We know jesus didn’t demand worship – he said as much. He came to serve, did not demand that he be treated as god for that reason, but accepted worship. Demanding recognition as divine is not the same as revealing his divinity.
1 Epistle of John 5: 6-7. Why was this text fabricated? What was the significance of this textual fabrication? What was the need for it? Was it because the doctrine was so obvious, and so clear in scripture, that they had to invent a specific text for it? Or due to lack of evidence for the doctrine, that the scribes fabricated this text?
”They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.” Surah al-Maeda chapter 5 verse 72
Emeritus Lightfoot Professor in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham and Visiting Professor at King’s College London, Professor Dr. James D. G. Dunn
“Jesus is not the God of Israel. He is not the Father. He is not Yahweh.”
Dunn, J. D. G. (2010). Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 142
Interesting, he pretty much agreed with Bart Ehrman; but also believes that God the Father requires that we believe Jesus is the exalted Son of God and that we should worship Him.
I have not read Hurtado’s views of the gospel according to John, but it seems he does not think the following verses and reactions by the Jewish leaders and Pharisees is historical. John 5:17-18; 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:27-39; 18:1-6; 20:28-29, etc.
I wonder what he does with Matthew 2:1-12; 14:39; 28:9; 28:16 – that Jesus received worship and did not object.
I don’t agree with Hurtado, if he rejects these verses as historical.
I believe all 4 gospels are historical and present differing aspects (like 4 eyewitnesses, one on each corner of an intersection of a traffic accident) and emphasis on Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection.
There is a spectrum of levels of scholarship that is possible, from the most conservative scholarship, to less conservative, to some what moderate, to moderate, to liberal, to radical skeptical, etc. There are many nuances of scholarly viewpoints. There is lots of “scholarly” differences. So you are wrong about that.
thanks David! the article is focused upon Hurtado’s assertion that the historical Jesus did not demand worship. Maybe “demand” is too strong of a “demand” by the scholars and the Muslims. What about the apparent fact in the text, even in the synoptic gospels, that Jesus did receive worship? (Matthew 2:1-12; 14:33; 28:9; 28:16)
I did not find the first part of the quote, (that the historical Jesus did not claim divinity); but given the video above and his statement, ok; so that is what Hurtado thinks. So, Hurtado does not think any of the Deity of Christ statements in the Gospel of John are historical ? Hurtado thinks the author of the fourth gospel “put them on the lips of Jesus” ? He doesn’t believe Jesus spoke the words in John 5:17-18; 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:27-39; 17:5; 18:1-6; 20:28-29 (along with the historical reactions by Pharisees and disciples, etc. )
Obviously, I have not read a whole lot by Hurtado, but I did purchase his book, “Destroyer of the gods” a few days ago and I look forward to reading it.
Ken,
I think even Michael Bird has its own thoughts about in which sense we should look to the divinity of Jesus as it’s presented in the writings that scholars don’t consider to be historical to begin with such as John’s gospel since the idea of the mediator being between god and mankind was spread, and it statred to be accepted at that time.
As I remember from a debate that Dr Shabir had, dr Shabir said that Dr Bird even had mentioned that the angels are enigma in that sense.
in the writings that scholars don’t consider to be historical to begin with such as John’s gospel
“scholars” = some scholars.
There are conservative/orthodox scholars who consider the gospel of John and the other 26 books of the NT to be fully historical and true and “God-breathed”.
Most scholars don’t think the virgin conception of Jesus is historical or true either, yet both the Bible and Qur’an testify that this is true and historical. so majority does not mean much.
Most people in the west think pre-marital sex is ok, and that homosexual relations are ok; but majority of opinion does not trump God’s revelation.
The majority of people don’t believe in the virgin conception or birth of Jesus, that Mary was a virgin, which both the Bible and the Qur’an teaches. . .
Therefore, majority of scholars views, is not necessarily a good argument against Gospel of John.
“The majority of people don’t believe in the virgin conception or birth of Jesus, that Mary was a virgin, which both the Bible and the Qur’an teaches”.
There’s a difference, Ken.
If a secular western scholar asked me to prove historically that Jesus was born without a father, I’d say I cannot. It’s something happaned in that past, and I don’t have time machine. However, the proof that your bible got corrupted can be shown by material evidences. In fact, we don’t need any manuscript to prove that. Just look to the stories from Mark to John, and how they got developed. You cannot deny that, Ken.
Then who said that NT is the words of God? Jesus? His disciples? None! It was not known for them. In fact, you can see the errors inside them as any book written by human such as( Mtthew27:9).
Dr Shabir made an excellent argument in his debate with Richard about what Paul meant when he referred to the scripture.
BTW, I’ve mentioned dr Michael Bird since he’s a conservative one.
Regarding Matthew 27:9, it was not a mistake, as the quote includes words from both Jeremiah 19:1-13; Jeremiah 18:2 and Jeremiah 32:6-9 and Zechariah 11:12-13.
“The whole point of the quotation in Matthew is directed toward the purchase of the field. The Zechariah passage says nothing at all about purchasing a field; indeed, it does not even mention a field at all.” (Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 345.) see the emphasis on the field in Matthew 27:7-8, which gives the context of verse 9.
“Matthew is therefore combining and summarizing elements of prophetic symbolism both from Zechariah and Jeremiah. But since Jeremiah is the more prominent of the two prophets, he mentions Jeremiah’s name by preference to that of the minor prophet.” (ibid, page 345)
“A similar procedure is followed by Mark 1:2-3, which attributes only to Isaiah, a combined combination from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In that case also, only the more famous of the two prophets is mentioned by name.” (Ibid) A similar Jewish practice is seen in Luke 24:44, where the “Psalms” stands for all the poetic and wisdom literature (the Ketovim = writings). Psalms is the largest and more prominent book of the Ketovim section of the Jewish TaNakh canon.
so, there is no corruption from that example you gave.
Development from Mark to John does not prove no evidence of Deity of Christ in Mark at all, and all and only in John; rather there is plenty of evidence of the Deity of Christ in Mark also even though John is more explicit.
(Mark 1:3 – “make straight way of Yahweh” – shows he was treating Jesus as Yahweh; Mark 1:11; 14:60-64 – Jesus as the Son of God by nature, means He is the same nature/substance/essence as the Father, who is also God; demons call Jesus the Son of God many times in Mark, and Islam believes in demons, only modern skeptics, the modern scholars Paul Williams loves so much, deny the existence of demons. (Mark 1:23-24; 3:11; 5:7)
In the debate between Ehrman and Michael Bird, Bart Ehrman claimed that no one knew Jesus was the Son of God in Mark, yet Michael Bird responded that Mark certainly made it clear several times that the demons knew Jesus was the Son of God! Amazing that Bart Erhman totally ignored those clear passages.
God the Father from heaven calls Jesus His beloved Son. (Mark 1:11; 9:7)
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), a claim to be the Yahweh of Genesis 1-2 and creator of the Sabbath day of rest, and creator of all that came before in creation.
Mark 2:7 – Jesus claims to be God indirectly by being able to forgive sins.
Ken,
“Jeremiah, SAYING, “And they took the THIRTY pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel”
Where did Jeremiah say that? any reference?
“it was not a mistake, as the quote includes words from both” ! Well .. I cannot find this convincing!
Please watch Dr Shabir at ( 38:25′ ) in this debate
The Basis of the Trinity Doctrine is the Logical Fallacy of Equivocation, where the terms have no stable meanings and are assumed–by an act of their own will–to have different implications to make this farce work. Even then, the doctrine suffers perfect internal incoherence, in addition to the historical consensus that the earliest Christians, including the founder of the term, Tertullian, were neither Trinitarian, nor believed in the Pre-Existence of Christ. They were Subordinists and believe Jesus was a created being like most Christians today. Christians demand to know : ”Why do Muslims deny the Crucifixion when History Affirms it”? Well by the same logic: ”Why do Christians deny non-Trinitarian monotheism, when Jesus Affirms it as well as Tertullian”? Also, Christian Scholars themselves admit : ”Jesus did not claim to be God” Imagine for a moment that Islamic Scholars were claiming :”Muhammad never claimed to be a Prophet’!! Astonishing blindness from the Trinitarian Cultists will lead to disaster after disaster as God has promised that Shamoun and his ilk, will burn in hell in Surah AL MAIDAH VERSES 72-76.
I spoke to some Jews about Jesus some years ago about this very question. A unitarian joined the conversation and said that Jesus never said he was divine.
I remember the sarcastic answer from one of Jews going something this: so he said he could forgive sins, would one day judge the whole of humanity, was I AM who spoke to Moses in the burning bush, would ride the clouds of Heaven and was the Lord in Psalm 110. But divine nah.
Too funny. You crack me up. Jehovah witnesses dont believe in the ultimate destiny of the Jewish people. The book of Ezekiel describes the destruction of Israel’s enemies, the redemption of the Jews and culminates in the building of the 3rd temple.
You sure you aint an atheist? The bible says a day for the Lord is as a thousand years. Peter said in the last days scoffers would arise saying where is the promise of his coming?
Blogging Theology 
Yawn.
WHo has claimed that jesus demanded worship during his ministry?
LikeLike
Your esteemed Christian scholar is pointing out that unlike the God of Israel Jesus did not demand worship. Nor did Jesus claim to be God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We know jesus didn’t demand worship – he said as much. He came to serve, did not demand that he be treated as god for that reason, but accepted worship. Demanding recognition as divine is not the same as revealing his divinity.
Premature speculation, Paul.
LikeLike
And according to your own Christian scholar, the real Jesus did not believe he was God!
LikeLike
Funny how you believe Jesus has exalted you to heaven and glory …
LikeLiked by 1 person
If he didn’t claim to be God or demand worship,i ain’t giving him any.
LikeLiked by 1 person
me neither
LikeLike
@Kev”He came to serve, did not demand that he be treated as god for that reason, but accepted worship”
Daniel also accepted worship. So he too is divine? whynot?
So now you have Quaternity! Go figure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1 Epistle of John 5: 6-7. Why was this text fabricated? What was the significance of this textual fabrication? What was the need for it? Was it because the doctrine was so obvious, and so clear in scripture, that they had to invent a specific text for it? Or due to lack of evidence for the doctrine, that the scribes fabricated this text?
LikeLike
Do you have the reference in one of Hurtado’s books of the quote above? (page number, bibliographic information, etc.)
It needs to be documented.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree it does. I have asked the person who put this up for the reference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good; it would also be good to point that out within the post above; because some won’t see the com box comments. Just a thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
will do – if i get the info!
LikeLiked by 1 person
”They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.” Surah al-Maeda chapter 5 verse 72
Emeritus Lightfoot Professor in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham and Visiting Professor at King’s College London, Professor Dr. James D. G. Dunn
“Jesus is not the God of Israel. He is not the Father. He is not Yahweh.”
Dunn, J. D. G. (2010). Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 142
LikeLike
“The historical Jesus did not say he was divine and did not demand worship” – Hurtado. 41.50 onwards…..
LikeLiked by 5 people
Ken, now you’ve got a reference…what do you think?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting, he pretty much agreed with Bart Ehrman; but also believes that God the Father requires that we believe Jesus is the exalted Son of God and that we should worship Him.
I have not read Hurtado’s views of the gospel according to John, but it seems he does not think the following verses and reactions by the Jewish leaders and Pharisees is historical. John 5:17-18; 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:27-39; 18:1-6; 20:28-29, etc.
I wonder what he does with Matthew 2:1-12; 14:39; 28:9; 28:16 – that Jesus received worship and did not object.
I don’t agree with Hurtado, if he rejects these verses as historical.
I believe all 4 gospels are historical and present differing aspects (like 4 eyewitnesses, one on each corner of an intersection of a traffic accident) and emphasis on Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection.
LikeLike
Your views on the gospels are not scholarly Ken so it is to be expected you would disagree with Hurtado.
LikeLike
There is a spectrum of levels of scholarship that is possible, from the most conservative scholarship, to less conservative, to some what moderate, to moderate, to liberal, to radical skeptical, etc. There are many nuances of scholarly viewpoints. There is lots of “scholarly” differences. So you are wrong about that.
LikeLike
Hi Ken,
You can find most of the content quoted by Paul in his opening post HERE.
Grace and peace,
David
LikeLike
thanks David! the article is focused upon Hurtado’s assertion that the historical Jesus did not demand worship. Maybe “demand” is too strong of a “demand” by the scholars and the Muslims. What about the apparent fact in the text, even in the synoptic gospels, that Jesus did receive worship? (Matthew 2:1-12; 14:33; 28:9; 28:16)
I did not find the first part of the quote, (that the historical Jesus did not claim divinity); but given the video above and his statement, ok; so that is what Hurtado thinks. So, Hurtado does not think any of the Deity of Christ statements in the Gospel of John are historical ? Hurtado thinks the author of the fourth gospel “put them on the lips of Jesus” ? He doesn’t believe Jesus spoke the words in John 5:17-18; 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:27-39; 17:5; 18:1-6; 20:28-29 (along with the historical reactions by Pharisees and disciples, etc. )
Obviously, I have not read a whole lot by Hurtado, but I did purchase his book, “Destroyer of the gods” a few days ago and I look forward to reading it.
LikeLike
Ken May God Almighty support you in finding the truth about Jesus. Amin
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken,
I think even Michael Bird has its own thoughts about in which sense we should look to the divinity of Jesus as it’s presented in the writings that scholars don’t consider to be historical to begin with such as John’s gospel since the idea of the mediator being between god and mankind was spread, and it statred to be accepted at that time.
As I remember from a debate that Dr Shabir had, dr Shabir said that Dr Bird even had mentioned that the angels are enigma in that sense.
LikeLike
in the writings that scholars don’t consider to be historical to begin with such as John’s gospel
“scholars” = some scholars.
There are conservative/orthodox scholars who consider the gospel of John and the other 26 books of the NT to be fully historical and true and “God-breathed”.
LikeLike
I doubt there are very many. The overwhelmingly majority of top scholars do NOT think John’s Jesus is completely historical.
LikeLike
Most scholars don’t think the virgin conception of Jesus is historical or true either, yet both the Bible and Qur’an testify that this is true and historical. so majority does not mean much.
Most people in the west think pre-marital sex is ok, and that homosexual relations are ok; but majority of opinion does not trump God’s revelation.
LikeLike
The majority of people don’t believe in the virgin conception or birth of Jesus, that Mary was a virgin, which both the Bible and the Qur’an teaches. . .
Therefore, majority of scholars views, is not necessarily a good argument against Gospel of John.
Silence!
LikeLike
“The majority of people don’t believe in the virgin conception or birth of Jesus, that Mary was a virgin, which both the Bible and the Qur’an teaches”.
There’s a difference, Ken.
If a secular western scholar asked me to prove historically that Jesus was born without a father, I’d say I cannot. It’s something happaned in that past, and I don’t have time machine. However, the proof that your bible got corrupted can be shown by material evidences. In fact, we don’t need any manuscript to prove that. Just look to the stories from Mark to John, and how they got developed. You cannot deny that, Ken.
Then who said that NT is the words of God? Jesus? His disciples? None! It was not known for them. In fact, you can see the errors inside them as any book written by human such as( Mtthew27:9).
Dr Shabir made an excellent argument in his debate with Richard about what Paul meant when he referred to the scripture.
BTW, I’ve mentioned dr Michael Bird since he’s a conservative one.
LikeLike
Regarding Matthew 27:9, it was not a mistake, as the quote includes words from both Jeremiah 19:1-13; Jeremiah 18:2 and Jeremiah 32:6-9 and Zechariah 11:12-13.
“The whole point of the quotation in Matthew is directed toward the purchase of the field. The Zechariah passage says nothing at all about purchasing a field; indeed, it does not even mention a field at all.” (Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 345.) see the emphasis on the field in Matthew 27:7-8, which gives the context of verse 9.
“Matthew is therefore combining and summarizing elements of prophetic symbolism both from Zechariah and Jeremiah. But since Jeremiah is the more prominent of the two prophets, he mentions Jeremiah’s name by preference to that of the minor prophet.” (ibid, page 345)
“A similar procedure is followed by Mark 1:2-3, which attributes only to Isaiah, a combined combination from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In that case also, only the more famous of the two prophets is mentioned by name.” (Ibid) A similar Jewish practice is seen in Luke 24:44, where the “Psalms” stands for all the poetic and wisdom literature (the Ketovim = writings). Psalms is the largest and more prominent book of the Ketovim section of the Jewish TaNakh canon.
so, there is no corruption from that example you gave.
Development from Mark to John does not prove no evidence of Deity of Christ in Mark at all, and all and only in John; rather there is plenty of evidence of the Deity of Christ in Mark also even though John is more explicit.
(Mark 1:3 – “make straight way of Yahweh” – shows he was treating Jesus as Yahweh; Mark 1:11; 14:60-64 – Jesus as the Son of God by nature, means He is the same nature/substance/essence as the Father, who is also God; demons call Jesus the Son of God many times in Mark, and Islam believes in demons, only modern skeptics, the modern scholars Paul Williams loves so much, deny the existence of demons. (Mark 1:23-24; 3:11; 5:7)
In the debate between Ehrman and Michael Bird, Bart Ehrman claimed that no one knew Jesus was the Son of God in Mark, yet Michael Bird responded that Mark certainly made it clear several times that the demons knew Jesus was the Son of God! Amazing that Bart Erhman totally ignored those clear passages.
God the Father from heaven calls Jesus His beloved Son. (Mark 1:11; 9:7)
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), a claim to be the Yahweh of Genesis 1-2 and creator of the Sabbath day of rest, and creator of all that came before in creation.
Mark 2:7 – Jesus claims to be God indirectly by being able to forgive sins.
LikeLike
Ken,
“Jeremiah, SAYING, “And they took the THIRTY pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel”
Where did Jeremiah say that? any reference?
“it was not a mistake, as the quote includes words from both” ! Well .. I cannot find this convincing!
Please watch Dr Shabir at ( 38:25′ ) in this debate
LikeLike
The Basis of the Trinity Doctrine is the Logical Fallacy of Equivocation, where the terms have no stable meanings and are assumed–by an act of their own will–to have different implications to make this farce work. Even then, the doctrine suffers perfect internal incoherence, in addition to the historical consensus that the earliest Christians, including the founder of the term, Tertullian, were neither Trinitarian, nor believed in the Pre-Existence of Christ. They were Subordinists and believe Jesus was a created being like most Christians today. Christians demand to know : ”Why do Muslims deny the Crucifixion when History Affirms it”? Well by the same logic: ”Why do Christians deny non-Trinitarian monotheism, when Jesus Affirms it as well as Tertullian”? Also, Christian Scholars themselves admit : ”Jesus did not claim to be God” Imagine for a moment that Islamic Scholars were claiming :”Muhammad never claimed to be a Prophet’!! Astonishing blindness from the Trinitarian Cultists will lead to disaster after disaster as God has promised that Shamoun and his ilk, will burn in hell in Surah AL MAIDAH VERSES 72-76.
LikeLike
I spoke to some Jews about Jesus some years ago about this very question. A unitarian joined the conversation and said that Jesus never said he was divine.
I remember the sarcastic answer from one of Jews going something this: so he said he could forgive sins, would one day judge the whole of humanity, was I AM who spoke to Moses in the burning bush, would ride the clouds of Heaven and was the Lord in Psalm 110. But divine nah.
LikeLike
“would one day judge the whole of humanity”
If he said that, he said it would happen very soon … divine nah.
LikeLike
Yeah it will. Ezekiel 38 & 39 coming to a venue near you very soon.
LikeLike
Lol. You Jehovas witness?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Too funny. You crack me up. Jehovah witnesses dont believe in the ultimate destiny of the Jewish people. The book of Ezekiel describes the destruction of Israel’s enemies, the redemption of the Jews and culminates in the building of the 3rd temple.
LikeLike
Evangelical polyconfusionism at its best.
By very soon he didn’t mean a couple of thousand years from now or so.
If he said that he was plain wrong and so was the apostle Paul awaiting JC’s imminent return as documented in NT.
LikeLike
No one has said very soon except you. Ipso facto. Judging the whole of humanity axiomatically means the end of time.
LikeLike
Looking forward to it since 2000 years. Watch out, evangelicals on the loose.
LikeLike
You sure you aint an atheist? The bible says a day for the Lord is as a thousand years. Peter said in the last days scoffers would arise saying where is the promise of his coming?
LikeLike
It’s the evangelical bible thumper who gives religion a bad name
LikeLike
Ha ha. Silly me. And here i was thinking the almost daily islamic jihad attacks were giving religion a bad name.
LikeLike
no exclusivity claims for evangelical fundamentalism
LikeLike
Part 1 of the debate/dialogue that was put up earlier by Omar. (I am working through them, don’t know if this link includes the panel in part also.)
LikeLike