Reasonable Doubts - How Jesus Became God

Hello NT. Here is the deal. In order to participate in this Bart D. Ehrman discussion you will need to inform yourself with the available video above. Otherwise, you will likely be lost in the discussion. Hopefully, you will listen (use the settings "wheel" to speed it up if you desire). I am interested in your points of view. So, Let's Talk!

The site rules  and the Four B’s will be enforced.

Be On-Point.

Be Positive.

Be Respectful.

Or Be Gone.

What’s there to discuss?

Hi Hal! Did your finish the video already?! I listened to the entire interview and I have questions. They can only make sense to someone who has taken the time to listen to the entire video.

I listened to the entire audiobook a couple years ago.  I don’t recall all the details off hand, but if you want to discuss a particular aspect of it you should say what that is.

OKAY. I guest I'd better, my brother. Perhaps I am listening poorly and doing so several times over. At 8:30 and at 45:22, these two areas in the video above, does Dr. Ehrman contradict himself in his mentions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

does Dr. Ehrman contradict himself in his mentions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

He says that Matthew, Mark and Luke (the authors of same) consider Jesus divine but do not make any mention of Jesus declaring Himself divine.

At 45:22 through 45:33  thereabouts Dr. Ehrman clearly says the authors consider Jesus divine. What do you clearly hear Dr. Ehrman say Matthew, Mark, and Luke say about these men's view of Jesus' divinity at 8:30 through  9:00 thereabouts?

He said that it is hard to believe that Jesus was calling Himself divine because the early authors did not mention it (even though they believed it).   @8:45

You should listen again, please . . . .

Okay, I listened again.   I do not know what else to tell you man.   Dr. Ehrman said that the early sources (M,M,L and their sources) never mention that Jesus himself claimed to be divine.   He notes that he (Bart) is convinced the authors believed Jesus to be divine in spite of the fact that they never wrote that Jesus himself proclaimed divinity.

I hear Jesus referred to as a savior more than I do him being called God by the religious people that I do know.

Jesus (Christ) has many names in the New Testament. He is also "pictured" in the Old Testament foretellings. More about this later if you wish, Paula. He is "Savior" because he saves his people by faith in God.

Listened to the entire interview.   (After reviewing your prior debate video, by the way.)

Dr. Ehrman holds that a mortal man (Jesus) operated as a preacher, was crucified due to his ostensible claim of being King of the Jews and his body was most likely removed from the tomb.   He also speaks extensively on the exaltation of Jesus (originally recognized as a mortal man) to the Son of God.   That is, this notion of divinity arose decades after the fact when imaginations started 'adding value' to the stories.

You seem to respect the biblical scholarship of Dr. Ehrman, yet the only thing he offers that supports your religious views is his conclusion that a preacher named Jesus most likely did exist.    I am assuming you flat out reject everything else Dr. Ehrman offers.

If my assumption is wrong, which of Dr. Ehrman's conclusions do you find to be most likely correct?

Interesting from a human perspective that the claim that he would rise from the dead which would have been the most incredible feat of the time was met with such profound enthusiasm and expectation that not a single follower bothered to await his encore. What does that say?

There is so much from the 1st century that has been lost to time that I personally do not even try to speculate.   

My net conclusion, given the sporadic details, is that there was a Jewish preacher who amassed a decent following.   He made political mistakes and wound up crucified by the Romans.   Decades later his story evolved to that of Jesus the Christ and no doubt (to me) was inflated to exalt the preacher to divinity.   Decades after that, the stories were eventually formalized and further enhanced portraying Jesus as the Son hypostasis.

Creative work by human beings with an agenda.  IMO.

My net conclusion, given the sporadic details, is that there was a Jewish preacher who amassed a decent following.   He made political mistakes and wound up crucified by the Romans.

There are those who also believe that itinerant preacher suffered a botched rushed execution on the eve of Passsover who was subsequently re-captured by the local Roman authorities and executed by by beheading. The preserved head of Christ is supposedly secretly held deep in the bowels of the Vatican as proof of its existance would necessarily disprove the assertion that Christ's physical body arose up unto heaven leaving no earthly remains. Supposedly Christs head was found in Jerusalem by crusaders who were  then executed by the Roman church to hide these facts so as to preserve the church's grip on power. In any case the christian cults evolved from a Roman story much more than a Hebrew one regarding Christianity. What is known as evangelical christianity, small c, today is in actuality reality really Paulism which is and was a Roman thing...

I am sure you will agree that people are adept at weaving tales and are inclined to believe the tales of others.   This tangled mess of story lines makes sense (to me) if this is nothing more than man inventing God.   The evidence makes little sense if a divine Jesus actually did walk the face of the Earth.

For thousands of years most people's only form of entertainment were tales told round evening campfires. It is no wonder tall tales became more and more elaborate resulting in characters like Paul Bunyon and today's Harry Potter. Fiction is nothing new. The Illiad and the Odyssey came long after the myths of Isis and Osiris. Man has a great capacity for imagination. Fear of death inspires belief in all sorts of illogical magical thinking...

Explorerdog! The people in first century Israel, while having a great expectation of a Messiah's arrival, did not recognize the Messiah as one suffering. All of the Old Testament prophecies were filled in plain sight of the people, who did not recognize and/or accept the role of Jesus as Messiah.

New International Version
Isaiah 53:
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

This OT scripture was understood by many after Jesus' death.

Really TiG? Well okay.

Jesus' followers did have an agenda: To consolidate the words of Jesus, to spread what he taught abroad, and to continue in a faith union until his return. Now, in carrying out these three are thousands of years of efforts, constructions, problems, issues, and solutions! Jesus presents as so much more than a mere preacher with a local following. We have preachers with followings galore spread all across the world.

You were writing about people with agendas in the first century. Well TiG, what about people with agendas in the 21st century? Even on NT?

How many people died in the name of Christ at either end of the sword?

How many Jews died in the name of Nazi and Russian  "Christianity"?

How many Muslims died in the Crusades?

How many Christians died in the Crusades?

How many Christians killed each other in the 30 Years War (1618 -1648 )

Doesn't sound very Christ like.........does it?

and 

since we can literally go back in time with genomes and presume that there were a minimum of 

1 billion humans ( maximum of 105 billion) who lived and died before Yoshua ben Yosef arrived,

what happened to their souls?

Salvation?  Damnation?  Nothingness?

I have a serious problem with the cruelty of the God of the OT 

but the God of the NT leaves 94% of any humans that ever lived in a meaningless Purgatory........and still pits one human against another.

Jesus' followers did have an agenda: To consolidate the words of Jesus, to spread what he taught abroad, and to continue in a faith union until his return.

True.

Now, in carrying out these three are thousands of years of efforts, constructions, problems, issues, and solutions! Jesus presents as so much more than a mere preacher with a local following. We have preachers with followings galore spread all across the world.

My comment was about what Jesus directly accomplished (i.e. while alive on Earth as Jesus) since that is the context of your article.   You are talking about the state of modern times after thousands of years of religious evolution.  Christianity is the largest religious category on the planet.   Nobody questions that Calbab.   But it all started (ostensibly) with a preacher and a local following (I called it a decent following).   You understand that, right?

Well TiG, what about people with agendas in the 21st century? Even on NT?

You are encouraging me to help you derail your own article??

Jesus wasn't written about or worshiped until a few hundred years after his supposed life and death. Religion is weird.

So somebody actually understood that gibberish?

My net conclusion, given the sporadic details, is that there was a Jewish preacher who amassed a decent following.   He made political mistakes and wound up crucified by the Romans.   Decades later his story evolved to that of Jesus the Christ and no doubt (to me) was inflated to exalt the preacher to divinity.   Decades after that, the stories were eventually formalized and further enhanced portraying Jesus as the Son hypostasis.

This is your quote from above and it appears to be loaded with innuendo.

Writers have illustrated all the way through this comment section that Jesus was more than just a local fare preacher. But feel free to continue your long-standing portrayals of all things spiritual.

Actually, it is exciting and interesting to listen to a humanist with the qualifications and standing of Dr. Ehrman use something from inside the Bible to make the case for Jesus and biblical events, without resulting to a logical fallacy "cop out."  That is, circular reasoning. He clearly believes and accepts he can use credible dates, times, places, people, plus from the pages of the Bible. Downright refreshing it is!

Now then let me use the Bible:

Matthew 17New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1.Six days later Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and *led them up on a high mountain by themselves. ² And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.³ And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. ⁴ Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” ⁶ When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified. ⁷ And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, “Get up, and do not be afraid.” ⁸ And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

---

If this encounter is to be believed, then Jesus has no other option than to think of himself as more than a Jewish "preacher."

This is your quote from above and it appears to be loaded with innuendo.

No innuendo.  My description was an entirely unemotional statement of how I see things.   You just do not like my opinion.

Writers have illustrated all the way through this comment section that Jesus was more than just a local fare preacher. But feel free to continue your long-standing portrayals of all things spiritual.

See?   Just what I said.   You are offended because I do not agree with you.

Actually, it is exciting and interesting to listen to a humanist with the qualifications and standing of Dr. Ehrman use something from inside the Bible to make the case for Jesus and biblical events, without resulting to a logical fallacy "cop out."  That is, circular reasoning. He clearly believes and accepts he can use credible dates, times, places, people, plus from the pages of the Bible. Downright refreshing it is!

If you would like to illustrate a logical fallacy, circular reasoning, etc. in anything I have written then I invite you to make your case. 

By the way, Dr. Ehrman is convinced that Jesus existed but as a local Jewish preacher.   I suspect that Dr. Ehrman is refreshing on the parts you agree with and is just a liar or deceiver on the parts you do not.   

Sounds like a new article you should start!

Mostly rhetorical.  My intent was for the "usual suspects'" consciences to be pricked. LOL!

You're mistaken. Dr. Ehrman is quite refreshing. Why? Because where he and I agree and disagree he and I can both be stark about it. Professor Ehrman believes Jesus is a historical figure, and I have video of him standing in humanists assemblies telling his fellows to accept this point and move on. He debates mysticists  on points where he believes they are wrong. On the issues I think Dr. Ehrman is right I will agree and on the issues where I can humbly show such a learned man where he is wrong, or at least, misstating himself I will do that too. In this, Dr. Ehrman is a man after my own heart!

Professor Ehrman believes Jesus is a historical figure ...

Indeed.  He (and others) have concluded that a human being (not a God) Jewish preacher existed in the first century and is the individual as the core of the Jesus legend.    

Where do we go from here?

My net conclusion, given the sporadic details, is that there was a Jewish preacher who amassed a decent following.

If Jesus was simply a Jewish preacher, why was John the Baptist his forerunner?

If Jesus was simply a Jewish preacher, why was John the Baptist his forerunner?

Can you rephrase so that I understand the point you are trying to make?   

Unfortunately, I suspect you are going to again attempt to use the Bible to corroborate itself.   Something on the order of John the Baptist was described as Jesus' forerunner (in the Bible) so why would that be done if Jesus was simply a Jewish preacher.   I hope that is not where you are going, but am not holding my breath.

My net conclusion, given the sporadic details, is that there was a Jewish preacher who amassed a decent following. — TiG.

TiG, you wrote it is "my net conclusion" Jesus was a Jewish  preacher on an article connected to a Bible scholar using the phrase, "Jewish preacher." Well, Dr. Ehrman claims to get information he informs others about from the New Testament (Bible)?

What/where is your "conclusion" based on other than the Gospels found in the Bible? If you can single out Jesus in the Gospels, you can single out John the Baptist!

TiG, you wrote it is "my net conclusion" Jesus was a Jewish  preacher on an article connected to a Bible scholar using the phrase, "Jewish preacher."

Let's provide the link so that people can follow this (if so desired).  Link with full quote:

TiG @ 4.1.1 - 

There is so much from the 1st century that has been lost to time that I personally do not even try to speculate.   

My net conclusion , given the sporadic details , is that there was a Jewish preacher who amassed a decent following.   He made political mistakes and wound up crucified by the Romans.   Decades later his story evolved to that of Jesus the Christ and no doubt (to me) was inflated to exalt the preacher to divinity.   Decades after that, the stories were eventually formalized and further enhanced portraying Jesus as the Son hypostasis.

Creative work by human beings with an agenda.  IMO.

Now that the context is clear, I will answer your question:

Well, Dr. Ehrman claims to get information he informs others about from the New Testament (Bible)?

True, but how does that relate to what I wrote?   Be specific, the above statement (question) seems to be a non sequitur.  Note also that Dr. Ehrman (and pretty much all of his fellow biblical scholars) does not rely exclusively on the Bible - the Bible is not his only source of information.    

What/where is your "conclusion" based on other than the Gospels found in the Bible?

Calbab, think about what you are asking.   You think my conclusion regarding Jesus came from simply reading the Bible??   Obviously I do not limit my information to words written by ancient men with pens who I have routinely argued were pretending to speak for the God they invented.

 If you can single out Jesus in the Gospels, you can single out John the Baptist!

I honestly do not know what the above sentence means.   But I will note that John the Baptist is not held to be divine.   Christianity is about Jesus, not John the Baptist, so I am not following your equivalence logic.

One in  a long line of Pharisees and others who wished to become or discover the Messiah?

Well, it is dark outside now and you have effectively managed to not even attempt to answer the questions of Jesus - just a Jewish preacher or Messiah, John the Baptist as forerunner to Jesus, or Dr. Peter Boghossian's agenda to eliminate faith and undermine God do you defend or critique it?

What more is there for me to ask? Plenty!

Hi Split Personality! To be clear, what are you suggesting about John the Baptist? Please elaborate. . . .

He was an Essene.........

Well, it is dark outside now and you have effectively managed to not even attempt to answer the questions of Jesus - just a Jewish preacher or Messiah, John the Baptist as forerunner to Jesus, or Dr. Peter Boghossian's agenda to eliminate faith and undermine God do you defend or critique it?

I am answering your questions and you are complaining that I am avoiding your questions.    The first two I answered.   The third I told you I was not answering (not going to research Dr Boghossian's agenda - not interested).

Since you missed my answers (somehow - although you quoted it) they are:

IMO based on the bits of evidence we have, Jesus was probably based on a real 1st century Jewish preacher who got into political trouble and was crucified.

As for John the Baptist, I just answered that (look above):

"I honestly do not know what the above sentence means.   But I will note that John the Baptist is not held to be divine.   Christianity is about Jesus, not John the Baptist, so I am not following your equivalence logic."

If you want a better answer ask a better question.   

Thank you for your . . . .  Moving on.

(After reviewing your prior debate video, by the way.)

I am open to discussing the other video, but not on this topic, please. Hal's thread is getting navigationally sluggish, too. But if you wish to post a new discussion on that Ehrman-Price debate, i will happily meet you there. We should be able to do all of this. Peace.

I put that note in parenthesis to indicate it was just sidebar (background) info.   Your response ignored all that I wrote and focused on my singular sidebar as if I was trying to discuss the video.   

What about my actual comment?:

  TiG   @ 4 :

Dr. Ehrman holds that a mortal man (Jesus) operated as a preacher, was crucified due to his ostensible claim of being King of the Jews and his body was most likely removed from the tomb.   He also speaks extensively on the exaltation of Jesus (originally recognized as a mortal man) to the Son of God.   That is, this notion of divinity arose decades after the fact when imaginations started 'adding value' to the stories.

You seem to respect the biblical scholarship of Dr. Ehrman, yet the only thing he offers that supports your religious views is his conclusion that a preacher named Jesus most likely did exist.    I am assuming you flat out reject everything else Dr. Ehrman offers.

If my assumption is wrong, which of Dr. Ehrman's conclusions do you find to be most likely correct?

TiG, I can not tell where you are in your head-space, it seems. Just for "giggles" I will let you in on my thinking earlier. You had mentioned how "interesting" you found the other 2 hour debate video over there. then you mentioned that video again over here:

"Listened to the entire interview.   (After reviewing your prior debate video, by the way.)"

Excuse me for making a judgement call that this twice mentioning meant something. Also, as I explained the other article was just getting navigationally-slow. So I simply could not pick up that 'baton' there. Moreover, I did not mention this over there, but it was late when I posted that comment and video to Mocowgirl. Actually, there was a much shorter video on Dr. Ehrman addressing the Osiris myth that I planned to upload. The 2 hour version was a mistake. I must have nodded and copied the wrong open broswer window link. I did not notice the error until after the edit feature timed-out. So I left it as is. So, that's how it happen that we are still talking about that video tonight!

As for what I like about Dr. Ehrman, for one, I like he finds and makes the case for the historical life of Jesus. This makes him a source. Secondly, I like that he is at least one humanist not afraid to use the Bible as a valid reference. Again, making him a source to point to when others humanists discount and deny the Bible, a collection of books not just one or two testaments, its internal validation.

In short, the only factual agreement with Dr. Ehrman that you have is the conclusion that there was a first century Jewish preacher behind the legend of Jesus.  You disagree with him on everything else, right?

So the point of this article is to simply show that at least one well known biblical scholar holds that a human being (albeit not God) known as Jesus existed?   

No. Don't forget this one I shared:

Secondly, I like that he is at least one humanist not afraid to use the Bible as a valid reference. Again, making him a source to point to when others humanists discount and deny the Bible, a collection of books not just one or two testaments, its internal validation.

I regret that you are so into me on this one. Because I really want to rise to the occasion of discussing the video interview with Dr. Ehrman more. For instance, I observe he uses conditionals like, "probably," "likely," "unlikely," "possible," "impossible," etceteras about first century figures a lot even as he interprets them to the world

I recognize that.   But that is not a factual agreement. 

I regret that you are so into me on this one. 

You are pretending that I did not clearly answer your question.   You refuse to show where my analysis was wrong and merely claim I am wrong.

Bad tactic.        

Just about everyone who was anyone in the last century BC and the first century AD claimed to be the son or daughter of one god or another. Cleopatra the daugher of Isis who married both Julius Ceasar (son of Juno) and Marc Anthony (son of Poseidon) and was defeated by Octavian (son of Apollo) who became Augustus opon defeating Cleopatra and Marc Anthony at Actium in 31 BC. So, declaring oneself the son or daughter of a god was all the rage in the popular culture of fame at that particular time of history. Anyone aspiring to power of fame at that time would claim divine parentage or at least their followers would make such claims. It was "normal" even if fake and unbelievable even back then. That is why the followers of Christ tagged Him as such. It was a cultural thing a couple of thousand years ago. Silly, I know, but that is what some thought was required to be taken seriously in their cultures. Still, I would posit that if the sons and daughters of gods walked the earth we would know it. They do not. Not a one of those claiming to be a god were in fact a god of goddess and the history of what they did and how they ended would seem to prove that point. Jesus himself plainly said he was, "The son of man". It was his followers later on (Romans who accepted such BS) who made that claim. Only in the sense that we are all the sons and daughters of god however defined did Christ claim his own divinity. Most small children today believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny along with the Tooth Fairy along with God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Most folks grow out of magical thinking. Where are the gods today? Where is the magic? That grown men and women profess to believing some Jewish myths while dismissing the Greek and Roman and Egyptian myths is laughable. That some insist that others consider believing likewise is childish and frankly silly. The followers of Christ info those early days did what other cults did. Claim divinity for Christ to make him equal to the other false and quite human men of women of power in those days of superstition and myth. It was a cultural thing back then related to fame. There is no proof of any mythical creatures breeding with humans. We certainly have not seen any proof of that ever really happening. It was the Romans who made claiming divine parentage a rage in their world. In the world of which Christ and his followers were born into and died in claiming to be the son of daughter of a god was normal. Who believes any of those wild claims today? Nobody except delusional fundies who never grew out of their childish magical thinking. You'd think in this day of science and reason modern men and women would not make themselves look so silly but you would be wrong regarding the goddamn fundies who preach and plead for others to believe irrational nonsense to confirm their belief in non-existant magic. It would be funny it if were not so dangerous. So, no thanks of that. I live in the real world. You say it must be so. I say bullshit. Harry Potter and Hogwarts is a believable as other man-made myths in popular fiction which includes the Hebrew myths which are as made up as the claims by other ancients kings and despots and dictators to derive their powers from divine providence. Anyone still believing that bullshit needs to grow the f up...

Just about everyone who was anyone in the last century BC and the first century AD claimed to be the son or daughter of one god or another. Cleopatra the daugher of Isis who married both Julius Ceasar (son of Juno) and Marc Anthony (son of Poseidon) and was defeated by Octavian (son of apollo) 

None of that is remotely accurate. Some romans, like the Julians, claimed their forefathers descended    from a God in  remotest antiquity, but no claimed to be the literal sun of a god. 

 Although is amusing to imagine how Caesar's mom, the Aurelia cotta, essentially the landlord of an apartment complex, would have reacted to being called a God.

Sure the Pharoahs and other "Eastern" potentates had long declared themselves the sons and daughters of this or that regional god or goddess. The best I can tell it was Alexander the Great and/or his father Phillip who were first among those from what is considered classical western civilization to fashion themselves the son of a god, Zeus. In any case it became a thing there for a few hundred years. When Julius Caesar had himself declared a god it was a scandal to the Romans. Still, I stand by my thesis that claiming divine parantage was part and parcel of first century fame and celebrity especially in the Roman world at that particular time and it was Rome who literally "Wrote The Book" in the end. Was it not? BTW, not remotely accurate? How so? 

livius

" Alexander the Great (*356; r. 336-323):  the  Macedonian  king who defeated his Persian colleague  Darius III Codomannus  and conquered the  Achaemenid Empire . During his campaigns, Alexander visited a.o. Egypt,  Babylonia , Persis,  Media ,  Bactria , the  Punjab , and the valley of the  Indus . In the second half of his reign, he had to find a way to rule his newly conquered countries. Therefore, he made  Babylon  his capital and introduced the oriental court ceremonial, which caused great tensions with his Macedonian and Greek officers.

Although Alexander the Great was not the first human to receive divine honors, his self-deification set an example for Hellenistic kings, Roman emperors, and other rulers. However, this would not have been the case if Alexander’s self-deification had not been entirely rational and if it had not offered advantages that no ancient ruler could afford to ignore.

Alexander's Example: Philip

The Macedonians had wanted to attack the Achaemenid Empire since 340 BCE, but their king Philip had first decided to teach the Greeks that their defeat in the Third Sacred War (356-346) had been decisive. He acted quickly. In 338, he defeated the Athenians and Thebans at Chaeronea ; in 337, he reorganized Greece in the Corinthian League ; and in the spring of 336, when the Persian Empire was suffering from a civil war, his advance guard crossed the Hellespont . Several towns in Asia Minor revolted and hailed Philip, who was still in Macedonia, as their liberator.

The people of Eresus (a town on the island Lesbos) erected an altar to Zeus Philippios and Ephesians placed his statue in the sanctuary of Artemis. Now that he shared a shrine with a deity - the Greek word is synnaos - Philip had been raised to a rank higher than that of a mere mortal, but even better was to come. In October 336, the Macedonian king wanted to celebrate the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra and his departure to the Persian front. Those who attended the ceremony in the theater of Aegae saw that statues of the twelve Olympian deities had been placed on the stage, and that Philip wanted to sit on a throne between them. He wanted to be the equal of the gods, isotheos .

It was not to be. Philip was murdered during the celebration (by a bodyguard, for personal reasons), and many Greeks and Macedonians must have believed that this was the fitting punishment of the blasphemer. Yet, he had set an example for Alexander, whose spectacular career was to be matched by an equally spectacular rise in the cosmic hierarchy: crown prince, king of Macedonia, king of Asia, son of Zeus, justice incarnated, avatar of Vishnu, invincible god.

reddit

Who actually said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?" Attempt at a clearer picture: The current argument states that there must have been a man named Jesus living in Judea who preached to large crowds and was then murdered by the state. That is the basic minimum requirement as it stands today in scholarly opinion, as far as I know, despite the fact that it is also generally agreed upon that all surviving records of the existence of one specific person bearing this description are unconvincing forgeries. (Some people try to argue for the authenticity of one small passage, but that argument usually sounds something like: "why would they even try to make such an easy and obvious forgery? it doesn't make sense!" Yes, it does.) The debate becomes interesting when we factor in what are considered to be Paul's seven genuine writings, which only use the name Jesus to refer to a post-living entity. That Jesus had ever walked upon the earth as a mortal is not alluded to. Yes, he "died," but so have many gods that were never mortal. So now we have two Jesuses (Jesus's? Jesi?) in addition to the Savior we all know and love: One who was never human, invented around the turn of the first millennium, give or take a century; and one who was never God, invented in the modern mind. So which one is Caesar? The first one. Modern-Consensus-Jesus was not known to anyone in the 1st century. We made him up. Paul never saw a light or heard a voice. He was not on his way to stone anybody to death. He was following Roman orders. The authority of the Cross had never changed hands until the Schism; it had always been held by Rome.

You are way afield of this Ehrman discussion. You do realize this, no? Frankly, it is hard to focus on too many extraneous topics at once! Can you reign it in?

On second thought, I honestly do not know whether what you are adding in this comment is relevant to this Ehrman discussion or not. Hmm. . . .

My comments are germane to how Jesus became deified by his followers after his death. So, reign in yourself or don't post such topics...

d e I f I e d ,   not defiled  ...

Do you believe in a monotheistic god?

Touché. (-:

Imagine a paragraph break.

Noted. Thanks for "popping in" to pollute the whole discussion. Moving on, now.

Enjoyable listen. It's always fun to listen to people who are both smart and passionate.

As for the content... my problem is that I don't really care, so I don't get caught up in it. It feels very far from the essence of Christ's message, "Love one another". I understand that the early church leaders wanted to "promote" Jesus... but I don't think they were wise to do so in the long run.

This kind of scholarship always makes me think of the excellent biography, Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street: A Life of the World's First Consulting Detective, by W. S. Baring-Gould. (Which I highly recommend!)

From the video above at 8:16: Bart Ehrman.

The striking thing is these claims of divinity are found only in our last gospel. They are not found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And, they are not found in the sources behind Matthew, Mark, Luke. And so one of the, this is not my entire argument, but one of my arguments is, if Jesus was really going around calling himself God during his public ministry, it is hard to imagine the early authors didn't want to mention that part. That would be the most important them to say about him. The fact they do not say it almost certainly means they did not know anything of the sort. [Full-stop.]

From the video above at 45:14: Bart Ehrman.

So, I think there is a little bit of misunderstanding here. I am not denying that Jesus is understood to be God by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I think Matthew, Mark, and Luke do understand Jesus to be God, but they understand him to be God in a different way than say Paul and John. So, it is not surprising that in Matthew, Mark, and Luke Jesus is portrayed with divine characteristics, because these authors think Jesus is divine. [Full-stop.]

---

For now, I ask you to indulge me in drilling down on these two different time segments taken form the video interview alone. I will get to what Jesus thought about himself separately, and what Paul and John thought in a separate post. Everybody reading this, do you see a contradiction in what Mr. Ehrman says above?

Bart Ehrman is a favorite of atheists who relish how this supposed Christian left Christianity and now spends his time bashing Christianity and God.

This change came about as Ehrman explains because he could not deal with a God who allows evil.  That statement alone demonstrates the spritual bankruptcy of Mr Ehrman and his lack of understanding of even the nature of God.

As to the deity of Jesus.  Jesus NEVER BECAME God. Jesus has ALWAYS been God.

Dr William Craig provides a thorough refutation of Ehrman and his faulty theology.

Rev Larry Robinson BTh  with more than 30 years of teaching and preaching, theological emphasis in Eschatology

I am going to go through most of this video in large segments. Because I see much needing discussion. Professor Ehrman is a "superstar" in humanist circles (it is a fact).
Please share what you have. Love that gorgeous hair in your avatar!

thanks for the compliment on my hair.   Many who don't know me are surprised to see a Conservative Evangelical Christian with my appearance.

More on refuting Bart Ehrman

Ehrman left Christianity as he states it because he could not come to grip with the idea of a God who allowed evil. This spiritually bankrupt thinking demonstrates that Ehrman could not possibly have ever been a Christian.

Paul's prayer in Ephesians 1 is a prayer for the entire body of Christ which leads to genuine understanding of God, His nature, and His plans for mankind. Likewise Paul explains this in a teaching to the Church at Corinth. When we are taught by the Holy Spirit, we receive the understanding of the things of God that the non believer cannot comprehend.

“ Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints,  16  do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers:  17  that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,  18  the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,  19  and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power  20  which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,  21  far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.” Ephesians 1:15-21

1 Corinthians 2:11-16

Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.  12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13  These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  14  But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.  15  But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.  16  For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?”  But we have the mind of Christ.”

Dr William Craig has provided an excellent refutation of the faulty conclusions of Dr Ehrman

reasonablefaith

One of the criticisms used by Dr Ehrman and critics of Christianity is the supposed absence of acknowledgment of the deity of Jesus in the Gospels other than the Book of John. This criticism ignores the ample evidence of the Disciples Mark and Matthew both citing the deity of Jesus throughout their Gospel accounts.

sovereignjesus

I love it! You look marvelous.

This spiritually bankrupt thinking demonstrates that Ehrman could not possibly have ever been a Christian.

In you opinion, if someone leaves Christianity (i.e. loses their faith) does that mean they never were a Christian?

A while back, PBS did a series called "The Mormons". Because the Mormon faith is fairly new, and it's followers are well documented, we can see how a religion forms. Many people feel that by seeing this in real time, we can apply this to most faiths. This is exactly what  Professor Ehrman is trying to point out. 

Part 1 of "The Mormons" can be seen here:

pbs

btw.. Mormons feel that they are the true Christians. In fact, they believe that only Jews and Mormons are saved. It is the pretext of being the special ones to god, that I have the most issue with, when dealing with faith. 

I have no problem with people believing in god. My issue is when one faith declares itself as the only path to god. All these texts were written by men, and who knows what is real and what is "divine revelation", which I think of as really just a good imagination and a lot of fear to keep the masses in line.  

it is more likely that they were never Christians, especially in the case of Ehrman when you read his explanation for why he left Christianity and became an agnostic

What separates Christianity from all other faiths are three things.

1.  Christianity is based upon following Jesus as not only Lord and Savior, but the True God who came to earth and took on human flesh.

2.  The reconciliation to God through Jesus is not merely to worship God, but to have a personal, intimate relationship with God in which EVERY believer is promised to be able to not only speak directly to God, but that God speaks directly to EVERY believer.  

3.  EVERY Believer (including women) is part of a Royal Priesthood to God

Thanks for your honesty.

Those are YOUR rules. Not everyone agrees.

First of all, they are NOT rules.

Secondly, what I cited is basic Christian Orthodoxy since the first century, not my personal opinion or "rules"

Your... position...

Not everyone agrees.

What a great set of links in your comment. I approve. I surely hope others will review and store them for deeper study.  One larger point I wish to share regarding Jesus' role in the first century. Though Jesus is God (the Son) and a member of the Trinity, in his human incarnation his role was solely that of Messiah , obligated to fulfill OT prophecies. In this Jesus was task-driven. We have to be clear about this:

Matthew 11: ( NIV )

2 When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

4 Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5 The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 6 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

7 As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 8 If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. 9 Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written:

 ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’

Jesus NEVER BECAME God. Jesus has ALWAYS been God.

It took man wrapping his mind around this by walking through the Old and New Testaments to get understanding of the deep things of God and the Books:

Luke 24: (Berean Study Bible)

25 Then Jesus said to them, “O foolish ones, how slow are your hearts to believe all that the prophets have spoken. 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter His glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.

Jesus NEVER BECAME God. Jesus has ALWAYS been God.

To respond to this the way I would like to could probably get me banned so I won't.

This change came about as Ehrman explains because he could not deal with a God who allows evil.

That is a bunch of hooey.  Ehrman changed when he witnessed the original scriptures, and thus realized that everything he had been taught up to that point was a lie.  If they were divinely inspired, then they could not have been altered as they were.

Jesus being a real person physically on this earth is an historical fact

Whether Jesus was real or not is not really the question. What's really questionable is his supposed divinity or acts of "miracles," which have no facts to support such assertions outside of dogma.

I am glad to read this coming from you, Gordy! So let's settle it once and for all right here and right now:

In your opinion, was Jesus of Nazareth an actual historical person?

I am glad to read this coming from you, Gordy!

Why? It's not the first time I've mentioned that.

So let's settle it once and for all right here and right now:

What's there to settle exactly?

In your opinion, was Jesus of Nazareth an actual historical person?

What is the evidence for the existence of Jesus as a person, outside of biblical references? Here's a better question: what difference does it make how I answer? That's like asking if King Arthur was an actual historical person.

OKAY. Thank you for your reply. Moving on. . . .

Ok, so you really weren't interested in a discussion after all. Got it.

Gordy! My motto for 2018: DECLUTTER!

As I said, you aren't interested in a discussion. Makes me wonder why you even bothered to reply to my post to begin with.

That's like asking if King Arthur was an actual historical person.

Josephus, a first century historian, does in fact mention Jesus, though he wasn't alive during what was supposed to be Christ's life as he was born in 37 CE. However, Josephus also talks about Hercules as being real and visiting the troops, and Josephus at one point claimed to be the messiah himself, so his credibility is very much in question. I personally believe there was a very human figure who lived and likely died at the hands of the romans who was considered a prophet or wise man who the story of Jesus is based on, and I'm sure many of his followers considered him to be the messiah because many Jews were actively looking for their savior and many claimed to be the fulfillment of that ancient Israelite prophecy. There is no corroborating evidence of anything divine or of any miracles other than the new testament itself, which was compiled of letters written decades after the supposed facts and were selected from a large group of supposed holy letters decided upon by the council of Nicaea nearly 300 years after Christ's supposed death.

I personally believe there was a very human figure who lived and likely died at the hands of the romans who was considered a prophet or wise man who the story of Jesus is based on

That would be plausible. Jesus could have been an amalgam of individuals of the time period, like King Arthur. It does make for an entertaining story. 

There is no corroborating evidence of anything divine or of any miracles other than the new testament itself,

Exactly. So while there may have been such an individual, it's quite another (irrational) thing entirely to say this individual was the son of or was actually god, or had divine magical powers.

Dr. Bart Ehrman has stated with certainty the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. He has established this foundation using biblical text and extra-biblical archives. Next, we arrive at the question:

Was (Is) historical Jesus a mere Jewish Preacher from Galilee or the Promised historical Jewish Messiah?

Oh, so now you are using Bart Ehrman as the authority?  Okay then, Bart says Jesus was not divine, therefore he was not divine.

I am using Professor Bart Ehrman, a professed humanist, appropriately to impress an otherwise established fact on the hearts (if it is possible and allowable—humanist are such individualists) of his fellow humanists. Now, let's see what Professor Ehrman says about the question above and if it holds up under close scrutiny.

I’m going with just a preacher. What does he think after doing all that research? My guess is the more he learned the less likely he was to believe in a God. Same thing happened to Stephen Hawking. Now that he has a decent understanding of how the universe was created he no longer believes in a God. 

Hey Dean! If Jesus is merely a Jewish Preacher and not the promised Messiah. . .

Mark 4: (Berean Literal Bible.)

35 And on that day, evening having come, He says to them, “Let us pass over to the other side.”
36 And having dismissed the crowd, they take Him with them since He was in the boat; and other boats were with Him.
37 And a violent storm of wind comes, and the waves were breaking over the boat, so that the boat already is being filled up
38 And He was in the stern, sleeping on the cushion. And they awaken Him and say to Him, “Teacher, is it no concern to You that we perish?”
39 And having been awoken, He rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Silence, be still!” And the wind abated, and there was a great calm.
40 And He said to them, “Why are you fearful? Have you still no faith?”
41 And they feared with great fear and were saying to each other, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”

. . . how could a mere Jewish preacher project Messianic activity? In Mark's accounting of the calming of the storm, he indicates Jesus knows fully well his authority as Messiah. In fact, unlike Professor Ehrman's statement it is the disciples who are confused about their teacher's status, not Jesus.

You presume the Bible is true and then use that to argue the Bible is true.   

You presume the Bible is true and then use that to argue the Bible is true.   

Using the testimony of witnesses is common in a legal defense.  Three of the the gospels were written within 12years of the events and one (Luke) written within 30 years of the events. And Luke met with the Apostles and got first hand testimony from them.

The Bible was complete by 95 AD with all of it done before 70 AD with the exception of the Apocalypse of John (Revelations) and possibly the book of Hebrews which could be as late as 80 AD but could be earlier, as early as before 64 AD. Matthew, Mark and John all date no later than 42 AD.  Luke was 59 AD

we have attestation from 1st century Christians citing every book in the New Testament.  We have the writings of 1st Century Christians who mentored under some of the Apostles and testified to the authenticity of their writings. We have the testimony of Polycarp a disciple of John who became Bishop of Smyrna and testified to the dating of the canon of scripture in his letters.

Even a very liberal theologian amended his view on the dating of the Bible. 

John AT Robinson (Bishop of Woolrich)

Although Robinson was considered a liberal theologian , he challenged the work of like-minded colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the reliability of the New Testament as he believed that it had been the subject of very little original research during the 20th century. He also wrote that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost wilful blindness"

English New Testament scholar, author and the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich . [1] He was a lecturer at Trinity College , Cambridge , and later Dean of Trinity College until his death in 1983 from cancer. Robinson was considered a major force in shaping liberal Christian theology .

en.wikipedia

Using the testimony of witnesses is common in a legal defense.

Nevertheless, the Bible is being used to establish the veracity of the Bible.

Dr. Bart Ehrman, a humanist, uses the details ("internals") of the Bible to make the case for authors and people in the Bible. Evenmoreso to develop "pop-star" status with his humanist followers. Furthermore, the Bible is a collection of writers. These writers are perfectly suited to write about the times in which they lived or were nearer to than "modern" scholars.

Thank you for sharing, livefreeordie!

The greatest juridical defense of the authenticity of the Gospels and the reliability of their witness testimony is the Treatise by Simon Greenleaf whose treatise on evidence is the foundation of our judicial system guideline on rules of evidence

Greenleaf sums up his argument with the following plea:

"All that Christianity asks of men on this subject, is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with the surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witnesses being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth ... Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard" (pp. 46 & 53).

Examination of the Testimony

of the

Four Evangelists,

by the Rules of Evidence Administered

in

Courts of Justice.

With an Account of the Trial of Jesus.

By Simon Greenleaf, LL.D.

Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University

Second Edition

Revised and Corrected by the Author.

London:

A. Maxwell & Son, 32, Bell Yard, Lincoln's Inn;

W. Smith, 113, Fleet Street;

Hodges & Smith, Dublin; T. & J. Clark, Edinburgh.

1847

gutenberg

I've already began reading this reference source. Thank you so very much! Here is a quote I have picked up from it immediately:

Christianity  does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer. —Bishop Wilson's Evidences

Using the testimony of witnesses is common in a legal defense.

It's also notoriously unreliable. Scientific studies and cross examinations prove this. And you're going by the 'testimony" of people from 2000 years ago. Not to mention this 'testimony" is in the bible, and using the bible to prove the bible is circular logic-a logical fallacy.

stated with certainty

Not certainty Calbab.  He has stated his conclusion.  He does not claim certainty (i.e. that his conclusion is necessarily true).

Matthew 17New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1.Six days later Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and *led them up on a high mountain by themselves. ² And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.³ And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. ⁴ Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” ⁶ When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified. ⁷ And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, “Get up, and do not be afraid.” ⁸ And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

Dr. Ehrman should have been asked during the interview, what Jesus meant by carrying on the above transfiguration activity, with natural men considered dead not only appearing and carrying on a conversation with the Messiah.

Of course, Dr. Ehrman, typical of a humanist, would dismiss this section of the Gospels flatly, because he wishes to ignore the spirituality and supernatural activity in the Gospels. The same gospels he uses to validate the historical Jesus.

Of course, Dr. Ehrman, typical of a humanist, would dismiss this section of the Gospels flatly, because he wishes to ignore the spirituality and supernatural activity in the Gospels

Do you really think that a skeptic sets out to not believe in a god?

That is not how it works, Calbab.   A skeptic is simply being honest and objective regarding the evidence.   A skeptic says:  "I am not convinced by the evidence.   If new persuasive evidence arises that convinces me a god exists I will, ipso facto, immediately be a theist".

You think there is an agenda when in reality it is so simple - nothing more complicated than not being convinced.

Nothing about the transfiguration activity? You can not have Peter, John, and James going on about tabernacles, Moses, and Elijah without Jesus knowing he was more than just a mere Jewish preacher, as Dr. Ehrman tries to sell it to modern humanists.

You think there is an agenda when in reality it is so simple - nothing more complicated than not being convinced . — TiG.

TiG, will not allow oneself to be convinced is more like it. Here is an book review excerpt for consideration. It's from humanist Dr. Peter Boghossian's, "A Manual for Creating Atheists" (The title is illustrative in itself. Note : Perhaps, you recognize "2" from its use on NT.

Thinking Christian's Book Review:

[Dr. Peter] Boghossian’s A Manual for Creating Atheists      By Tom Gilson on Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Dr. Boghossian recommends a set of “containment protocols” regarding faith, which include the following:

1. Use the word “faith” only in a religious context.
He recommends this on his own authority: it’s just wrong, he says on his own authority, to speak of having faith in one’s spouse. This is because “when the faithful are pressed on the definition of faith… they usually retreat to the words ‘hope,’ ‘trust,’ and ‘confidence,’ abandoning knowledge and certainty”—as if the importance of his recommendation follows from that observation.

2. Stigmatize faith-based claims like racist claims.
Specifically, he says, don’t let people of faith “sit at the Adult Table. Those at the Kid’s Table can talk about anything they’d like, but they have no adult responsibilities and no voice in public policy.” In other words he wants us muzzled; if we speak up we should be told, “You are pretending to know things you don’t know. Go to the Kid’s Table, this is a conversation for adults.”

8. Treat faith as a public health crisis.
“We must reconceptualize faith as a virus of the mind … and treat faith like other epidemiological crises: contain and eradicate.” Never mind that faith is positively associated with personal health in virtually every measure: Dr. Boghossian’s adoration of evidence has its limits, you see; and even though all the research shows that it tends to be good for physical and mental health, still it’s a “public health crisis ” because he says it is.

11. Remove religious exemption for delusion from the DSM.
This bears an extended quotation:

Once religious or delusions are integrated into the DSM, entirely new categories of research and treatment into the problem of faith can be created. These will include removal of existing ethical barriers, changing treatments covered by insurance, including faith-based to special education programs in the schools, helping children who have been indoctrinated into a faith tradition, and legitimizing interventions designed to rid subjects of the faith affliction.…

In the long term, once these treatments and this body of research is [ sic ] refined, results could then be used to inform public health policies designed to contain and ultimately eradicate faith.

thinkingchristian

Nothing about the transfiguration activity? You can not have Peter, John, and James going on about tabernacles, Moses, and Elijah without Jesus knowing he was more than just a mere Jewish preacher, as Dr. Ehrman tries to sell it to modern humanists.

Again, Calbab, you are trying to use the Bible to serve as its own corroborating source.    Biblical scholars do not engage in such circular logic - they tend to be disciplined, logical and objective.

TiG, will not allow oneself to be convinced is more like it.

This is not about me.  

That sentence is not about you, unless you cast yourself as not being convinced.  More important: What about Dr. Peter Boghossian's, "A Manual for Creating Atheists" statements?

Good grief man look at what I quoted for context.  You wrote that.  This is not about what 'TiG' will allow himself to be convinced of.   This is about biblical scholarship - analysis of the Bible using myriad disciplined techniques.  

It is best to focus on the topic and not make declarations about other contributors.

Dr. Bart Ehrman above is giving an interview about Jesus Christ where he, a biblical scholar, makes numerous claims solely based on the Bible. Claims intended for a humanist worldview, neverheless. Deal with it.

He has also determined that much of the Bible is actually a forgery. He doesn’t stop researching at the words in the Bible he goes beyond that. He now believes it has far fewer authors than the Bible claims to have and much of it is fiction. 

He is doing analysis of the Bible.   He is comparing different parts and drawing conclusions regarding consistency and context.  He does not, for example, assert that the Transfiguration event actually happened simply because it is mentioned in the Bible.     I suspect you will never find Dr. Ehrman deeming something is true simply because a few parts of the Bible declare it so.  

Deal with it.

No reason to get snippy.   Just treat the subject matter analytically.   Disagreement need not be taken as a personal affront.   Sometimes people disagree on an intellectual basis without negative emotions or bad intent.

If I tell you that remark was not about you, then it was not about you. I was adding on to your sentence construction,

"You think there is an agenda when in reality it is so simple - nothing more complicated than not being convinced."  Accept my answer and move on. If you wish to keep calling me a liar to my face, then stop commenting to me directly.

TiG, will not allow oneself to be convinced is more like it.

Note your name is not italicized! And, that is intentional. I hope that helps you put it to rest and return to the discussion that is not about you!

What you have not done is comment on Dr. Ehrman's use of the Bible as validation for his points of view (which I have more interviews) or Dr. Boghossian's agenda against faith!

What you have not done is comment on Dr. Ehrman's use of the Bible as validation for his points of view (which I have more interviews) or Dr. Boghossian's agenda against faith!

TiG @  12.1.1.1.…:

He is doing analysis of the Bible.   He is comparing different parts and drawing conclusions regarding consistency and context.  He does not, for example, assert that the Transfiguration event actually happened  simply because it is mentioned  in the Bible.     I suspect you will never find Dr. Ehrman deeming something is true simply because a few parts of the Bible declare it so.  

That was my comment.   Note that I am not going to comment on everything written.

He is doing analysis of the Bible.   He is comparing different parts and drawing conclusions regarding consistency and context.  He does not, for example, assert that the Transfiguration event actually happened simply because it is mentioned in the Bible.     I suspect you will never find Dr. Ehrman deeming something is true simply because a few parts of the Bible declare it so.  

Dr. Ehrman is doing quite a bit of supposing and selecting, I can clearly see that. More on that later. He can neither confirm or deny the transfiguration event, because the synoptic gospels each mention it. The writers each corroborate the event. So if he is to be fair, he or any other scholar has to consider it to his readers in light of it being in the collection of NT books.

Here is my question for you: According to the biblical record, did Jesus, James, John, and Peter participate in a spiritual event?

Is there a defense or criticism over humanist Dr. Boghossian's agenda to eliminate faith thus undermining God forthcoming? Fair-minded readers wish to know.

Dr. Ehrman is doing quite a bit of supposing and selecting,

Rightly so.   Biblical analysis is replete with vagaries and missing information.   Is it not better for an analyst to express, with language, areas where certainty is a distant concept rather than making bold statements with weak justification?

He can neither confirm or deny the transfiguration event, because the synoptic gospels each mention it. The writers each corroborate the event. So if he is to be fair, he or any other scholar has to consider it to his readers in light of it being in the collection of NT books.

The best anyone can do at this point is achieve levels of confidence.   No way to dismiss transfiguration but, by the same token, the evidence of same is lacking.   For such a magnificent event, the evidence should be substantial.    (And the Bible circularly giving its own credence is not evidence.)

Here is my question for you: According to the biblical record, did Jesus, James, John, and Peter participate in a spiritual event?

Not sure why it matters what the Bible says since it has not been established as a reliable source of truth.   But per the Bible, these four would often be together when Jesus ostensibly engaged in the miraculous.   

Is it not better for an analyst to express, with language, areas where certainty is a distant concept rather than making bold statements with weak justification?

Actually, barring exactness in what is offered as corrective, meaning producing evidence to the contrary, it is better to leave the record intact as it is. Thereby, not risking adding "noise to the centuries."

The consideration should be for the principal that the biblical authors were closer to in time and more conversant with all materials they deliberated and labored to place into the record. Do you agree?

The consideration should be for the principal that the biblical authors were closer to in time and more conversant with all materials they deliberated and labored to place into the record. Do you agree?

I think most biblical scholars hold to that principle.   The closer an author is (in time and space) to an event, the more likely the author is to have accurate sources of information.

But that does not mean one simply accepts something as truthful (e.g. not invented / exaggerated) simply because it is written in a book.   Part of the challenge in biblical scholarship is discovering the intended meaning of these ancient authors.   Another part is assessing the veracity of the concluded interpretation.   The former is a complex process of historical linguistics.   The latter involves evidence and logic.

To wit, even if we could get right into the mind of an ancient author and nail the interpretation of his words, that does not mean we have found truth (or are even close to it).

The consideration should be for the principal that the biblical authors were closer to in time and more conversant with all materials they deliberated and labored to place into the record. Do you agree?

How in the world can you come to that conclusion 

or verify it?

Non Christians aren't, weren't interested,

therefore it becomes a piety Christian contest for those who were, indeed, interested in adding to, or interpreting the known Bible(s).

The writers of the OT certainly showed no interest in the NT.................and Christians have misinterpreted the OT 

since the first Bible.

bibleodyssey

But that does not mean one simply accepts something as truthful (e.g. not invented / exaggerated) simply because it is written in a book.   Part of the challenge in biblical scholarship is discovering the intended meaning of these ancient authors.   Another part is assessing the veracity of the concluded interpretation.   The former is a complex process of historical linguistics.   The latter involves evidence and logic.

One does not SIMPLY accept anything written or spoken without a proper measure of deeper consideration and weighing of what is known. Dr. Ehrman is not getting to the bottom of anything when he chooses to ignore, discount, or wholesale dismiss what is written into the records by people at and near the events! (No other modern scholar either!) Nor is any skeptic that neglects or flat out refuses to engage, disprove or accept information which does not suit or fit well into their concepts and disciplines.

Moreover, if, for example, you were to share a truth about yourself with me and I write it down as you stated or explained it and time-capsuled it away for several centuries.  At some point in the distant future, it is dug up or discovered and handed over to "modern" scholars of the future. These scholars read and began to naysay your persona truth-situation, because they balance it against whatever level of understanding is in play and in the offing disallow allow for your explanation! Who gets to state the truth in any given situation? Those experiencing and explaining it.

Dr. Ehrman is not getting to the bottom of anything when he chooses to ignore, discount, or wholesale dismiss what is written into the records by people at and near the events!

I suspect Dr. Ehrman would not only disagree with your accusation that he ignores, discounts or dismisses credible information but likely would be pleased to explain to you why he thinks you are wrong.

But, Dr. Ehrman is not here.   So I suppose you are free to launch any accusation you wish.   It would be best if you backed it up with substance though.

And yet with these all day responses about this thing and that thing you've got 'nothin' in way of a comment to statements made by humanist Dr. Peter Boghossian in his book, "Manual for Creating Atheists"? Why not?

You can tirelessly criticize God, Jesus, Faith, the veracity of the 27 New Testament Books and 14 NT authors as evidenced by this article and its thread.

What are the implications when shelter is given to a 'dangerous humanist' like Dr. Peter Boghossian and his faith "containment strategies"?

A Manual for Creating Atheists (Excerpt.)

Numbers: 

3) Parrhesia: Speaking truth in the face of danger. We should not sit at the back of the segregated bus, so to speak. "Be honest. Be direct. Be blunt. Be unapologetic....Don't tone it down or talk baby talk....Instead, tell people exactly what you think and why you think it. Take a punch and give a punch. Speak truth in the place of danger be a part of Team Parrhesia" (p. 214). 

6) Experiment and publicize. "Develop your own strategies to fight the faith virus." Then publicize them in the appropriate medium, like books, magazines, podcasts, videos, documentaries, plays, editorials, songs, art works and so on. [Social media websites. Added by Calbab.]

8) Treat faith as a public health crisis. Two words: "contain" and "eradicate." We must do this with ethical and Constitutional concerns in mind, he says. Rather, "interventions need to be designed that counter the spread" of the virus. Our "containment strategy should promote the 'value' of believing on the basis of evidence."

Calbab, when someone politely tells you that he is not interested in researching an individual why not just leave it at that?

You brought up Dr. Peter Boghossian out of the blue and expect me to spontaneously discover an interest in this individual and, in effect, serve as his proxy.

I do not know anything about Peter Boghossian and am not interested in researching him.

So move on, okay?   Or ask someone else.   

(8) Our "containment strategy should promote the 'value' of believing on the basis of evidence."

2) Stigmatize faith-based claims like racist claims. [Boghossian] argues we should deploy the models of the civil rights and the women's rights movements. Basically it should be politically incorrect to argue something based on faith. He aptly quotes Sam Harris here: "People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of society."

— Dr. Peter Boghossian.

Your point?

Fair-minded people seek to be balanced across the board. I'm just saying.

* Additional credit for Boghossian statements: John W. Loftus

What is with you and this Boghossian guy?   Why is the opinion of this guy so important to you that you would repeatedly derail your own article?

Dr. Boghossian's agenda to eliminate faith thus undermining God forthcoming? Fair-minded readers wish to know.

Then, there you have it.

Derailing your own article?

Sounds like a new topic for a separate article.

Humanist love to attempt to disconnect people of faith from their faith free floating off into Atheist nihilism, while not facing up to the ugliness that is in their own camp. It is wrong and it needs the proper amount of exposure. 

I got your meaning, nevertheless. *Wink!

Humanist ...

Speaking for myself, I am not part of a Humanist movement or any other organization with an agenda to attack religion.   So knock it off.   If you need a label for me use 'skeptic'.   That would be descriptive of how I think and would not relate to any organization or agenda of any kind.

Placing people in categories and then attacking the categories is a cheap tactic.   I will yet again suggest to you that it is best to not get personal (either directly or indirectly through a stereotype) but rather simply debate concepts, facts, logic.

I do not assign you to a stereotype and then bash the stereotype.    So maybe follow my lead here?

IMPASSE.

The two of you really have a great debate going.  Discount what these other members are posting.....they know nothing.

Thank you magnoliaave. (Smile.)

The Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, had a forerunner named John the Baptist .

Isaiah 40:3  New International Version

³  A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
     the way for the Lord ;
make straight in the desert
     a highway for our God.

Malachi 3:1 ¹ "I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the LORD you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John teach us about who Jesus the Messiah is and gives us the opportunity to be discipled by him as we observe him and his disciples. — Walt Russell.