DCP, living in the past.

[Doctor Scratch]

I admire your fortitude, Markk. I hope/assume that you understand that DCP is keeping you around due to the fact that your writing has a ton of typos/inaccuracies. He thinks that he can make you look dumb (because, hey: spelling seems to be so hard for you, right?), so he is allowing you to ask semi-difficult questions.

But go ahead and try to ask him about the Second Watson Letter. How will that work out? Will he allow it, under the assumption that your lack of spelling/writing ability will allow him to make you look like a doofus in front of his readers?

You correctly point out that he’s widely disliked, but you unwisely limited this to “ex-Mormons.” Remember: Gerald Bradford, a loyal LDS, was the person—according to DCP himself—who kicked him out of his Dream Job. It was not an “anti” or a “critic.” It was a faithful Latter-day Saint. In fact, DCP has been disliked by a *lot* of Latter-day Saints, including Blair Hodges, Jonathan Neville, and so on. It’s not just a matter of bias, or ideological position. He is disliked by people on both sides. And the reason is exactly what you alluded to: he’s been a cruel bully for decades, and he seemingly does not have the ability to recognize it or apologize for it.

And it’s weird: he says that he recognizes the “wrenching pain” that people go through during a faith crisis, and yet he also thinks that an appropriate response to that is “ironic” commentary or ridicule? Well, I guess that’s the answer. If he thinks that responding to “wrenching pain” with “ironic humor”is okay, then it just proves his deficiency when it comes to normal human empathy.

[drumdude]

Here’s a small quote from him that supports, I think, what I wrote here:



https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/30024609 ... become-one

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.

I agree that it’s not definitive proof, but it fits with the null hypothesis that Jesus was not God.

For example, if Joseph Smith never claimed to be God, and then his followers over hundreds of years developed a theology which claimed he was God, that wouldn’t make him God. And we would expect that the earlier texts closer to Joseph Smith’s life would lack claims that he was God.

It’s the progression that points to doubt. It indicates to me a man-made myth, rather than any divine plan. It’s what we would expect to see if Jesus wasn’t God.

I think this is why DCP and other scholarly Christians lean so heavily on the “divine hiddenness” idea. You have to believe that God intentionally misleads us to doubt by creating all of this doubt.

[Markk]

I only know what I know and my experience with Dan is that he has a real boner for evangelicals and anti's....which is who he chose to use as an example in the blog of telling him what he believes. He can't stand it when folks question or believe honestly that LDS theology is not Christian theology. Like many folks here. He does not like that he does not have a real seat at the "Christian table." Which is why he has to find outliers "to like."

Dan does not like anyone that disagrees with him boldly or calls him out, and I am trying to stay with what he wrote, evangelicals and antis.

I know I missed the Juanita Brooks thing, she was more or less just shunned in her Mormon community, and not ex'd. What else did I miss so I don't miss it again? Spelling, and certainly proof reading has never been my strong point, and never will be, my mind races and I have ADHD in that regard. It is hard to explain but when I write I am either two sentences ahead of my thought, or two behind,.....so he can make fun of that all he wants, instead of context. My first exchange with the guy 30 some years ago via an AoL email, I asked him questions about truth claims, and he replied that he read my letter to his class "and they all had a good laugh," Lou chimed in and asked me if I was struggling with my faith "because of the beer." Lol...If that is what he is doing now then I guess it has gone full circle.

When I was in school I excelled in oral tests, and multiple choice, but struggled in essays and expressing myself with a pen, and it took years before a teacher figured it out and helped me find ways to slow my brain down and focus....like wearing ear plugs. My aptitude tests were always very high and I was always placed in the high honor classes, but focusing on subjects I did not care about was very difficult, and is the same today. The Upside is I excelled in team sports and later in construction/problem solving, I can visualize problems and scenarios "two sentences ahead," so to speak. I excel in value engineering.

The Watson letter is a slam dunk. He knows it. But I am trying to see if he can look back, at his performance as a apologist and see how he is perceived by those he spoke down to with pure BS and arrogance.

Dr. Scratch, you of all people must have deep feelings toward Dan in that regard. Am I wrong? I would love for you to tell me what started your strong dislike for the guy. We are not getting younger and it would be interesting to hear your story. He is 100% right, deserved or not, that this is in a real sense a obsession board for him, and you are clearly the "leader" in the obsession, why?

Thanks you your constructive criticisms.

[MsJack]

You correctly point out that he’s widely disliked, but you unwisely limited this to “ex-Mormons.” Remember: Gerald Bradford, a loyal LDS, was the person—according to DCP himself—who kicked him out of his Dream Job. It was not an “anti” or a “critic.” It was a faithful Latter-day Saint. In fact, DCP has been disliked by a *lot* of Latter-day Saints, including Blair Hodges, Jonathan Neville, and so on. It’s not just a matter of bias, or ideological position. He is disliked by people on both sides. And the reason is exactly what you alluded to: he’s been a cruel bully for decades, and he seemingly does not have the ability to recognize it or apologize for it.

The complaint that I was given some number of years ago was, despite a huge output of work, he has contributed little of value to Mormon studies apart from the article "Nephi and His Asherah."

Apologetics is not viewed as having much value by many in the Mormon scholarly community.

I do not know whether he has put out any other articles of note since the comment was made to me. And I'm personally someone who sees a place for apologetics in religious faith. But the person I spoke with was irritated that Dan's substantial contributions to Mormon studies were few, while the unprofessional antics of FARMS and Interpreter were taking Mormon studies away from respectability rather than towards it. Nobody likes the FARMS antics regardless, but the tolerance would probably be higher if the output of substance were greater.

[Kishkumen]

I haven’t taken the time to read these, but DCP did also publish:

“Ye Are Gods: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind”

“Democratic Salvation”

“On the motif of the weeping God in Moses 7”

“The Gadianton Robbers as Guerilla Warriors”

“A Prophet Emerging : Fetal Narratives in Islamic Literature”

“Authority in the Book of Mosiah”

“Reflecting on Gospel Scholarship with Abū al-Walīd and Abū Ḥāmid”

[ceeboo]

Here’s a small quote from him that supports, I think, what I wrote here:

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.

https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/30024609 ... become-one

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.

Very much like the Muslim approach (Muslims quote Ehrman often when debating Christians), Ehrman uses the "every word in that exact order" fallacy - Meaning, show me where Jesus says that "I am God."

Jesus forgives sins - Yes.
Jesus receives worship from people - Yes,
Is Jesus called a blasphemer (I wonder why?) - Yes.
Does Jesus take that glorious Daniel 7 title and apply it on himself - Yes.
Did Jesus die and rise again as he told us he would - Yes.

But - Jesus did not look into the camera and say "I am God."

A Superman analogy for your consideration (feel free to reject it or ignore it)

Was he able to leap tall buildings in a single bound - Yes
Is he more powerful than a locomotive - Yes
Is he faster than a speeding bullet - Yes
Is he from the planet Crypton - Yes

But, did he ever look into the camera and say that people call me Clark Kent, but I am really Superman - No, so I guess this dude isn't Superman.

People (including critical scholars) typically place more weight on things that are pleasing to their individual taste buds (To be fair, I would include believers, like me in this as well)

[Kishkumen]

Very much like the Muslim approach (Muslims quote Ehrman often when debating Christians), Ehrman uses the "every word in that exact order" fallacy - Meaning, show me where Jesus says that "I am God."

Jesus forgives sins - Yes.
Jesus receives worship from people - Yes,
Is Jesus called a blasphemer (I wonder why?) - Yes.
Does Jesus take that glorious Daniel 7 title and apply it on himself - Yes.
Did Jesus die and rise again as he told us he would - Yes.

But - Jesus did not look into the camera and say "I am God."

A Superman analogy for your consideration (feel free to reject it or ignore it)

Was he able to leap tall buildings in a single bound - Yes
Is he more powerful than a locomotive - Yes
Is he faster than a speeding bullet - Yes
Is he from the planet Crypton - Yes

But, did he ever look into the camera and say that people call me Clark Kent, but I am really Superman - No, so I guess this dude isn't Superman.

People (including critical scholars) typically place more weight on things that are pleasing to their individual taste buds (To be fair, I would include believers, like me in this as well)

While I agree with you that Ehrman's argument, in this case as in others, is problematic, how do we know what Jesus actually said, at the end of the day? This is a problem I have always had with scholarship on the Gospels. We have no idea who wrote these Gospels. They probably emerge starting in around 70 CE, maybe in the 50s if we take a very optimistic and apologetic perspective. What do we really know about what Jesus said? I would say that we don't know much. When I read Greek and Roman histories with speeches, I am aware that the speech I am reading is often the rhetorical composition of the writer himself. He writes the kind of thing he thinks the speaker ought to have said, plausibly, in the situation. So, there really is not a robust tradition of careful quotation, as though a stenographer had been present to take down the speaker's words.

This is one of the many reasons I am a proponent of faith over scholarship in religion. Scholarship has a role, but one cannot prove the faith by scholarship. One believes Jesus is God, or one does not. The Gospels will not make the case, but they can support it by the fact that they are closer in time to Jesus than we are, the closest, in fact, that one can get.

[ceeboo]

Very much like the Muslim approach (Muslims quote Ehrman often when debating Christians), Ehrman uses the "every word in that exact order" fallacy - Meaning, show me where Jesus says that "I am God."

Jesus forgives sins - Yes.
Jesus receives worship from people - Yes,
Is Jesus called a blasphemer (I wonder why?) - Yes.
Does Jesus take that glorious Daniel 7 title and apply it on himself - Yes.
Did Jesus die and rise again as he told us he would - Yes.

But - Jesus did not look into the camera and say "I am God."

A Superman analogy for your consideration (feel free to reject it or ignore it)

Was he able to leap tall buildings in a single bound - Yes
Is he more powerful than a locomotive - Yes
Is he faster than a speeding bullet - Yes
Is he from the planet Crypton - Yes

But, did he ever look into the camera and say that people call me Clark Kent, but I am really Superman - No, so I guess this dude isn't Superman.

People (including critical scholars) typically place more weight on things that are pleasing to their individual taste buds (To be fair, I would include believers, like me in this as well)

While I agree with you that Ehrman's argument, in this case as in others, is problematic, how do we know what Jesus actually said, at the end of the day? This is a problem I have always had with scholarship on the Gospels. We have no idea who wrote these Gospels. They probably emerge starting in around 70 CE, maybe in the 50s if we take a very optimistic and apologetic perspective. What do we really know about what Jesus said? I would say that we don't know much. When I read Greek and Roman histories with speeches, I am aware that the speech I am reading is often the rhetorical composition of the writer himself. He writes the kind of thing he thinks the speaker ought to have said, plausibly, in the situation. So, there really is not a robust tradition of careful quotation, as though a stenographer had been present to take down the speaker's words.

This is one of the many reasons I am a proponent of faith over scholarship in religion. Scholarship has a role, but one cannot prove the faith by scholarship. One believes Jesus is God, or one does not. The Gospels will not make the case, but they can support it by the fact that they are closer in time to Jesus than we are, the closest, in fact, that one can get.

Hey Kish,

Thanks for offering your thoughts. I am running out the door and will be away for much of the day. I do want to share a few of my personal views with you (gospel dating - early vs. late) as well as something else but just have the time right now. Perhaps I will respond later.

[MsJack]

I haven’t taken the time to read these, but DCP did also publish:

“Ye Are Gods: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind”

“Democratic Salvation”

“On the motif of the weeping God in Moses 7”

“The Gadianton Robbers as Guerilla Warriors”

“A Prophet Emerging : Fetal Narratives in Islamic Literature”

“Authority in the Book of Mosiah”

“Reflecting on Gospel Scholarship with Abū al-Walīd and Abū Ḥāmid”

Most of these were published under FARMS or Interpreter (and one was not out when the comment was made). I think the person was pretty much dismissive of all things FARMs and Interpreter.

Is that fair? Probably not, but I think it speaks to how Dan, FARMS, and Interpreter are perceived by many serious Mormon academics.

[drumdude]

Here’s a small quote from him that supports, I think, what I wrote here:



https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/30024609 ... become-one

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.

Very much like the Muslim approach (Muslims quote Ehrman often when debating Christians), Ehrman uses the "every word in that exact order" fallacy - Meaning, show me where Jesus says that "I am God."

Jesus forgives sins - Yes.
Jesus receives worship from people - Yes,
Is Jesus called a blasphemer (I wonder why?) - Yes.
Does Jesus take that glorious Daniel 7 title and apply it on himself - Yes.
Did Jesus die and rise again as he told us he would - Yes.

But - Jesus did not look into the camera and say "I am God."

A Superman analogy for your consideration (feel free to reject it or ignore it)

Was he able to leap tall buildings in a single bound - Yes
Is he more powerful than a locomotive - Yes
Is he faster than a speeding bullet - Yes
Is he from the planet Crypton - Yes

But, did he ever look into the camera and say that people call me Clark Kent, but I am really Superman - No, so I guess this dude isn't Superman.

People (including critical scholars) typically place more weight on things that are pleasing to their individual taste buds (To be fair, I would include believers, like me in this as well)

That’s definitely a reasonable argument. I still think the progression of the gospels is a stronger argument than “he doesn’t specifically say X.” Ehrman is noting that as time goes on, the early gospels say X and the late gospels add Y and Z. Leading to doubt that Y and Z were original, or more likely were later additions.