In a shocking admission the world-famous Christian scholar professor Larry Hurtado not only admits Jesus did not think he was God, Jesus did not claim to be God, and Jesus did not insist he should be worshipped!
Dr Hurtado is often cited by conservative evangelicals as a scholar who supports their trinitarian beliefs. This confession will come as an enormous blow.
Larry Hurtado is a New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity and Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland (Professor 1996-2011). He was the Head of the School of Divinity 2007-2010, and was until August 2011 Director of the Centre for the Study of Christian Origins, at the University of Edinburgh.
Categories: Biblical scholarship, Christianity
Blogging Theology 
Although there will always be hold outs of the David Wood, Sam Shamoun, and James White type, their efforts will eventually prove futile as the vast majority of Christians who take the time to honestly investigate the evidence provided by modern Biblical scholarship will come to the same conclusion as Hurtado. It is really only a matter of time, until this knowledge trickles down to lay Christians. When they understand that they have been lied to by Church officials and the Bible man-made and not inspired they will leave Christianity in masses………and the doors of Islam will be open for them!
LikeLiked by 3 people
indeed!
LikeLike
Inshallah, Inshallah, ya RAB!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think even the stragglers have little confidence in the Trinity doctrine. These admissions by their scholars will just further diminish their confidence. James White threatens folk with Hell if they listen to his podcast and still argue against the Trinity. Perhaps really, he’s just threatening his flock because he knows the Trinity belief has been refuted and anybody with Google can see he cannot counter the points against the Trinity doctrine.
I’d imagine Christians will begin to move the goal posts and begin openly teaching the Trinity is an optional belief; you can believe in it if you want. They know it’s such a weak and indefensible area for Christianity so they will try to pre-empt attacks on the Trinity by undermining them as attacks on peripheral doctrine. Just look at what the Nabeel Qureshi, Mike Licona, Nick Peters brigade are doing with the Bible.
LikeLike
While history is on the side of the accuracy of the bible, it is more than a book requiring modern day scientific analysis and validation. It recounts what actually took place in an obscure place thousands of years ago that rattled and still disturbs everything most of us take for granted.
To get rid of these stories, Nero blamed the Christians. The Roman historian Tacitus explains what happened.
But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called ‘Chrestians’ by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Tacitus (56 AD-117 AD) on Christ
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44.
The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in 64 AD during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.
Scholars generally consider Tacitus’s reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.
The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around 60 AD, namely that there was a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome and that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.
LikeLike
‘While history is on the side of the accuracy of the bible’ really?
LikeLike
During the past 2,000 years, although many have tried, no one has proven that it isn’t accurate.
LikeLike
i’m sure that’s what your preacher told you but its a big fat lie.
LikeLike
Regarding Christ’s indifference to slaves, we have Paul’s little letter to Philemon concerning his runaway slave, Onesimus.
Greek
10 παρακαλῶ σε περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου, ὃν ἐγέννησα ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς ὀνήσιμον,
KJV
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
Vul
10 obsecro te pro meo filio, quem genui in vinculis, Onesimo,
my son Onesimus
LikeLike
Jesus approaches life and its challenges a wee bit differently than I think he should. Problem is, he’s God and I’m not, so I can’t seem to convince him to do things my way and he never bothers to ask for my opinions anyway.
Onesimus had evidently stolen his master’s goods before leaving Colosse, but in regard to that the apostle writes that if he has defrauded Philemon in anything, he becomes his surety. Philemon can regard Paul’s handwriting as a bond guaranteeing payment: “Put that to mine account,” are his words, “I will repay it.” Had Philemon not been a Christian, and had Paul not written this most beautiful letter, Onesimus might well have been afraid to return. In the Roman empire slaves were constantly crucified for smaller offenses than those of which he had been guilty. A thief and a runaway had nothing but torture or death to expect.
But now under the sway of Christ all is changed. The master who has been defrauded now owns allegiance to Jesus. The letter, which is delivered to him by his slave, is written by a bound “prisoner of Jesus Christ.” The slave too is now a brother in Christ, beloved by Paul: surely he will be beloved by Philemon also. Then Paul intimates that he hopes soon to be set free, and then he will come and visit them in Colosse. Will Philemon receive him into his house as his guest?
LikeLike
Forgot to give credit to, “John Rutherfurd”
LikeLike
Sir Anthony Buzzard’s celebration is epic
I also think the idea of the Trinity is affecting the Christian apologetics against Atheism. Top end Christian scholars and thinkers are good at refuting Atheism but I think the Atheists will find it hard to get past the idea of the Trinity and the idea of god-man.
I suspect many of our Christian friends recgonise this hence why they focus on “feel good Christianity” when preaching rather than pure theology.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yahya,
Good point. Feel Good Christianity doesn’t require any intellectual effort or thought, just mindless “faith” and happy, happy, joy, joy.
Anyone who reflects on actual Christian theology has to at least pause and think for a minute, and that minute may lead to further inquiry, investigation, and that may lead to re-evaluation and ultimately a rejection of the Trinitarian belief, and may open up the possibility for acceptance of Islam.
LikeLiked by 4 people
that’s exactly what happened to me
LikeLiked by 2 people
The problem though is that when they realize that trinity is nonsensical, they loose faith in religion itself and most often turn to atheism. We have to do a better job by convincing them that they can still remain faithful to God, to Jesus, to their tradition by being a Muslim. They don’t have to choose between rationality of religion vs rationality of science ( moving towards atheism as it being framed by new agers). Rather they can be fully faithful to rationality of religion AND rationality of science without losing their own religious heritage by being a Muslim.
LikeLiked by 4 people
RM,
You are absolutely right, I agree.
LikeLike
I think that while there may be many of those who loose faith in Christianity and turn to Atheism, or loose faith in Religion, there are still many who are still wise enough to know and believe that there is a Supreme Divine Being or a higher power, that is even the responsible force behind the rationality of Science. As you alluded, the extra added benefit and attraction to Islam is that these friends can maintain their roots in the Abrahamic Faith Tradition through being a Muslim.
We just have to do our best at making “The Case for Islam.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Obviously these ‘scholars’ are not as learned in the bible as Ken Temple.
LikeLiked by 2 people
this is true Kmak. They do not have the spiritual wisdom nor the academic qualifications as our Ken.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually they don’t have holy ghost speaking to them like they certainly do to Ken 🙂
LikeLike
this is the complete video from which Yahya Snow took the excerpt
LikeLike
Alright, just watched the whole debate and hurtado defends the pre-existence of jesus, and the divinity of jesus, and argues that the early christians worshiped jesus in the same way they would have worshiped yahweh. He argues that the line of divinity between yahweh and jesus was believed by the early christians to have been blurred y god.
His position is more nuanced than the buffoon Anthony Buzzard – several times, Hurtado even sighs in frustration at Buzzard’s simplistic cherry-picking of verses, and un-nuanced understanding of the material. Clearly, Hurtado finds Buzzard’s denseness tiresome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Graham: But you stil haven;t the question. Why do you worship a God that Jesus didn’t worship?
LikeLike
RM
I’ve answered all your questions.
What you haven’t answered is why islamic practice is largely not commanded in the quran?
Salat positions? Not in the quran.
5 daily prayers? Non-quranic.
Specifics of wudu ritual? Non-quranic.
Circling the kaab 7 times? Non-quranic.
Going to mecca to perform hajj? Non-quranic.
Shahada to be a muslim? Not commanded in the quran.
Just to mention a few.
In fact, these practices are warmed-over pagan practices.
The question arises: who or what exactly are you worshiping since your allah does not tell you to perform these acts of devotion.
LikeLike
all these practices are to be found in the sunnah of the prophet. You know this. Why not troll somewhere else dude?
LikeLike
Paul
The hadith is of dubious historical credibility – you know this. You also know that the quran gives no commands to follow sahih bukhari, sahih muslim or any other hadith collection.
It is not trolling to point that out. Facts are facts I’m afraid.
LikeLike
there are many very early hadiths that are authentic. You know that.
Do you not have a LIFE?
It must be very sad being a troll on a Muslim website.
LikeLike
Paul
Which are the early hadith, and where do they tell muslims to perform the above practices?
LikeLike
one last time: al-Muwatta by Malik
LikeLike
Paul
And?
Where does it say to perform the above practices?
LikeLike
It has very detailed narrations about this. Go. Read. Do your own homework.
LikeLike
I have done my homework. The “earliest” extant hadith is indeed the al muwatta but it consists of a single fragment that is highly degraded, and missing huge chunks of text. Some of the text that remains is not legible. I wouldn’t put my faith in it.
It doesn’t tell muslims to circle the kaaba 7 times nor to venerate and kiss a stone
LikeLike
if it is ‘missing huge chunks of text’ how do you know ‘It doesn’t tell muslims to circle the kaaba 7 times nor to venerate and kiss a stone’?
Also what is your source for your comments about the earliest text?
LikeLike
Paul
Oh dear.
Did you really ask me that? Can you read text that is missing?
LikeLike
what is the source/evidence for the text?
LikeLike
Paul
“Also what is your source for your comments about the earliest text?”
I did my homework – you do yours.
LikeLike
I have. There is NO SUCH TEXT as described by you.
LikeLike
Ehrman and others, [in fact, IMO, no one] has ever provided any proof that the New Testament isn’t thoroughly reliable.
LikeLike
reliable as what?
LikeLike
Read Craig Blomberg’s The Historicity of the Gospels
And F.F. Bruce’s The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
LikeLike
I have.
LikeLike
What did you, do you think, Paul?
I think Jesus is portrayed as He was. I think based on the authenticity of what was written down and has been passed along to us that we have an accurate description of GodMan and that He is still seeking to save that which was lost. He is still providing a home to the homeless and those aching for love.
LikeLike
I think Blomberg’s book strains to present the maximally conservative exegesis of the NT in line with his conservative evangelical theology. Nothing surprising there.
Regarding FF Bruce, he is not quite what you think he is. In his commentary on the gospel of John he likens the author to Shakespeare who put speeches into the mouths of his historical characters, not the actual words spoken. In other words Bruce is suggesting (in line with all scholarship) that a great deal of the speeches attributed to Jesus in John are not strictly historical.
LikeLike
Thanks for answering.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The challenge for conservative Christians is to understand the historical reasons scholars have for questioning the historicity of the sayings put in the mouth of Jesus in John. If honesty and integrity are important in Christian preaching of these texts then ministers need to come to terms with this research and adjust their beliefs accordingly. A refusal to do so – as Ken does example – is what I call fundamentalism. It has zero intellectual integrity.
LikeLike
“The challenge for conservative Christians is to understand the historical reasons scholars have for questioning the historicity of the sayings put in the mouth of Jesus in John. If honesty and integrity are important in Christian preaching of these texts then ministers need to come to terms with this research and adjust their beliefs accordingly. ” PW
Paul, I value questioning the accuracy of the words Jesus is quoted as saying in John. To me, it is healthy and important to challenge everything, especially documents as significant as the ones found in the New Testament. I am glad to see the work people are doing to try to understand as thoroughly as possible who wrote them, why, and how they’ve come to us in the form they are presently. How did variations occur? All these kinds of things are fascinating and worth pursuing. I mean that.
And that begs the question. What have scholars found, precisely, exactly, and with proof, that fundamentally changes the accounts we have today? I’ve read many theories and opinions.
If Jesus was not who the scriptures claim, then who was he? Studying the New Testament using the methods of higher, historical and literary criticism is valid. Equally important, IMO, is to analyze them from an entirely different perspective by asking that very question. Who really was this individual they describe? Who was he really? Who chose the words he spoke? Who thought up the various phrases he spoke? Who put those words in his mouth? For, whoever it was, his impact was greater the Einstein’s, Copernicus, Galileo, Lincoln, MLK Jr., Moses, Abraham, Hitler, any Caesar, combined.
LikeLike
I can recommend some good introductory books by NT scholars which introduce the scholarly perspective on the NT. It can be quite an eye opening experience.
LikeLike
hank, don’t you find it kind of strange that hundreds of people witnessed a guy come back to life yet the only 1st person testimony is from someone who never met jesus?
everyone describes the miracles which eat the other miracles in the 3rd person and the people who are to be interrogated in acts, never recall the stuff we find in the gospel accounts.
http://vridar.org/2016/03/28/bart-ehrman-jesus-before-the-gospels-basic-element-3-oral-tradition/
just look at those speeches in acts man they are clearly a cause for concern. christians didn’t know what exactly they saw or heard.
LikeLike
By all means, Paul and thank you.
LikeLike
So far, having studied the New Testament for quite some time, I find that it is the most remarkable “book” I’ve ever read. What it describes is the most extraordinary set of events that have ever taken place on the face of the earth, to me, IMO. For the One who created the universe walked among us briefly, the Alpha and the Omega, God Almighty, and they tried to put into human language what that was like. They held him. They saw and heard him, and some died for Him, willingly, voluntarily. And they promised He would be just as real to all who would seek Him with all they are.
LikeLike
Paul, for example, who concocted, who was it who contrived the following and why: “in that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you”
LikeLike
The author of the Fourth Gospel probably made it up.
LikeLike
“They saw and heard him, and some died for Him, willingly, voluntarily. And they promised He would be just as real to all who would seek Him with all they are.”
a lot of jews died for each other. but you cannot prove that the people who died died for believing that a god came back to life.
there is no account which says , “the reason i killed james because he believed that his god came back to life”
LikeLike
John 15 New International Version
Paul, I cannot imagine someone made up these statements. A phrase or two here and there perhaps, but taken in its totality, what is communicated here is other worldly, it is not the stuff typical human beings. Just look at what he says. This guy was not a normal person. In all of history no one ever spoke like this, that I know of, that I’ve ever seen or heard of, ever; nothing comes close.
15 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.
18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[b] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’[c]
26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
“All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. 3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. 4 I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them. I did not tell you this from the beginning because I was with you, 5 but now I am going to him who sent me. None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 Rather, you are filled with grief because I have said these things. 7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
16 Jesus went on to say, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me.”
17 At this, some of his disciples said to one another, “What does he mean by saying, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?” 18 They kept asking, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We don’t understand what he is saying.”
19 Jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about this, so he said to them, “Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me’? 20 Very truly I tell you, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. 21 A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. 22 So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. 23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
25 “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”
29 Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”
31 “Do you now believe?” Jesus replied. 32 “A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.
33 “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
7 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:
“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Jesus Prays for His Disciples
6 “I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of[b] your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by[c] that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
13 “I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you[e] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”
Look at Korn and Dylan and John Newton and on and on.
LikeLike
I understand their reasons; but, since it contradicts sound doctrine and sound theology and contradicts basic Christianity; I and others have reasons for rejecting their theories. If one believes in God and giving revelation, and that God is consistent and that He inspires the apostles to write, then John cannot be made to contradict Mark and Matthew and Luke, but complementary and supplementary. Just because Mark and Matthew and Luke don’t have the same content as John, does not mean the words and events are non-historical.
F. F. Bruce didn’t say it exactly like that – he affirmed that Jesus would later, as He promised, through the Holy Spirit give insight into who He was (per John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-13) – the Holy Spirit as the author and God (parallel with the Shakespeare illustration as author of his books and plays) guided the apostle John to write what He did in his gospel.
He was more nuanced than just “putting words in his mouth”.
LikeLike
According to FF Bruce then the historical Jesus did not actually say many of the words attributed to him in John – they were given to John by the Holy Spirit.
Bruce’s analogy with Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is important as the playwright did not have Caesar’s actual words.
LikeLike
“According to FF Bruce then the historical Jesus did not actually say many of the words attributed to him in John – they were given to John by the Holy Spirit.
Bruce’s analogy with Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is important as the playwright did not have Caesar’s actual words.” PW
“For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.” “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
His dad gave him the words to say. He said them. The Holy Spirit reminds believers of Christ’s words.
“Truly, truly, I tell you, if anyone keeps My word, he will never see death.” Of course, we know and he knew that believers died and would die, so what was he saying? He was not discussing his second coming. By believing in him we have eternal life, now. Just as Christ’s body died, ours will, too. Just as he went straight to glory, so shall we. And, as if that isn’t good enough, eternal life is not merely an unending quantity of time, as in infinity. It is a quality of life as well. I long for the unsurpassed beauty of heaven, personally, and I can’t wait to see him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not sure how all of this helps islam. Hindus probably say that jesus is not the son of god, does that make Hinduism true?
LikeLike
Paul, you said that Christ was a prophet and the messiah, if I remember correctly. You based your opinion on the Qur’an and other sources. So, it is fair to say that he was an important person.
Let me ask you this, if I may, and all are welcome to offer an answer. What kind of prophet was he? What are the other sources you rely upon to draw your conclusions? The same questions apply to his role as the messiah.
Ehrman makes many errors. Instead of correcting them, he builds upon them. He sets out on his voyage with what may seem like small issues and by the time we’ve crossed the Atlantic, we’re in the Indian Ocean.
The synoptic gospels make the case for Christ’s divinity. There is no question about that and yet Bart says otherwise. It is a building block for him and it is absolutely incorrect. Bart needs to acknowledge this fundamental flaw, correct it and then resume his excursion. He will not, however, and therefore the entire body of his work must be understood as errant.
LikeLike
Lots of attacks on ehrman I see. Can you actually quote him making one of these big mistakes please? I would like to see evidence.
LikeLike
Hopefully, the attacks are understood to be directed at his work product, and not him personally.
I think I have and will attempt to do so again.
Would you kindly address these issues? “What kind of prophet was he? What are the other sources you rely upon to draw your conclusions? The same questions apply to his role as the messiah.”
These matters stem from my earlier inquiry regarding Christ’s true identity. I would like to see what we can learn and “know” about him for certain. As the Qur’an acknowledges his significant role, what had he done to merit such status?
LikeLike
He did not “merit” the status of Prophet of God – like the Jewish prophets of old God called him to that sacred office.
https://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-8.htm
LikeLike
“Bart Ehrman’s latest book, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, asserts a number of things, most notably that Jesus is not God and that His divinity is overlooked in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). In an interview with the Boston Globe, Ehrman says, “The problem is that Jesus only makes claims for himself as being divine in the Gospel of John….But what scholars have long noted is that Jesus doesn’t say any of those things in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are [written] much earlier than John….What I argue in the book is that it’s virtually inconceivable that if it was known Jesus called himself God, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke would just leave that part out.” Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
“Ehrman’s major argument for the thesis that Jesus did not consider himself divine is that explicit statements of Jesus’ divine identity can be found only in the later fourth Gospel of John, whereas the three Synoptic Gospels, earlier and thus presumably more historically reliable, do not feature such statements from Jesus himself or the Gospel writers. This is so much nonsense. It is indeed the case that the most direct affirmations of divinity are found in John—“I and the Father are one;” “before Abraham was I am;” “He who sees me sees the Father,” etc. But equally clear statements of divinity are on clear display in the Synoptics, provided we know how to decipher a different semiotic system.
For example, in Mark’s Gospel, we hear that as the apostolic band is making its way toward Jerusalem with Jesus, “they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid” (Mk. 10:32). Awe and terror are the typical reactions to the presence of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Similarly, when Matthew reports that Jesus, at the beginning of the last week of his earthly life, approached Jerusalem from the east, by way of Bethpage and Bethany and the Mount of Olives, he is implicitly affirming Ezekiel’s prophecy that the glory of the Lord, which had departed from his temple, would return from the east, by way of the Mount of Olives. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus addresses the crippled man who had been lowered through the roof of Peter’s house, saying, “My son, your sins are forgiven,” to which the bystanders respond, “Who does this man think he is? Only God can forgive sins.” What is implied there is a Christology as high as anything in John’s Gospel.
And affirmations of divinity on the lips of Jesus himself positively abound in the Synoptics. When he says, in Matthew’s Gospel, “He who does not love me more than his mother or father is not worthy of me,” he is implying that he himself is the greatest possible good. When in Luke’s Gospel, he says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away,” he is identifying himself with the very Word of God. When he says in Matthew’s Gospel, in reference to himself, “But I tell you, something greater than the Temple is here,” he is affirming unambiguously that he is divine, since for first century Jews, only Yahweh himself would be greater than the Jerusalem Temple. Perhaps most remarkably, when he says, almost as a tossed-off aside at the commencement of the Sermon on the Mount, “You have heard it said, but I say…” he is claiming superiority to the Torah, which was the highest possible authority for first century Jews. But the only one superior to the Torah would be the author of the Torah, namely God himself. Obviously examples such as these from the Synoptic authors could be multiplied indefinitely. The point is that the sharp demarcation between the supposedly “high” Christology of John and the “low” Christology of the Synoptics, upon which the Ehrman thesis depends, is simply wrong-headed.” Bishop Robert Barron April 15, 2014
As the Bishop says, examples from the Synoptics could be multiplied indefinitely. This is by no means an exhaustive list, just to be clear.
“…frequently did say, in the classroom, in public lectures, and in my writings – that Jesus is portrayed as God in the Gospel of John but not, definitely not, in the other Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I would point out that only in John did Jesus say such things as “Before Abraham, I am” (8:58; taking upon himself the name of God, as given to Moses in Exodus 3); his Jewish opponents knew full well what he was saying: they take up stones to stone him. Later he says “I and the Father are one” (10:30) Again, the Jews break out the stones. Later he tells his disciples, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (14:9). And in a later prayer to God he asks him to “glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world was created” (17:5).”
“None of these sayings, or anything like them, can be found in the other canonical Gospels.” B Ehrman
Preposterous
LikeLike
He did not “merit” the status of Prophet of God – like the Jewish prophets of old God called him to that sacred office. PW
Good point. I mistakenly assume a degree of worthiness when prophets are chosen.
Again, exactly what kind of prophet was he? What are the other sources you rely upon to draw your conclusions? The same questions apply to his role as the messiah.
I don’t want to bug you, Paul, so I won’t keep asking this question. I do think it’s crucial that we try to identify/define him the best we can. Everything else we discuss hinges upon his real identity, I think.
LikeLike
What does Hurtado believe Jesus’ means in Mark 2:28 and Mark 14:60-61 (the claim to be both the Messiah and the Son of God – Son of God means Deity, the same nature of God the Father, but distinquished in person.) And Matthew 14:33 – “they worshipped Him” – what does Hurtado believe about that?
So, I guess Hurtado, (seemingly along with James Dunn), by this totally dismisses the Gospel of John as historical. Lots of verses show Jesus understood Himself as God by nature and the Son of God, Deity, etc.
You all have to realize that the anti-supernatural bias in western scholarship – not allowing for God’s power to do miracles, His power to inspire prophets and inspire written Scriptures, and not allowing miracles to factor in “Scholarly historical methods” are the same principles that guide the scholars that you guys are promoting here mostly.
The root of dismissing the Gospel of John as historical is this same principle. (and any dismissal of any other verses in Mark, Matthew, Luke that show the incarnation and Deity of Christ and Christ’s words as historical and true).
It seems that scholars such as Dunn and Hurtado just dismiss all the verses that have supernatural elements in them as non-historical.
LikeLike
there is no ‘anti-supernatural bias’ in Hurtado’s scholarship. You just made that up.
LikeLike
There has to be if he said “hell no; Jesus did not think He was Deity”, when He clearly did in Mark 2:28; 14:60-64; Matthew 14:33; John 5:17-18; 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:30; 17:5; 20:28-29, etc. He has to dismiss all those verses and dismiss Gospel of John as non-historical.
LikeLike
Ken you do not understand biblical scholarship and how it works. You are ideologically incapable of grasping how Hurtado analyses the Bible. Fundamentalism has crippled your mind. Sad.
LikeLike
I understand biblical scholarship better than you. Now that we have the full video (thanks) with context, and thanks to Graham’s comments, we can see that Hurtado’s comment was taken out of context.
What Hurtado is saying is that Jesus did not think He was God the Father, which is Trinitarian at it’s core – Trinitarianism is anti – Sabellianism / Modalism.
Graham’s comment “Hurtado’s position is that the father and son are both divine but distinct.” = yes, all Trinitarians believe that – divine (one shared essence) but distinct (three persons).
Boom!
LikeLike
Jesus clearly understood Himself as God by nature (same substance as the Father – homo-ousias) in :
Mark 2:28 – “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” ( a Claim to be Yahweh of Genesis 1-2)
Mark 14:60-64 – The Messiah and Son of God, the one who ascends to heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father (the Ancient of Days) and is fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14 and has a kingdom and some from all nations worship Him.
John 10:30
John 8:56-58
John 8:24
John 5:17-18
John 20:28 – 29
John 17:5
John 14:9
Matthew 14:33
LikeLike
Good stuff Ken. Sometimes I wonder how could anyone not see that Jesus claimed to be God. They killed him not only because he said he was God, but because they knew somewhere deep inside that indeed he was God. That’s how he infuriated them so much.
If a song and dance man had come along and tried to pull the wool over their eyes using some type of hokus pokus, they would not, in fact, they could not have hated him as much as they hated Christ. They observed the way people were responding to him, also, and they couldn’t find a way to discredit him. Incredibly, some were able to be honest enough with themselves to the point where they realized he might be the one so long awaited. They opened their minds in light of everything going on around them, and they feared the Pharisees, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken most of these quotes of Jesus are of doubtful historicity.
LikeLike
No they are not. The main reason more liberal leaning scholars and the liberals say they are not historical is because they don’t believe in Divine Inspiration, that God inspires prophets and apostles to write infallible Scripture. That is an anti-supernatural bias against the miraculous being able to be verified in history – apply the same standards of scholarship to the Qur’an and it also contains unhistorical content.
LikeLike
which ones are unhistorical and why are they unhistorical. Give reasons for each one being unhistorical.
LikeLike
Paul, another, perhaps better choice of books I’d recommend for you. “How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature (Zondervan Academic)
LikeLike
Tell me Hank, what academic books on the historical Jesus have you read?
LikeLike
Read through entirely? None. I skim and pick portions/chapters/paragraphs of books that are interesting to me. Growing up, my parents were quite sadistic. They didn’t believe in an eye for an eye. They believed in at least two eyes and both ears for an eye. I hated to read. So, if I had been really, really, really bad, like trying to murder one of my sisters, my parents would force me to read for a half an hour.
Since becoming a Christian, many moons ago, I developed a love for reading. I don’t go anywhere, even to the john, without something to read and I listen to audio books in the car. I love learning.
I am intellectually disabled. Before getting medical help, I desperately wanted to learn about most everything. I drove my Harvard and Radcliffe (summa cum laude) educated parents out of their minds with all the questions I asked, but learning was nearly impossible my entire youth and teenage years.
LikeLike
Graham wrote:
Alright, just watched the whole debate and hurtado defends the pre-existence of jesus, and the divinity of jesus, and argues that the early christians worshiped jesus in the same way they would have worshiped yahweh. He argues that the line of divinity between yahweh and jesus was believed by the early christians to have been blurred y god.
Hi Graham,
Interesting.
How can all that above be true and also him saying,
Did Jesus think he was God? “Hell no, of course not!”
seems contradictory.
I started listening to it now. Your comments made me interested in listening to the whole thing, though I don’t really have time; but I am going to work through it as I have time.
LikeLike
Ken
Hurtado’s position is that the father and son are both divine but distinct. He is saying that the gospel writers and jesus’ early followers viewed jesus as having qualities worthy of worship that typically only applied to God the father. Jesus accepted this worship, but he did not think he was God the father and neither did his followers.
This supports trinitarian doctrine.
WHen you watch the video you’ll notice that Hurtado becomes repeatedly frustrated by Bizzard’s simplistic and un-nuanced reading of the material. For instance BUzzard implies that the Nicene council was a cynical attempt to create a trinitarian doctrine out of thin air – HUrtado’s response is that the material itself presents us with a blurring of the line between god and jesus and that the NOcene council merely formalized what is in the NT.
Just a word of advice – whenever Yahya snow posts a video it’s usually dishonest and deliberately misrepresents what people actually say. It’s merely Yahya performing taqiya to win converts.
Take his videos with a pinch of salt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1. If Jesus thought he was God, he wouldn’t have worshiped another being.
2. He he would have established a church in which people would come and worship his in daily basis.
3. what would u do if you saw god today? you would for sure bow down and you would do it on every occasion that avails you. i too would do the same
disciples of Jesus were more devoted than you and me. yet they as a habit wouldn’t worship him a god, bow down before him on every single occasion.
4. we see on random occasion some random people coming and “worshiping” Jesus. but not as god. their worship of Jesus was similar to worship by Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel.
5. moreover you don’t use isolated cases to over rule general practice. in general people didn’t worship Jesus, didn’t bow down before him as god, didn’t pray to him as god etc.
6. these simple facts are enough to know that jesus didn’t consider himself god
LikeLike
RM
Yawn.
1 False dichotomy and the masked man fallacy. Fail.
2 Non sequitur – your conclusion doesn’t follow. Fail.
3 If I saw god today, I would probably die.Fail.
4 Bare assertion fallacy. Fail.
5 Mark 10:45 – he did not come to be worshiped but to serve. Argument from ignorance. Fail.
6 Non sequitur. You haven’t proven your assertions. Fail.
LikeLike
Graham,
Thanks. Your comments above are excellent.
Hurtado’s position is that the father and son are both divine but distinct. He is saying that the gospel writers and jesus’ early followers viewed jesus as having qualities worthy of worship that typically only applied to God the father. Jesus accepted this worship, but he did not think he was God the father and neither did his followers.
This supports trinitarian doctrine.
Yes.
“both divine” = “homo-ousias” = same substance
“but distinct” = 2 persons (and with the Holy Spirit = 3 Persons)
ergo, The doctrine of the Trinitas Unitas (God is a Trinity of three persons in One Substance / Being)
One God, in three persons. Monotheism, Trinitarian Monotheism
“Hurtado’s respons . . . that the NOcene [sic. Nicene] council merely formalized what is in the NT.”
Yes indeed. Exactly!
Yes, I have not taken Yahya’s videos very seriously ( I have noticed them, watched some, tried to make comments a long time at his blog, but did not allow open discussion and blocked me a long time ago, so I gave up on him) ( at least Paul Williams does not do that and that is why I like Paul Williams’ blog – Paul’s is the best Muslim blog that I know of at open and honest discussion – though I admit I don’t know a lot and maybe there are others out there.) because people who know the issues can recognize the cutting out of context and then combining with other things in order to spin things and get his result. His method is similar to politicians – spin and connect to other things and pivot to other issues and draw unwarranted conclusions.
Dr. White is right about his method – “Yahya Snow-job”. Sorry Yahya, if you read this – you need to do better in your methods – learn from Paul Williams.
LikeLike
Hurtado around 34 minute mark:
“The Council of Nicea was not trying to be difficult and they were not Anti-Semitic – sorry for what you [Buzzard] said; I think they were trying to solve problems the best they could.”
Hurtado rebukes Buzzard for accusing the Nicean Council bishops of “Anti-Semitism”.
Boom!
LikeLike
After that section that Yahyah made: (around 1 hour mark)
Hurtado: “The question is what does God say about Jesus.”
“not what Jesus says and thinks about HImself, but what God (the Father) says and does to validate Jesus as Lord and exalted, worthy of worship, . . ”
and this provides basis for development of the doctrine His Deity and 2nd person of the Trinity doctrines.
“The basis for Christological claims are what God has said about Jesus and what God has done to validate Jesus as Lord, exalted, . . . ” ( and Deity (by substance).
LikeLike
Hurtado mentions Tertullian (writing around 190-220 AD) as one who in Latin uses the phrase Trinitas Unitas – (Three in one)
LikeLike
There is the problem of miracles. Bart Erhman writes apropos the resurrection of Jesus,
“Did Lincoln write the Gettysburg address on an envelope? Did Jefferson have a long-term love affair with one of his slaves? …..Make up your own questions: there are billions.. There is nothing inherently improbable about any of these events; the question is whether they happened or not. Some are more probable than others. Historians more or less rank past events on the basis of the relative probability that they occurred. All that historians can do is show what probably happened in the past.”
Yes, but don’t take what you expect “probably” happened and build a structure you hope will be the building to end all buildings. Keep reminding yourself and others what you “think may have happened…”
What is so difficult for some non-believers to get is the unfettered enthusiasm Christians possess about their God and that makes perfect sense. You’d have to be naive and wacky to believe that nonsense. Anyone with a brain could never take it seriously.
So, just consider this. Try to imagine that some of these folks had the exact same doubts you have, and then something seems to happen to them and they come to believe in, to their absolute, total amazement, what was basically impossible: that Jesus is, in fact, at the present moment living inside of them. They are shocked. They found what couldn’t exist. The wild and nutty stories from an ancient book that described some dude walking around on water, healing people, who got crucified, those weren’t just bull. He did those things and he is actually God’s son. and the reality of that knocks their socks off. These people have had something like a near-death experience, but they were never near death. Their lives have been completely blown away. I share this with the “outsiders” to try to explain why we seem to have gone off the deep end.
The power and the joy of such an experience are not the basis for true faith. It may be a component in the lives of some. Saul got his fanny set firmly on the ground with blinding light and heard a voice. Others don’t notice much of anything. The building blocks of saving faith do not require a profound mystical encounter, but they do happen.
So Bart, when you realize that tens of millions of people have described those same kinds of awakenings, even as you did, a degree of credibility for the historical evidence mounts. We cannot explain, scientifically, how the universe got here. No one can replicate the creation. It may be very improbable that God was responsible. Equally as true, it may just be entirely probable that he did. It exists.
Trying not to preach.
LikeLike
“Trying not to preach” – good. Keep it up.
LikeLike