Bart Ehrman quote from an article- please help refute!

[ConstantLearner]

I don’t think I need luck. The Gospel of Mark was written about 70 CE. The writer surely knew that Jesus’s disciples said he ascended into heaven and is God.

I never said the Gospel of Mark, itself, states that Jesus is God. I said the writers did. And surely at the late date the Gospels were written, the writers did consider Jesus God. Paul certainly did. And, yes, I know he’s not a gospel writer, but most of the Christian Bible centers on his letters or letters formerly attributed to him.

Please do not say I said something I did not say. Thank you.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I would check out Dr Brant Petrie’s writings as a start. He was on EWTN last night in a show called, I believe, The Case for Christ–which I think is also the title of a book he authored. In it he addressed the claim by some that Christ isn’t divine in Mark. I would also be careful with Bart Ehrman–the claims he makes in his popular writing and the way he states them–is a bit different than the way he presents them in his more scholarly work.

I’m not sure how you get “adopted” Son of God from Mark’s gospel as opposed to just simply the Son of God. When Jesus is baptized the voice from the heavens said, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” Nothing about adoption there that I can see.

In Mark Jesus teaches “as one having authority and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22)

In Mark 2:5-12 we see Jesus forgiving sins and the scribes asking how he can talk like that–blaspheming. They know he is claiming to do something only God can do. One could go on but it is a fallacy to claim that Christ is not the divine Son of God in the Gospel of Mark.

That’s just a couple of things.
The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[TimONeill]

The writer surely knew that Jesus’s disciples said he ascended into heaven and is God.

Then please quote him saying so.

I never said the Gospel of Mark, itself, states that Jesus is God. I said the writers did.

That makes no sense. The writer of Mark stated Jesus was God? Where?

Paul certainly did.

OIKay, so quote him saying so. Restrict yourself to the seven epistles that everyone agrees actually are by Paul. Good luck on that as well.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Really? So please show us where the writer of gMark says Jesus is God. Good luck.

Please see post by @ACrosSticks. I hope you find that exhaustive enough. I certainly do.

So, to the original poster, the Book of Mark does not consider Jesus “adopted” as Ehrman states. @ACrosSticks’ post shows anyone that, except maybe Erhman.

I would heed the advice of @MarkInOregon and stay away from Ehrman unless you study with a priest. Ehrman’s views are not conversant with those of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[TimONeill]

To make straight the way of the LORD, is about John the Baptist making way for God manifest in the flesh.

No, that is just something you are reading into the text.

Jesus directly says that He is the LORD of the Sabbath

Yes, as “the Son of Man”. That’s the Messiah. Jews did not regard the Messiah to BE God.

Jesus ascended to right hand of the Father, and sat down in that very Throne of Deity

Nope. Jews in this period regarded that a the position of the Messiah - the Messiah was not God. There is no doubt the writer of gMark considered Jesus the Messiah but you are reading later Christian conflation of the Messiah back into a Jewish work.

Jesus Christ is directly called the Son of God

Son of God is a title of the Messiah. David is also called the Son of God. Again, you are reading later Christian theology back into the text and then trying to use that to bolster that theology. Circular reasoning.

where Jesus forgives sins, and the Jews say that He is blaspheming, and rightly so, if He is not God

Wrong again. They say only God can forgive sins and he DISAGREES and then proves “the Son of Man” (ie the Messiah) can also do so by healing the man.

 

[TimONeill]

Please see post by @ACrosSticks.

See my reply. Nowhere does gMark say Jesus was God.

the Book of Mark does not consider Jesus “adopted” as Ehrman states. @ACrosSticks’ post shows anyone that, except maybe Erhman.

You clearly have no idea what Ehrman is saying.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I do not need luck. My specialty when I studied theology was Christology.

While we certainly can agree that different gospels have different emphases, and that they articulate Christological truths in their own ways, is it really the case that gospels like Mark view Jesus as merely human? Not at all. In fact, it is worth noting that Mark presents Jesus as God from the very opening few verses in his gospel, in a manner that is often missed on a quick reading of that passage.

Does the Gospel of Mark Present Jesus as God? - Canon Fodder

I studied Erhman with an esteemed theologian in Rome in my sixth year, so I do think I understand him. At least the theologian said I did, and I take his word for it. He knows me and graded my work.

I stand by what I said: @ACrosSticks is correct.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I didn’t realize Ehrman had a chance to conduct interviews with the authors! Awesome!

Ehrman’s criticism also feels very “Bible Christian”-centric. While the Bible is crucial to the Catholic faith, we’re founded upon a Church and apostolic teachings, and we understand the Bible and the authors through that tradition and the Church.

Absolutely. This is the answer.

 

[ConstantLearner]

But where tradition and private revelation conflict with the Christian Bible, Catholics are bound to give the Bible primacy.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Private revelation yes. Sacred Tradition, no. We understand the Bible through the Tradition and the Church, otherwise we end up interpreting scripture on our own and end up with false ideas, such as this Bart Ehrman has.

Scripture is not for private interpretation.

Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence." Dei Verbum

 

[ConstantLearner]

I agree, and I did not say Sacred Tradition; I said tradition, with a lower case “t.” It is something different and subject to change. Tradition is not.

 

[MarkInOregon]

For those who quote Mark’s story about Jesus healing the paralytic after he says “which is easier, to forgive sins or to make this man walk…” Ehrman’s answer is that Jesus was claiming authority from God to work miracles, not claiming that he WAS God. A reasonable interpretation.

Given the thinking of the people he was talking to at the time and their understanding–it’s not really a reasonable interpretation.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Wesrock]

Apostolic Tradition and our deposit of faith does not contradict the Bible, though.

 

[Gorgias]

Really? So please show us where the writer of gMark says Jesus is God. Good luck.

Sure! Thanks for the invitation!

• In Mark 2, Jesus tells the paralytic, “your sins are forgiven.” The scribes correctly reason, “who can forgive sins but God?” So, in Jesus’ own words, He declares himself divine – with the authority that only God possesses – by forgiving sins.
• In Mark 3, the demons assert, “you are the Son of God”, and Jesus – rather than denying or even demurring – commands them “not to make him known.”
• In Mark 13, Jesus says that “‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory” will be seen. This is both a reference to Himself (He calls Himself “the Son of Man” throughout Mark) and to a theophany (the “coming in the clouds” refers to a divine appearance, and the reference to “with great power and glory” identifies that this is an appearance of God Himself).
• This citation to Mark 13 might not seem convincing to you. If so, take a look at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin in Mark 14. Here, Jesus says two things: “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’” It’s critical to note that these are two distinct statements, and Jesus references them as such. The “I am” is a reference to the divine name – very literally, Jesus is calling Himself God. Moreover, in case they don’t get it, Jesus makes the same claim as in Mark 13. The reaction of the high priest is telling: he accuses Jesus of blasphemy. In other words, the high priest recognizes that Jesus has just claimed that He is God.

So, there are many places in Mark in which we see claims of Jesus’ divinity. They’re expressed in ways that actors in the narrative – Jews in Palestine in the 1st century AD – would have recognized as claims of divinity. So, if you’re looking for a line in the Gospel where Jesus explicitly uses the words, “Dude… I’m God, for crying out loud!”, then no… you won’t find that. However, Mark says that Jesus is God, albeit in terms that the characters in his narrative – the Jews of Palestine – would recognize.

Hope this helps.

 

[Gorgias]

I would check out Dr Brant Petrie’s writings as a start. He was on EWTN last night in a show called, I believe, The Case for Christ–which I think is also the title of a book he authored.

It’s “The Case for Jesus”. There’s a different book entitled “The Case for Christ”, which is more a witness account of how the author came to belief in the historicity and existence of Jesus.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yes, I agree for private revelation and there are things that are tradition with a small t, but understanding Scripture comes from Tradition, with a captial T.

As one apologist puts it, the Catholic Church is like a three legged stool - Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Neither is left alone. You can’t take any away and expect the stool to stand, so Catholics do not say, we put the Bible first. We seek understanding through the Church, Scripture and Tradition.

Bart Ehrman is attempting to understand Scripture without Tradition or the Church.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Apostolic Tradition and our deposit of faith does not contradict the Bible, though.

I don’t think anyone is saying it does.

 

[TimONeill]

I cited the clear texts. Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1 which is directly quoted in St. Mark 1:3.

it is. But the idea that it refers to Jesus is your interpretation. Mark 1:1-3 has Isaiah 40:3 as referring to the Baptist and his message of the coming apocalyptic Kingship of God. The idea that line “prepare the way for the Lord” is referring to Jesus is your exegesis - it’s not actually there in the text. In fact, nowhere in that sequence does the Baptist hail Jesus as anything or say anything to him at all.

“Son of Man” refers to Deity, and is cited from Daniel 7:13 (Daniel was a Jew, even a prophet, you see), which is (The Son of God) taken by the angels before the Father.

No Jew, then or now, regards the Son of Man figure as “a deity”. So, again, you are just asserting your Christian theology as though it is in the text when all you are doing is assuming it and pretending it is there. It isn’t. And there are whole shelves of scholarly literature on the meaning of “Son of Man” so for you to blithely state that it means “God” is ludicrous. The Daniel figure is subordinate to the “Ancient of Days” (ie. God) and distinct from him, which fits the synoptics’ idea of Jesus as Messiah perfectly.

You have a misunderstanding of the terms “Son of Man” and “Son of God”.

That’s rich. Both terms were used by Jews to refer to the Messiah, so claiming that it straightforwardly means “God, the Second Person of the Trinity” is patently simplistic. You don’t seem capable of argument - just spouting orthodoxy as though its objective fact. If you can’t actually back your claims with argument with full reference to the complex scholarship on these subjects you are just wasting my time.

 

[TimONeill]

Do you profess a belief in YHVH Elohiym, God, or no?

My beliefs are not relevant here. The issue is what the text does or does not say. Nowhere does gMark say Jesus is God. And the passages you have tried to claim imply this do not - you’re just reading your orthodoxy into them.

 

[TimONeill]

Thank you for your time, though it was a waste of mine.

Translation: “I can’t sustain my faith position with actual reference to the textual evidence and the extensive scholarship on these matters, so I’ll change the subject and declare victory.”

Weak stuff.