- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
We might grant you that gMark does not specifically say, “Jesus is God” anywhere, but that is not to say the writer of gMark isn’t leaving that impression throughout the Gospel.
In the Gospel version of the story of Jesus walking on the sea, like God in Job 9, he intended to “pass them by.”
Immediately [Jesus] made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray. And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out; for they all saw him, and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart, I AM; have no fear.” And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded… (Mark 6:45-52)
The phrase “pass by” occurs in both of the famous theophanies of God to humans in the Old Testament.
When God revealed his identity to Moses, he passes him by and does not let Moses see his face (Exodus 33). When God revealed himself to Elijah, he placed Elijah in a cleft of rock and “passed him by” (1 Kings 19). In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus walks on the sea [something God alone does in the OT] and, like God in Job 9:11, intended to “pass them by.”
When God revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3), he used the sacred name I AM WHO AM. In all three Gospel accounts (Mark 6, John 6 and Matthew 14) where Jesus walks on the water, Jesus uses the words I AM (ego eimi [Greek: ἐγώ εἰµί]) when the disciples call out to him; once again echoing the theophany in Exodus.
I don’t think the case to be made that Jesus is God in the Gospels hinges on one statement of claim, the case is a cumulative one from dozens and dozens of deeds, events and words that unmistakably portray Jesus as saying and doing only what God would or could do in the eyes of the Jews.
In fact, the strongest evidence for the claim is that the Jews had Jesus executed by crucifixion. The charges against him were blasphemy. The blasphemy in question is precisely what the Jews would have considered Jesus to be doing if he claimed himself to be God. Ergo, Jesus must have given the Jewish authorities reason to think that he claimed to be God, or why would they charge him with blasphemy?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fascinating!
Why, then, would Jesus’ assertion have been reacted to by the high priest – as recorded in the Gospels – as ‘blasphemy’? If Jesus wasn’t claiming to be God, in His assertions of what it meant to be the ‘Son of Man’, then why would the chief priest make the accusation of blasphemy?
Keep making that assertion. Keep believing it. Keep refusing to respond to folks who demonstrate it’s not true.
Hope that works for you.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I think there is some first century Jewish writing that does suggest the Messiah might be God himself, but even so, Jesus appears to be addressing what the Jews of his time thought – i.e., the Messiah would be a human being – in his reference to David’s words in Psalm 110.
Jesus seems to be playing with their heads a bit when he asks "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he? (Matthew 22:41-44)
A plausible reading of the question is that Jesus is raising the issue of whether “the Christ” would merely be the son of a man, David, or also the Son of God. The way that Jesus asks the question is perplexing since everyone knew he would be the son of David. So why does Jesus ask the question in the first place?
They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool?”’ If David then called him Lord, how is he his son?” No one was able to answer him a word, neither did any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:41-44)
This is particularly interesting, given that at his trial, Jesus was condemned and charged with blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God – i.e., something more than merely the son of David, Messiah.
The Gospels are clear that the reason why Jesus was executed was because of the claims he made about himself.
John says that Pilate could find no political reason for condemning Jesus, but the Jews had a religious reason for wanting him executed.
So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Behold the man!” When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him.” The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God.” (John 19:5-7)
“He who blasphemes the name of YHWH shall be put to death.” (Leviticus 24:16)
The charge of blasphemy is an historically plausible explanation for why Jesus ends up dead on a cross, when Pilate couldn’t find a political charge against Jesus. It is also a plausible explanation for why his disciples don’t get arrested and are not crucified with him because political revolutionaries would have been dealt with as a group by the Romans, but if the charge was blasphemy then it would only apply to Jesus and not to his followers.
And Jesus wouldn’t have raised the ire of the Jewish leaders merely for claiming to be the Messiah. That would be a fatuous way for the Jews to treat the coming king of Israel – to kill anyone who claimed the title. So, Son of God could not have been merely another term of Messiah, at least not in first century Judaism.
Last edited:
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Thank you for providing the actual title.
L
laylow
Guest
It’s a comment like that, which essentially renders anything else you say going forward sketchy in the eyes any knowledgeable, intelligent scholars. Bart is respected by most Christian apologists and scholars for his knowledge of early Christianity and for his ability to communicate it to both non-scholarly and scholarly audiences. You calling him a joke because I assume you disagree with him and probably his faith stance, shows an extreme bias from one side of the spectrum. It’s essentially a stance based on emotion, for which I can imagine many sheep are ready to meekly follow, without formulating their own opinion by considering the material, based on its own merit. I realize I"m on a Catholic forum, so I do not expect really anything different, but it’s awfully disappointing in a realm of supposed intellectual discussion.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I would think this statement isn’t exactly true. Admittedly, calling Ehrman “a joke” is a bold claim and it does create a huge burden of proof, but to say that, in itself, the statement renders anything else to be “sketchy” is a fallacy.
Our esteemed Mr. O’Neill said precisely the same thing about Richard Carrier.
That doesn’t render everything else he says about Carrier to be “sketchy.” It does put us on alert for bias, but the things he writes to critique Carrier are not to be judged by the statement by itself. They are judged by how provably true each statement is.
Same thing with @ACrosSticks, who has a much higher burden to carry since so few people agree with him, whereas many more would agree with Mr. O’Neill’s critique of Carrier.
How respected he is has very little to do with whether what he says on this point or that is correct, and he does have many critics on many of his claims.
You aren’t claiming that the sheep shouldn’t follow meekly when someone refers to someone else as “a joke,” but they SHOULD follow meekly when that person is spoken of as a “respected scholar,” are you?
M
Mintaka
Guest
Re: the sketchiness of Richard Carrier… Yeah, he’s nothing but sketchy. He’s not even trustworthy in the field he calls his own, the history of science, and even atheist sites keep finding places in his books that are nothing but lies. I might provisionally believe Bart Ehrman if he told me the sky was currently blue, but Richard Carrier would force me to look outside.
The amusing bit is that Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier have been known to feud with each other about each other’s bad scholarship. A great example of the pot calling the kettle black!
The amusing bit is that Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier have been known to feud with each other about each other’s bad scholarship. A great example of the pot calling the kettle black!
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
Of course context is important. Calling someone a joke is inherently an emotional attack on that person, but the context may tell you something about specifically what the attack was attacking. The attack may be on someone’s character, or credentials, etc. However, as you mentioned later in the post, if the person’s credentials being called into question are more universally questioned by respected, knowledgeable people, then the likelihood of those credentials being a “joke” is higher.
Agreed, however, on most of Ehrman’s views on the historicity of early Christianity, he claims them to be the majority held view, except the all important “belief” view. Of course he could be lying, I really haven’t found that to be the case.
No, but I would most likely not read material from people who call well-respected-in-their-field intellectuals a “joke.” I believe the correct approach in reading scholarly material is to read respected scholars on all sides of the spectrum and formulate an opinion of your own, based on your interpretation. Of course, being open to shifting or even changing that opinion is important as well.
L
laylow
Guest
I think Ehrman’s biggest beef with Carrier is that he does not consider his knowledge and views on early Christianity to be on par with scholars who have basically dedicated their entire lives in that specific field. When the ideas are so far outside the norm and you don’t fly within the circles of scholars of the field, your ideas will be rightfully questioned.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Well, you do have that burden if you are trying to convince anyone else of your claim. The fact that Ehrman has many highly educated scholars who agree with him for a variety of non-trivial reasons, means that refuting all of those reasons places a high burden of proof upon you.HarryStotle:
Oh, no, you, as others, misunderstand. I have no burden to prove what is ridiculous or foolish to me, or anyone else who so thinks based upon their own criteria for such an statement.
If you are not interested in convincing anyone except yourself, then okay that burden essentially disappears. If you really don’t care whether or not anyone else gives you a hearing, then you are free to discuss the topic with yourself and be as convincing as you permit yourself to be; roughly depicted as: …based upon whatever happens to be your own criteria for accepting any statement as true.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Probably true, but it is true of everyone including me and you.
In the field of psychology it is called cognitive bias or even pre-cognitive bias, which we all suffer from to one degree or other.
The way around it, however, is not to conclude, to each the bias in their own heart. Rather it is to lay down a compelling case that overcomes the cognitive bias. Truth is very compelling when it is given full rein, and people’s biases generally tend to collapse or dissipate when those biases are made obvious to them.
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
I don’t find him a trusted theologian, but he’s never claimed to be a theologian. He is, however, respected by other historians regarding his knowledge of ancient cultures. I understand why a Catholic would not agree with Bart Ehrman or read him, but he is a respected scholar and Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. I respect his scholarship, but I don’t agree with all he writes.
Last edited:
- Status