious that he was not God. If people thought that their leader was literally the CREATOR and SUSTAINER of them, their loved ones, and the universe, then they don’t act at all like the disciples did as described in the Gospels.
Such followers would have clinged to their leader so tightly and have constantly begged Him for all types of requests and have not left him ….
Can you imagine telling God….”God, I had fun hanging out with you at that village of Galillee, I am kind of tired now and had some errands to do. I hope I can spend more time with you after the weekend….take care.”
I am not saying that this is what we exactly find in the Gospels but it is blindingly obvious that they did not really believe that he claimed to be their creator and the creator of their mom and dad.
In addition to reading the text, it is high time for scholars to probe simple questions such as “Did the disciples act in a way that is concordant with someone who believes he is walking around with God?”
Certainly if I was with a prophet of God or an angel, let alone God Himself, I would not act like how they did.
None of us would if we were sane and in our senses.
My intention is not to hurt anyone’s feelings by saying this truth and I want the best for my Christian brethren in humanity and the best for their families but covering up the truth is a great and wicked sin.
LikeLike