OK, this is off topic, but I love the dog in your .gif
According to Ehrman, the creature in the picture isn't a dog. All the evidence points to this creature being a gerbil. In addition to misspelled words and punctuation issues found among the thousands of ancient photos of this creature, photographers have embellished the gerbil photos to make it appear to be a dog.
Actually, I like him - I would put in in the same group with people like Sam Harris and Alex O'Conner (Cosmic Skeptic) - Fairly decent, mostly respectful, and not overly arrogant. My favorite atheist was probably Christopher Hitchens (rest his soul), I think he was brilliant, and I really enjoyed his wit/humor.
Actually, I like him - I would put in in the same group with people like Sam Harris and Alex O'Conner (Cosmic Skeptic) - Fairly decent, mostly respectful, and not overly arrogant. My favorite atheist was probably Christopher Hitchens (rest his soul), I think he was brilliant, and I really enjoyed his wit/humor.
I completely agree on his personality. But do you think his scholarship on the historical Jesus is wrong?
I completely agree on his personality. But do you think his scholarship on the historical Jesus is wrong?
I think he has forgotten more about the New Testament than I will probably ever know. Having said that, I think your post put way too much mustard on that dog - So, I offered a very friendly post with a very cute dog (gerbil?)
While he is almost certainly one of the most famous New Testament scholars (Books - Podcasts - debates - YouTube) he is clearly not the only New Testament scholar. Like many things, where a broad variety of highly educated people are looking at the same body of evidence, individuals can come to various conclusions. Granted, the majority of New Testament scholars would agree with much of what he provides. Considering that the majority of Biblical scholars (New Testament and Old Testament) are agnostic/atheist, that isn't shocking to me.
Here’s a small quote from him that supports, I think, what I wrote here:
“Bart Ehrman” wrote:During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God.
I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
Right at the same time that Christians were calling Jesus "God" is exactly when Romans started calling their emperors "God." So these Christians were not doing this in a vacuum; they were actually doing it in a context. I don't think this could be an accident that this is a point at which the emperors are being called "God." So by calling Jesus "God," in fact, it was a competition between your God, the emperor, and our God, Jesus.
Bart Ehrman’s signature work seems to be showing through the historical record that Jesus was morphed after his death by his followers from a man to a God.
Here’s a small quote from him that supports, I think, what I wrote here:
“Bart Ehrman” wrote:During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God.
I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
Right at the same time that Christians were calling Jesus "God" is exactly when Romans started calling their emperors "God." So these Christians were not doing this in a vacuum; they were actually doing it in a context. I don't think this could be an accident that this is a point at which the emperors are being called "God." So by calling Jesus "God," in fact, it was a competition between your God, the emperor, and our God, Jesus.
Bart Ehrman’s signature work seems to be showing through the historical record that Jesus was morphed after his death by his followers from a man to a God.
drumdude, there is something odd in your choice of phrase, "Jesus was morphed". I can understand that peoples understanding of Jesus changed perhaps how Jesus understood himself changed. To say Jesus was morphed seems to imply that you are sure he had no divinity. Neither You nor I can historically know such a thing and no historical study demonstrates such a thing.Yes Jesus was a regular human struggling with life as we all do. His followers understood that and did not see the divine dimension seen by others after his death. Just read Mark it is not hidden, it is basic Christianity.
I think it is pretty important to Christianity to understand (or remember) that Jesus was a real human being, Jewish and involved in a sense of mission often called apocalyptic prophet which is not a strictly defined or ruled role but a general and variable one relating to the times.
Dan, I would love to see you expound on just what those "exercised evangelical Protestants," who are "skimming through" teachings and doctrines of CoJCoLdS past teachings are today.
Dan, it is 2024, things have changed, big time. The debates have evolved from "Adieu" and the KJV only arguments we used to have 25 -30 years ago. The narrative is today, as Bushman asserted, is a narrative that can't survive today.
What about Book of Mormon coinage?? I still remember those old debates about Book of Mormon coinage and what Daniel Peterson stated on that topic.
"It is, alas, quite true that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Book of Mormon coins. Not even in the Book of Mormon itself. The text of the Book of Mormon never mentions the word "coin" or any variant of it. The reference to "Nephite coinage" in the chapter heading to Alma 11 is not part of the original text, and is mistaken. Alma 11 is almost certainly talking about standardized weights of metal a historical step toward coinage, but not yet the real thing." - Link
While coins isn't actually mentioned within the Book of Mormon text, the phrase "the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver," is mentioned within the text. (See Alma 11:4) The text implies it is talking about coinage.
