I just got home from spending a week in Lawrence Kansas, my home town. As I’ve done now for years, I took my mom fishing in the Ozarks for a few days. She’s 87, and on a walker, but still able to reel them in!
I go back to Lawrence probably three or four times a year, and each time it is like going down memory lane. I left there to go to Moody Bible Institute in 1973, when I was all of 17 years old; I still called it home for years, but never lived there full time, not even in the summers usually. I was married and very much on my own only four years later. So my memories of the place are entirely of childhood through high school. I can’t help reflecting on this, that, and the other thing in my past as I drive around town, remembering doing this thing here, that thing there, and so on.
This time, for some reason, there was an unusually high concentration of “religious” recollections, of my different religious experiences in one place or another. As I’ve said a number of times, I had a born-again experience in high school, when I “asked Jesus into my heart.” I must have been 15 at the time. The odd thing was that I was already a committed church person before that – for my entire life, in fact. I was an acolyte in the Episcopal church from junior high onwards, every week praying to God, confessing my sins, thinking about the salvation brought by Christ, and so on. So looking back, it’s hard to know what really I was thinking when I finally “became a Christian.” What exactly was I before?
But what really struck me this time around, in particular, was this. Most of my family and friends who also became evangelical Christians – at least the ones who have stayed that way – are, naturally, upset and confused about why I left the faith. In their view, the faith I had when I was 16 was the “truth,” and now I have gone over to the way of “error.” I should stress that my mom and I never talk about such things – we both know it would do no good and that we would just both get upset. So instead we talk about basketball, and family, and fishing, and lots of other things – but not religion. Still, I know that she, like the others I knew way back then, think that I used to be right; that I made a terrible mistake when I became a “liberal” Christian in my late-20s; and that I really went off the deep end when I became an agnostic.
But here is what struck me. About what other form of knowledge or belief would we say that it is better that we should think the way we did when we were 16 than the way we think now?
Would we say that our understanding of science was better then? Our understanding of biology or physics or astronomy? Were our views in 1972 better than our views now? Or how about politics? Or philosophy? Would we be better off thinking what we did when we were 16? Or what about our views of sexual relations? Or literature? Or economic investments? Or … Or anything else?
Isn’t it very strange indeed that so many people of faith – not all of them, of course; and arguably not even most of them; but certainly some of them; in fact a *lot* of them in evangelical circles – think that even though they are supposed to grow, and mature, and develop new ideas, and chart new territories, and acquire new knowledge, and change their understandings as they get older in every *other* aspect of their lives, they are supposed to hold on to pretty much the SAME religious views that were satisfying to them as a sixteen year old?
That is one of the things that I find most puzzling and dissatisfying and frustrating about many of the good, concerned, committed evangelical Christians who contact me via email or in person (say, at one of my talks): the views they put forth, in trying to “win me over,” are views that are at the intellectual and spiritual level of sophistication of a 16 year old. They may be successful businessmen, or teachers, or investors, or … name your profession. And in other parts of their lives they may have considerable maturity and sophistication. But when it comes to religious belief, they are still back where they were in 1972. There’s something wrong about that….
I should emphasize that there are lots (and lots) of theologians who are serious scholars, some of them quite brilliant. They obviously do not work with a 16-year-old’s view of religion. They are philosophically astute and intellectually impressive, people like Rowan Williams, Herbert McCabe, Fergus Kerr, and Stanley Hauerwas (they are not all like each other, either). I have no argument with them. My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.
I suspect that many evangelicals never move beyond stage 3 (“Synthetic-Conventional”) of Fowler’s stages of faith development. I also suspect many would stop being evangelical if they did…
I agree with you. Twenty or twenty five years ago, I had an existential faith crisis when I decided that 90% of what I had believed since my youth was pure nonsense. I had to decide what to keep at that point. I have been trying to decide what Jesus truly taught ever since. I think it was all about God’s kingdom on earth. I think the salvation theology came later…after his death. To me, it is pure selfishness….all about “ME” and certainly not about others.
I don’t return to Lawrence often, but, can pinpoint where I began to question the religious teachers. It was in that Nazarene church at about 20th and Massachusetts. I asked if one went to the same hell for lying as for being a murderer. The answer was yes, and even as a 10 yr old, I didn’t believe it. I could not believe in a God who was that unfair.
Yup, I know the church! But it’s no longer Nazarene….
Very well put, Dr. E, as usual.
I think it was Muhammad Ali who said, “A man who is the same at fifty as he was at twenty wasted thirty years.”
I often think about when I was a child and believed in Santa Claus. I truly believed and everyone I trusted and respected also seemed to believe as well. It was not questioned. (I actually even remember having seen his footprints in the snow on Christmas morning…probably just my imagination…) Then when I got older and began to hear that Santa was just a figment of my imagination I was very indignant and would not believe it….eventually I realized it was all just for fun and really was not true. But my belief had been absolute! No one ever suggests that we should go back to this childhood belief. What a perfect parallel to what you are describing above.
The bible says you should have faith like a child ~ when you think about it you realize that a child’s faith exists because that child has not yet learned to question what he/she was taught to believe. Not a good thing.
I was recently pondering how the major religions, although they may all claim uniqueness, all share this in common: you are supposed to rely on God’s message that he gave to certain people many centuries ago, and if you question what was said the problem is with you, not with what the ancients said. Even when what the ancients said is demonstrably in error. So, check your brains at the door – you really won’t need them any more, and if yo do use your brain, then you’re a tool of Satan (or so I was recently told).
“I was recently pondering how the major religions, although they may all claim uniqueness, all share this in common: you are supposed to rely on God’s message that he gave to certain people many centuries ago, and if you question what was said the problem is with you, not with what the ancients said. Even when what the ancients said is demonstrably in error. So, check your brains at the door – you really won’t need them any more, and if yo do use your brain, then you’re a tool of Satan (or so I was recently told).”
Where does Christ say that?
Well, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever *said in an apologetic voice with cheezy reverb*
“Child-like” faith is not limited to evangelicals. When I was a Lutheran minister (and a believer) I was oft disheartened in realizing that most (not all but certainly most) of my parishioners had the spiritual understanding of a 13-year-old. That’s the traditional age with most were confirmed…and it also marked the end of their Christian education.
Good point!
Would you explain the differences between the spiritual understanding of a 13 year old and a 17 year old?
There is about four years of spiritual growth between the two.
Thanks so much for sharing this with us. I struggle, really struggle, with the same question. After decades of struggle, here is my current two cents worth:
1. I have become very attached to the scientific method where old theories are constantly discarded for new ones as the evidence warrants. For many, faith is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths. So, the epistemology is different, much different.
2. The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence. So, a discounting of any contrary evidence results. It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?
Excellent points!
RonaldTaska June 2, 2014
Thanks so much for sharing this with us. I struggle, really struggle, with the same question. After decades of struggle, here is my current two cents worth:
1. I have become very attached to the scientific method where old theories are constantly discarded for new ones as the evidence warrants. For many, faith is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths. So, the epistemology is different, much different.
2. The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence. So, a discounting of any contrary evidence results. It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?
Bart Ehrman June 2, 2014
Excellent points!
“What are facts and evidence compared to that?”
Odd. I don’t know christians who are unconcerned with truth and facts. Why do some believe that many christians are less than non-believers intellectually or less interested in the profound questions of life?
“For many, faith is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths.”
I know many who needed to be and were convinced through evidence that overwhelming and significant reasons prove god is.
“The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence.”
In a heartbeat. The demands of discipleship are so rigorous that many would be relieved to shed the whole shebang.
It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?
Facts and evidence. There’s no comfort believing something that isn’t true
“Thanks so much for sharing this with us. I struggle, really struggle, with the same question. After decades of struggle, here is my current two cents worth: 1. I have become very attached to the scientific method where old theories are constantly discarded for new ones as the evidence warrants…”
The same thing happens with theories explaining how the bible is meant to be interpreted-they come and go.
“2. The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence. So, a discounting of any contrary evidence results. It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?”
What is wrong with a sense of comfort and community, a sense of certainty, and mutual appreciation of one another? It should be comforting to know Something is out there and that we will live forever. It should be unbelievably wonderful to know that the most powerful force in the universe is on our side! Dr. Bart, he started it! I’m not trying to preach! I am agreeing with him. His argument isn’t against those things, per se, if I understand him. He believes that those who hold those ideas to be true, do so only because it feels so good. He implies none of those kinds of things is true, therefore, one sacrifices truth for warm fuzzies. I imagine some do that. But even “the book” that makes those claims, also commands his followers to love this force with all their minds, too.
“For many, disbelief is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths.” ?
Beautiful post. And so true.
I’ve often wondered; do any of your family or old friends ever read your books/blog or attend your lectures? If so, hasn’t at least one ever been inspired to break their minds out of captivity?
Are the youngins’ in the family–hope for the new generation–allowed to read Uncle Bart’s books, or are they banned like heretical scripture?
I’m also wondering….what kind of fish did Mom catch?
Yes, my family members have read some of my books, and my mom has heard me lecture a number of times. But none has been persuaded yet! (Although some of my relatives are now agnostics. I don’t think I had anything to do with it).
Trout!!
HI Bart,
I understand where you are coming from and I too, often find it surprising that it seem people are willing to challenge almost any and all aspects of life except for their own personal religious beliefs.
However, I believe there is much more involved here than just an intellectual exercise of changing personal religious beliefs. If someone was willing to do this, then they would have to be willing to face the following potential consequences.
For some, the fear of God’s retribution, if, in fact, they were wrong. The issue of loneliness and the potential loss of church family, church friends and church support, once they changed their beliefs. The concern about not knowing what to believe in and how to determine what is right and wrong, once they changed their beliefs.
Given all this, I suspect, that for some people at least, the tradeoff here just isn’t worth it and as a result, they opt to continue to stick with their 16 year old beliefs.
Would you agree?
John
In a lot of cases, I agree!
“I understand where you are coming from and I too, often find it surprising that it seem people are willing to challenge almost any and all aspects of life except for their own personal religious beliefs.” JBSeth1
Can you explain why it is that you believe some people are unwilling to challenge their own personal religious beliefs? How did you reach that conclusion?
What we find on this blog is essentially limitless criticism of all things “religious”. Which is fine, if that was the stated purpose of the blog. If so, go for it. By all means. What seems beneath Dr. Bart’s integrity is the hypocrisy. Extra care is taken to weed out comments that some might consider “devotional” in nature, when the deluge of negative comments about christians, christianity, the church, religion, the writers of the n.t. drown almost every page. If the topic is “historical, textual criticism”, and that is my understanding, it is disappointing indeed to see the vast majority of commenters criticizing the list above, and other posters with differing points of view, not the “textual” kind. Apparently, tell me if I’m wrong, unless one trashes christianity, that person really cannot be educated, cultured, intelligent, well-read, scholarly, open-minded, interested in truth, etc. “Believe as we do”, the message is clear, or “you are worthless”. Many here have seemingly “evolved” into the very essence of the people they so despise: those religious fundamentalists, the radical, know-it-all, self righteous and utterly repulsive boobs.
I might add, I wouldn’t defend “the church” they detest, either. Yet, the fact is, there are millions of good, honest, intelligent, hard working, educated, loving, compassionate, dedicated followers of his around the world, who don’t grab headlines or make the news. I shouldn’t have to remind anyone. I am most disappointed that. Dr. Bart is exceptional, a genius and a good guy, and I fear the balance of the content of this blog has become something other than what truly represents what he is about, who he is.
I’m afraid I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t know of limitless criticism of religion on this blog — certainly not by me. As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not opposed to religion, only to certain kinds of fundamentalism. If anyone feels their religoin is under attack, I don’t think their feelings are well placed — unless they are themselves hold to a fundamentalist form of religion (Islam/Christianity/whatever).
As to weeding out your devotional comments, you probably know that there are over 3000 people on this blog, and of all of them you have had more comments posted over the past month than anyone! But I would prefer that you stick to historical issues rather than using comments to profess your religious faith.
As happens too often, I said what I didn’t mean and meant what I didn’t say. You are not the one criticizing. Not at all. You are extraordinarily fair in your comments to all sides.
I really do think you are misreading what people are saying. No one is attacking religion and no one is here to denigrate the church. We are just trying to educate ourselves about early Christianity.
I often puzzle over the same issue. Of course, very few of these Christians you are referring would see themselves checking their intelligence at the door when it comes to matters of religious faith. It is a truism that the moment someone thinks his religious worldview is stupid or crazy, he would promptly stop believing in it. Religious people do what they think makes sense to them. I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview. Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.
Although church life is not and is never meant to be like academia, the disconnection between teachings provided in sermons and Bible studies groups on one hand, and biblical scholarship on the other, contributes to very naive attitudes to the Bible, hence naive theology. The issue isn’t about lack of intelligence, as you noted. It is just that the laity is not exposed to discoveries in scholarship that are the result of cumulative efforts over generations by full-time scholars. The attitude towards the Bible among fundamentalists would have been the position of many of society’s elite and intelligentsia for centuries in the pre-modern era. For Protestant fundamentalism, the biggest problem is an attitude towards the Bible that is out of touch with scholarship. For Catholic conservatives, other factors are at work besides attitude towards the Bible.
The life of a church community can stifle critical thinking – when the hundreds of people from all walks of life you met and converse with in a church think like yourself, believe the same things, you have no reason to suspect your perspective is in any way defective or naive. Church life can do much social good, by providing mutual support and sense of community, but the downside is it generates powerful psychological and sociological pressures in reinforcing a narrow worldview.
Then there are organisations staffed by smooth-talking fundamentalists, actively promoting scientific falsehoods e.g. creationist organisations.
I am not sure American religious life would be for the better if more lay Christians attempt to engage with rational arguments – if this means imitating apologists the likes of James White, Dinesh D’Souza. They will end up being argumentative and promoting a vocal fundamentalist form of religion.
Between different Christian circles, there are polarised conceptions of “faith” – some view it as belief despite the evidence or despite the lack of evidence (the stronger the evidence against belief, the deeper faith needs to be), while others (particularly the vocal Christian apologists) insist faith is to believe based on evidence.
It would be interesting to examine the attitudes of people of non-Christian religions, to see whether there is a perception from the secular academic world that religious people tend to be rather intellectually naive when it comes to religious matters, despite their professional achievements in other fields of life.
“I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview. Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.”
Would you clarify what an, “infantile religious worldview” is?
prestonp: Email me on [email protected] for a response to your question. Hon Wai
prestonp August 24, 2014
“I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview. Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.”
Would you clarify what an, “infantile religious worldview” is?
It appears to be the one you are holding.
“The life of a church community can stifle critical thinking – when the hundreds of people from all walks of life you met and converse with in a church think like yourself, believe the same things, you have no reason to suspect your perspective is in any way defective or naive. Church life can do much social good, by providing mutual support and sense of community, but the downside is it generates powerful psychological and sociological pressures in reinforcing a narrow worldview.
Then there are organisations staffed by smooth-talking fundamentalists, actively promoting scientific falsehoods e.g. creationist organisations.” hwl
“Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.”
How do you know they use personal religious experience as vindication for their religious worldview? How do you know what discourages thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system?
Dear Bart,
Thank you for sharing this with us. (And it’s good to hear your mom is still fishing!)
As a bit of an outsider to the whole Christian experience, and I mean no disrespect, but it All seems a little juvenile, including the views of the extremely bright and deep and articulate and scholarly Rowan Williams, whose lectures online I’ve listened to a number of times. And I’m just thinking of his talks on the resurrection at the moment, but I just remember thinking at the time, “how can such an extraordinarily intellectually gifted man really believe what he saying”?
I had similar thoughts as that last one when I was 16 too. But, that did not stop me from trying to get through my depression as a 19 year old sophomore at Michigan State University, by finally taking the medicine suggested by the friendly evangelists in my dorm, the same you took: pray for Jesus to enter my heart. I laid in my bunk, cleared my head of disbelief, repeated the mantra for a long time and with real sincerity, and then had an extraordinary out of body experience! (Well, it seemed extraordinary at the time.)
I reported the results to the nice Christian guy, and he said yes, that’s it, that’s God, or Jesus. I said okay, if you say so, but, hmmmm, I don’t really know. He said now pray for forgiveness of my sins. Then I got stuck because I couldn’t understand what he meant, or his explanation, though I think I tried it a couple of times, but without “results”. So, there ended my dalliance with Christianity.
If you feel it is not inappropriate, would you someday share with us what it meant or felt like for you to have Jesus in your heart when you were 16? Thank you, Tracy
For me, at the time, it felt like an enormous relief, a lifting of burden, a sense of connecting with the universe in a way I never had before. Very powerful!
Very cool! (And I don’t mean that to sound trivializing.) So now I have to ask, to *what* do you attribute that experience now? (Now that you are agnostic/atheist). If you don’t mind my asking…
I think most internal experiences and sensations are driven by psychological needs, sometimes deep ones.
TracyCramer June 3, 2014
Very cool! (And I don’t mean that to sound trivializing.) So now I have to ask, to *what* do you attribute that experience now? (Now that you are agnostic/atheist). If you don’t mind my asking…
“I think most internal experiences and sensations are driven by psychological needs, sometimes deep ones.” Dr. Bart.
As a result of our psychological needs, sometimes deep ones, are we better off ignoring them than to succumb to a “religious experience” to meet those needs? Are those needs to be ignored? Are they unhealthy? Do they leave us vulnerable to self-deception or self-destructive and harmful behavior? Is “religion” a substitute for addressing those needs in a mature fashion?
No, I’m not saying that one should go in a direction other than the one they feel deeply drawn to take. But they should question where they are going, all the time. You don’t want to step into a rut. Or a cliff.
“No, I’m not saying that one should go in a direction other than the one they feel deeply drawn to take. But they should question where they are going, all the time. You don’t want to step into a rut. Or a cliff.” Dr. Bart
In your case you fell in love and so did those who met him because of this love. So, it seems that your deep needs were more than satisfied with the internal experiences of god, far from being injured by stepping into a rut?
Fascinating post.
The good news is that conservative evangelical’s influence and numbers are declining. Molly Worthen, also of UNC, just wrote an interesting article on it:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/did-the-southern-baptist-conservative-resurgence-fail.html
Interesting article! Thanks!
Not in china.
If christianity disappeared from the face of the earth today, the message of its god remains in print and others can find and follow him. Remember, almost no one followed him at first. He was a nobody, a nothing. No money, no political power, no status, no degreed education, no military power, no written communications, and he was murdered. From that origin he has become the most influential person in history.
I went from being a Christian to being a Biblical literalist Christian when I was 16. That was what I had been told “good people” were. Fortunately, I saw that there were good, caring people who were not Biblical literalists, and so I did not cling to my religious conservatism. I’ve long since been a secular humanist. Perhaps the most convincing argument for humanism is to be caring to other people. Thanks for your good post and for your good blog, Bart.
Whether it’s fear of hell or desire for a supernatural love and truth to be in charge of the universe, the most sophisticated Christians I’ve known stand on an idea that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The idea of hell rests on a lack of love or a justice that exceeds love and isn’t all that just. The universe is full of suffering, not all of which is building character.
It’s like people whose knowledge of economics begins and ends with the gold standard. If one’s beliefs regarding an entire section of life are based on a childish oversimplification, one will never grow beyond that. One will remain vulnerable to whatever silliness one’s peer group is pushing, like climate change denial.
I’m not sure how the best expert in human behavior would see this, but it seems like a fundamental trap for the human mind, to be stuck in childish simplicity at the core of one’s beliefs, rejecting any knowledge that would free one from such childishness.
“…the most sophisticated Christians I’ve known stand on an idea that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.”
Because they believe in the idea of hell. I believed in hell before I heard the gospel.
“The idea of hell rests on a lack of love or a justice that exceeds love and isn’t all that just.”
What does holy mean?
“I’m not sure how the best expert in human behavior would see this, but it seems like a fundamental trap for the human mind, to be stuck in childish simplicity at the core of one’s beliefs, rejecting any knowledge that would free one from such childishness.”
It is a fundamental trap to believe that what’s most important in life necessarily must be complex.
Hmm. I remember that when I was a *child*, I understood perfectly well why children went to church on Sunday: because adults were forcing us to. I couldn’t for the life of me understand why *adults* went to church, when *no one* was forcing them!
But…yep, I was 16 when that priest gave our senior class (I was the youngest) “reasons” for accepting the doctrines, and I was briefly convinced. It was all intellectual, though. I still find it hard to understand people’s either embracing a religion, or rejecting it, for emotional reasons, and thinking that’s somehow *better* than relying on one’s intellect. In what other area of life would they think *that* was desirable?
Say, I’m delighted your mother is still enjoying those fishing trips! I hope you’ll share many more.
Makes me think…the new Catholic bishop was recently installed here. He’s 65, and both his parents were able to attend the ceremonies. Wonderful.
Perhaps one of the biggest reasons people remain at a 16 year-old level in religion, is that they have never actually read the entire Bible.
“Perhaps” reading the entire bible inspired many to become devout, well-informed christians. Apparently, some are attached to a profound misconception: that if a person questions her faith, if she challenges her own thinking process, if she looks carefully at the world, she will choose not to follow Christ.
I don’t know if you really want comment… or ….if you were just venting. In either case, here’s my two cents…
Many people probably have the religious sophistication of a 16 year old for the same reasons they have the math, English and science skills of a 16 year old. Lack of aptitude, interest and/or need. What they know is all they need for their field and they just don’t have interest or ability to go further. Also, prejudices and beliefs acquired in childhood are probably some of the most difficult to overcome since they become almost “hardwired” into the brain during those developmental years.
…. and now my venting…
My frustration is the general attitude towards “faith”, that it is something one can just choose to have. I went to Catholic schools up until my senior year of high school. The nuns taught me that the definition of faith was “the acceptance of something as true without proof”. I have come to the opinion that saying or acting like one believes something or just choosing to believe something does not mean that down deep inside one really believes it. It’s not ones fault if one doesn’t believe something that can’t be proved. I am frustrated by those individuals that treat people of different (or no) belief with contempt and try to force their belief system on them.
I AGREE!!!! We have brains/intelligence for a reason. We learn how to use our minds to make smart choices, to analyze data and determine the best course for ourselves. My grandfather, who passed away in the early 80’s, did not believe that we ever but a person on the moon. He saw it on TV, read about it in the paper, all his family believed it, but he did not. But he believed every word in the Bible, verbatim. I adored my Grandpa – i’m sitting in front of a photo of him now – and would never do or say anything to demean his memory. But he lived and believed based on a whole different knowledge base than we have today. I can understand him falling under the sway of the Good Book. I cannot understand my coworkers, who are in their 30’s and 40’s, falling for it. And the regularly tell me that, while i’m the nicest person they know, i’m going to Hell for not believing too. I say, “and how does that make you feel about your God, that he would send a perfectly nice normal person to Hell just for not believing his unbelievable story?” and they are fine with it… whatever… i can’t make myself believe it, and i’ve finally come to peace with that.
“We have brains/intelligence for a reason. We learn how to use our minds to make smart choices, to analyze data and determine the best course for ourselves.”
You refuse to demean Grandpa’s memory, but he believed like your coworkers do and they believe in hell for the nicest people.
“The nuns taught me that the definition of faith was “the acceptance of something as true without proof”.”
Where did you go to catholic school? That isn’t the definition of faith taught by anyone I know.
Dr. Ehrman: I have thought about this issue a lot, and I assume that the religious thoughts and traditions in your area of Kansas and North Carolina are similar to that of southern Kentucky. I think, in the case of religion, the concepts of ” the preacher says it’, and “I was raised that way” are anchors in their lives that give them a sense of comfort and security. Bacause it is religion, and their concept of it comes from the Bible which was written thousands of years previously, nothing else(scholarship, discoveries, or critical thinking) since then can make any difference in their understanding. If they allowed any modification to their anchor beliefs, it would tend to undercut their beliefs. For many, religion is unique in human understanding, in that it is absolute and does not allow scholarship or critical thinking
“For many, religion is unique in human understanding, in that it is absolute and does not allow scholarship or critical thinking.”
How many, would you estimate, are religious and embrace scholarship and critical thinking?
3? 6? 19?
“Bacause it is religion, and their concept of it comes from the Bible which was written thousands of years previously, nothing else(scholarship, discoveries, or critical thinking) since then can make any difference in their understanding. If they allowed any modification to their anchor beliefs, it would tend to undercut their beliefs. For many, religion is unique in human understanding, in that it is absolute and does not allow scholarship or critical thinking”
Religion doesn’t allow scholarship? Provide examples where christianity rejects scholarship, please
Changing my views on chemistry, or investments doesn’t really affect the way I live. But changing my reliegious views has rocked my world. Like you I was a committed believer with a very literal interpretation of scripture until I couldn’t reconcile the religious world view with the real world as I experienced it. Adam and Eve verses evolution for example. Your scholarship on the New Testatment has been a true revelation. What I’ve always wanted to ask you is if you have (or had) the same feelings of massive betrayal that I’ve felt. I know that my parents thought they were teaching me the truth and have no fault in this but realizing that I have been mislead for 40 years by people that I trusted to tell me the truth has left me angry and embarrassed that I couldn’t see what seems obvious now. Has that been an issue you’ve dealt with?
Not so much with my family as with the fellow who “led me to Christ,” and to some extent with my training at Moody Bible Institute. On the other hand, if none of that had happened, I would not have had the life and career I’ve had. So how can I really complain??
When I became a believer, my family rejected and mocked me for the rest of their lives (except dad who found god just before he went to the next dimension. He was a saul of tarsus until then. For 30 years whenever he had the chance, he pummeled me with insults and disgust.)
I have given this question much thought over the years as I have traveled a similar path, but much later in life. I think the short answer for most is two fold. First there is fear. Fear of eternal damnation. Second, and I think the most powerful is loss of community in all its aspects. Church becomes ones life. To lose it is to lose your history, in a way. And in the evangical community, there is no maturing beyond the basic doctrinal standards. Unless you think moving those standards into the political community is progress. This is a very puzzling question, but only if you ponder it from outside the fold.
When I lost my faith at twenty, I had a hard time deciding what was right and what was wrong. Thank goodness I was an engineer and could fall back on science for certain truths but others were a real struggle.
It is very scary to “step out of the boat” with no idea of whether you will sink or swim, no idea of what lies on the other side.
“When I lost my faith at twenty…”
Let me make a suggestion, if you don’t mind. Perhaps instead of losing your faith, you gave it away. To be a true follower of Christ, life will be grueling at times, even brutal, It is less painful to give up.
I don’t know if I have ever heard a former christian admit she preferred indulging in the pleasures of the flesh, yielding to the attractions of our world and was swayed by a slick, deceiving con artist.
“When I lost my faith at twenty, I had a hard time deciding what was right and what was wrong. Thank goodness I was an engineer and could fall back on science for certain truths but others were a real struggle.”
“Biologists’ investigation
of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable
complexity of the arrangements needed to produce life,
that intelligence must have been involved” (p. 123).
Andrew Flew
World renown former atheist
Thanks for the thoughtful post. Your reflection reminded me of what Karen Armstrong says in her book “The Case for God” regarding how our ideas about Santa Claus and God change (or not) over time:
“We learned about God at about the same time as we were told about Santa Claus. But while our understanding of the Santa Claus phenomenon evolved and matured, our theology remained somewhat infantile. Not surprisingly, when we attained intellectual maturity, many of us rejected that God that we had inherited and denied that he existed.”
Here, she’s suggesting that as we develop cognitively and emotionally, some of us are unable to square the intellectual propositions foisted on us by the more conservative elements of our religious traditions (“If you appeal to your God as a personal God, he will intervene to save you from personal disaster”) with our own maturing understanding of the non-black-and-whiteness of the world (“Even if you appeal to God as a personal God, tragedy may still strike”). One response is agnosticism/atheism – that is, a rejection of that official, received version of God. But the other response, as exemplified by evangelical family/friends/detractors you wrote about, is fundamentalism — a desperate clinging to an immature, literalist, absolutist version of God.
This is why even as an agnostic, I can relate to the liberal Christians you mention in the opening to the last chapter of “How Jesus Became God.” While these Christians don’t believe in the theological propositions laid out in the Nicene Creed or even understand the nuances inherent in each statement, I don’t see their regular church attendance or continued identification as Christians as necessarily inconsistent with their lack of belief. As many thoughtful theologians have pointed out (Harvey Cox immediately comes to mind), there is a difference between “faith” IN Jesus’s message and “belief” in propositions ABOUT Jesus. You can have faith in Jesus’s call for a world of social justice and participate in bringing about “the Kingdom of God” he preached about without subscribing to doctrinal beliefs about Jesus, which are bound up in the time and place in which they first emerged. To paraphrase Armstrong, if intellectual assent to the doctrine of the Trinity somehow helps you become a better (i.e., more compassionate/empathetic) person, then there’s absolutely no harm in it. But if your insistence on the literal truth of the “Divine Triad” just makes you unproductively combative, then how exactly are you making straight the way for God’s kingdom of social justice?
I had a similar experience to you. I am an agnostic/cultural Christian (I attend a liberal Anglican church because I like choir music and it functions as my social life). For a while I attended a very fundamentalist bible study with a few engineers (like myself), scientists, and other university educated young adults. All of them were fundamentalist. I have talked with some of them individually, I have even lent them some of my books (technically speaking, some of them are your books as well), despite this they still stick to the idea that the bible is inerrant, continuous, and 100% historically and scientifically accurate despite the evidence that is in plain sight. From what I have gathered from speaking with them, I think the whole issue lies with the fact that they do not want to leave their “16-year-old” faith. I think this mindset has to do with emotional security and emotional.
(The following is just my own speculation, each case will be different, but this is a general trend that I see)
When people have a born again experience , as I am sure you know, there is a lot of emotion and a lot of hype at that moment (I never had one even though I was an evangelical fundamentalist until I was 21, it probably has to do with the fact that I have high functioning autism and don’t really do the whole “emotional” thing). The born again moment for them in genuine, and that is when they “knew” Jesus . The time when they “knew” Jesus the best and the most clearly, was when they had the knowledge and intellectual capacity of a 16-year-old. The Jesus that they experienced at a concert, revival, or youth group was built on their 16-year-old understanding of who Jesus was and how he interacted with the world. They had trust and faith in the Jesus that they “knew” when they “felt” him. I was told by a girl attending my group “The Jesus I knew then has to be the same Jesus I know now, I felt him move in my life, and I felt him change me”.
It seems that they don’t want to change the Jesus they had. Accepting the historical and scientific facts could drastically change that Jesus that they knew at 16. It could get very messy, everyone in evangelical circles has heard the horror stories of the ones who go to a secular college and lose their faith because they questioned the fundamental principles (At the bottom I have linked a picture given to me before I left for university with the words “Don’t take that first step”) . If they accept something as simple as the fact that the bible has mistakes, or the fact that we don’t know that Jesus said everything in the red letters, that doesn’t just change the interesting historical portrait of the life of Jesus, it changes the Jesus that they knew, felt, and loved. If that Jesus changes, then what do you happens? Do you accept that your understanding of Jesus when you “met” him was flawed and attempt to restructure the very foundations of your faith, completely reforming the fundamental building blocks and deal with the subsequent change in world view? Or do you stay with what you first felt, keeping the foundations of your faith and maintain your core moral and ethical beliefs, your world view, and your emotional support/spiritual guidance? One is clearly easier, safer, and more secure. For those of us who go rogue (that is to say become a liberal Christian or *gasp* an agnostic/atheist), I think it is the acceptance of the former that forces us to grow and change. For the ones who stick to their first “16-year-old” experience, they can keep going on as it was before, biblical archaeology, textual criticism, evolutionary biology and the likes are interesting but have almost no effect of their day to day lives. They can keep the comfortable belief, the support, the community, the certainty and the security that comes with the “faith like a child” (I know that is taken out of context).
Before I left my group, they asked me why I changed my views to fit with the new body of knowledge I discovered rather than keeping the faith. In a very tongue and cheek manner I quoted Paul saying
“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.” (needless to say, they were not very impressed with my quotation)
As for the family and friends who are confused and upset. I think that has something to do with the whole “us against the fallen world” mentality that comes with evangelicalism. When I was still in the church, I remember them talking about two students who were with them. They told me about how they had “fallen” to the lure and seduction of “darkside”. Their change of world view was always attributed to sin, temptation, and the seduction of “the ways of this world”, it was never seen as an intellectual reform, a sincere search that ended for answers, or a legitimate problem with the way fundamentalism addresses science, history, and politics. My reasons for leaving the faith were completely intellectual and had nothing to do with passions, lust, or sin, however the emails I keep getting from them seem to presuppose devious and deceitful intentions. I think the problem with mentality is they “know” they have the right answer, so if you are at a different stage, it couldn’t have been from a search for understanding, it had to be from a corruption of truth (but I really haven’t researched this enough to know for certain)
Anyway, those are my thoughts, kindest regards,
Jonathan
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y0VaBITxb5k/T1d_UaxxtrI/AAAAAAAADW0/EhjmVp2VABA/s1600/descent.jpg
Thanks for bearing your soul to us about the experiences of going home. It struck a chord with me because it has been challenging taking the other side of religion. People in general are not willing to listen to any view about their religion that they do not agree with. It is like trying to convince a Republican that Obama really is a good guy. It is a fruitless exercise. So, too, is trying to reveal information that might take them out of their 16 year old mind set. But we call it a “mind set” because that is exactly what it is—my mind is set on these ideas and no one can change them, and if one tries, then it is considered the work of the devil or the dark side or whatever they want to call it. I have a Jehovah Witness brother who has not seen the light of day in 40 some years….he is so imbued with what he believes that he cannot entertain another idea. He has a Jehovah Witness mentality and it mirrors any cult religion I know. But your point about growing intellectually in all aspects of one’s knowledge is a good one. Those who choose to learn more about any given avenue of knowledge are going to change their understanding of the given knowledge studied, but so many people abate their learning that they become entrenched in a kind of fairy land of existence, never really understanding anything, must less the complexities of religion.
“But your point about growing intellectually in all aspects of one’s knowledge is a good one. Those who choose to learn more about any given avenue of knowledge are going to change their understanding of the given knowledge studied…”
Right you are,
“atheists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that “onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist.”1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”3
In Flew’s own words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.”4 According to Flew, “…it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.”2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology.”
by Rich Deem
I hear you, Dr. Ehrman, and I think there are many of us. I was a devout and active evangelical who had a slow and painful “de-conversion” experience while doing graduate work in philosophy at UVA. I could no longer, with integrity, sustain belief in light of the logical inconsistencies, factual errors, and moral problems in the Bible. Moreover, I felt I owed an explanation to friends and family for why I was leaving the faith to be agnostic and so I gave it, leading to a social rending that followed the intellectual one. To some degree this rift continues to the present but, as you’ve noted, religion often becomes an unmentioned feature in the landscape for the sake of peace. In any event, new births of any kind can be painful but they can also lead to new places of happiness, for which I’m grateful.
I’ve had discussions over the years with a friend (who’s traveled a similar path) about how to reconcile and weave together our very different early and later lives. Like you, I’ve come to see that were it not for that very different early environment I would not have come to be where I am and who I am today. New wine in old wineskins, I think (despite Jesus’ reported words to the contrary). Our stories and their meanings are always changing, it seems, and we incorporate old truths and experiences in new ways, just as Jesus and Paul did with the Jewish prophets.
To your point, though, I think many hold to their child-like religious formulations because of the enormous role that the worldview/group myth of one’s kith and kin play in forming and maintaining one’s identity and in providing social cohesion. In ironic obedience to Jesus’ command to leave behind old, traditional social ties for the sake of truth, we who have made an intellectual exodus from the thinking and community of our youth have untied one of the strongest cords used to bind (“religare”) people together internally and to each other–religion. This is a risky thing for a person to do–and even more for an entire culture to do. But, as you say, how can we stay stuck in our 16th year–or in the first century? I don’t regret the migration and have no plans to go back but I do sometimes feel nostalgic for the old country.
In any event, I’m new here and not sure where to ask this or if you’ve already posted about this (I can’t see it anywhere), but what do you think about these metal plates?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1371290/70-metal-books-Jordan-cave-change-view-Biblical-history.html
Jeff
The metal plates have been shown to be forgeries.
Thanks, I see that now. http://www.livescience.com/13657-exclusive-early-christian-lead-codices-called-fakes.html. Not sure why it keeps circulating. I see the Mormons were intrigued.
To your point, though, I think many hold to their child-like religious formulations because of the enormous role that the worldview/group myth of one’s kith and kin play in forming and maintaining one’s identity and in providing social cohesion. In ironic obedience to Jesus’ command to leave behind old, traditional social ties for the sake of truth, we who have made an intellectual exodus from the thinking and community of our youth have untied one of the strongest cords used to bind (“religare”) people together internally and to each other–religion. This is a risky thing for a person to do–and even more for an entire culture to do. But, as you say, how can we stay stuck in our 16th year–or in the first century? I don’t regret the migration and have no plans to go back but I do sometimes feel nostalgic for the old country.
I think you are wrong.
“I could no longer, with integrity, sustain belief in light of the logical inconsistencies, factual errors, and moral problems in the Bible.”
“…logical inconsistencies, factual errors, and moral problems in the Bible.”
For example?
Hey, since you’re kind of on the subject, what exactly is being “borne again?” From what I thought I understood, in Greek, in John 3:7, Jesus uses a sort of double entendre, where the phase “borne again” also means “borne from above”. And the joke is that Nicodemus, doesn’t get that Jesus means from above, but that he is supposed to literally reascend from his mothers womb?
So, how do “borne again” evangelicals understand the phrase. Is seems that in the context they use the term, and how the describe it, they literally mean reborn, but in spirit, or something like that.
In short, do they misuse the term??
Are you asking what “born again” means in the passage in John? There Jesus means that you have to be born from the heavenly realm in the spirit if you hope to see eternal life. The emphasis is not when (“again”) but where (“from above”).
How about fashion? I wish I could dress the way I did when I was 16. That wouldn’t fly now…
DR EHRMAN:
I still believe what I first believed when i was 20 years old: That God raised Jesus Christ from the dead! This is what attracted me to Jesus. I was lost, empty and slave of sin. When I heard for the first time that God had raised a man from the dead, I thought, this is the greatest thing I’ve ever heard, but surely this has to be a fairy tale. I began reading the new Testament and after reading for about a year or so I came to the conclusion that Jesus’ resurrection was indeed true and I received Him by faith. This was 42 years ago and although today I don’t believe that all the books in the bible are inspired by God I do believe that many of the books in our canon were inspired by God himself but men have altered and perverted the originals. Among the collection of the inspired books and letters we possess, Some have been altered more than others. Still however there’s no way to alter what the message of the apostles concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead with body and spirit means, and there’s absolutely no way to alter what the statement, “God is Love”, means! You may not believe it but you can’t alter it ! It is what it is, believe it or not!
it sounds like your just following the religion you fell into. everything you said could easily be parroted by a muslim. it annoys me when people treat there own religion as special but disrespect other faiths.
yes religion has a way of preventing one from thinking to much. i suppose people have the same biases in other areas of life. for example i know many very intelligent agnostics who have very silly socialist attitudes about economics which almost no economist worth there salt would even slightly agree with
This time, for some reason, there was an unusually high concentration of “religious” recollections, of my different religious experiences in one place or another. Dr. Ehrman
Tell us more about those religious experiences you had, if you would.. Sounds as if they were significant, powerful and deep. In fact, you began to make adult kinds of decisions that would inform the rest of your life as a result of what took place at that time: to go to Moody, which led to Wheaton and on to Princeton. All were all born out of what occurred then, as a young man in your youth (beginning at 15!) Whatever it was, it was unique to you, substantial and had nothing to do with the way you had been praying, reading or confessing your sins, did it? Did you change? Your memories that surfaced had nothing to do with doctrine, dispensations, or attending church services, I bet. You had “religious experiences.” You didn’t have them before you, “asked Jesus into my heart” did you? Memories of how you viewed your friends, your enemies, your family, you, strangers, God, differently? With love gushing from your heart, the way the sunlight seemed to caress the trees, did the air smell different, pure?
Maybe I will some time!
“But here is what struck me. About what other form of knowledge or belief would we say that it is better that we should think the way we did when we were 16 than the way we think now?”
When he was a kid, he blew the minds of older folks with his understanding of spiritual matters, and he never went to school. No biblical mandate that one should remain satisfied with her level of understanding at any age. Remember milk to meat and studying always to be approved. Dr. Ehrman, looking back, you wonder aloud what was it, actually, that was different for you after your religious experience. I think your memories yield truth. I think your memories refresh what was happening In your Heart, In You. Those things, whatever they stem from, were so important that they created within your gut a burning desire for spiritual understanding, and biblical truth, for god himself. You prayed, sincerely, for Christ to enter your heart and he did, at least it seems like it from what you say. If you had prayed for Julius Caesar to enter your life, would you have had such recollections visiting Lawrence? Your love for others, for everybody really, especially the needy, rat on you.
The Telegraph on Rowan Williams
By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor
7:49PM BST 02 Jul 2014
(I don’t know if I’m allowed to quote others or not.)
John Shelby Spong once accused Williams of being a ‘neo-medievalist’, preaching orthodoxy to the people in the pew but knowing in private that it is not true. In an interview with Third Way Magazine Williams responded: “I am genuinely a lot more conservative than he would like me to be. Take the Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know what all the reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I talk about the risen body I must mean something other than the empty tomb. But I don’t. I don’t know how to persuade him, but I really don’t.”
and
“Over the years increasing exposure to and engagement with the Buddhist world in particular has made me aware of practices not unlike the ‘Jesus Prayer’ and introduced me to disciplines that further enforce the stillness and physical focus that the prayer entails,” he explained
“Walking meditation, pacing very slowly and coordinating each step with an out-breath, is something I have found increasingly important as a preparation for a longer time of silence.
“So: the regular ritual to begin the day when I’m in the house is a matter of an early rise and a brief walking meditation or sometimes a few slow prostrations, before squatting for 30 or 40 minutes (a low stool to support the thighs and reduce the weight on the lower legs) with the ‘Jesus Prayer’: repeating (usually silently) the words as I breathe out, leaving a moment between repetitions to notice the beating of the heart, which will slow down steadily over the period.”
Far from it being like a “magical invocation”, he explained that the routine helps him detach himself from “distracted, wandering images and thoughts”, picturing the human body as like a ‘cave’ through which breath passes.
“If you want to speak theologically about it, it’s a time when you are aware of your body as simply a place where life happens and where, therefore, God ‘happens’: a life lived in you,” he added.
He went on to explain that those who perform such rituals regularly could reach “advanced states” and become aware of an “unbroken inner light”.
“The general public today is widely unaware of how remarkable were the beliefs about Jesus and the extraordinary place of Jesus in the devotional practices of earliest Christian circles. So, if the book sells as well as his previous general-reader books, in addition to enriching Ehrman’s bank balance further, this one might help general readers to appreciate more how astonishing these early beliefs and devotional practices were.”
A review of How Jesus became “God,” per Ehrman by Larry W. Hurtado
Some professional jealousy imo. Some of Dr. Bart’s peers seem a little resentful of his enormous success. While they praise his wonderful communication skills, they usually can’t leave him alone until they take a few swipes at him. Notice he never retaliates. He’s earned every penny and he raises funds for the less fortunate by investing his time and efforts.
I do not think the early christian beliefs were more astonishing than one might expect, given what they encountered. Rather, if their response to what they believed had happened was more tame, that would be astonishing. After all, Dr. Bart describes the profound impact that his religious experience had on and in him 40 years later. That is powerful, in my estimation.
This isn’t textual criticism. I apologize.
I find it difficult to believe on an intellectual level, that which changed Dr. Bart’s perception of the universe and gave him relief and lifted his burden, hold no value in a thoroughly honest and fair analysis why the new testament was written. As we attempt to examine the things that influenced those ancient writers and try to assess what they intended, while ascribing no value to the very words they penned and to which he responded, how is that different than the fundamentalists?
How is what different from the fundamentalists? Odd.
“I’ve never, ever written a book that, in my opinion, is as important as this one, since the historical issues are of immense, almost incalculable importance,” Ehrman said. “The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.”
Ehrman sees the Gospel of John, which traces the divine origins of Jesus all the way back to the beginning of creation, as belonging to a category unto itself. In this Gospel, Jesus makes overt and explicit statements about his own divinity.
When it comes to John’s Gospel, Ehrman and some of his evangelical critics agree: The fourth Gospel should be understood as a theological treatise and an imaginative re-enactment, not an eyewitness account containing verbatim quotes.
On “How Jesus Became God”
John Murawski
If jesus did not say the following, who did? In all of literature throughout the ages, about which we know, did anyone ever compose statements like these? No. At least, I am unaware of any. Who would or could walk around on the face of this planet and contrive such declarations (and be sane?). Why would they? I wonder if experts in the field of “Forensic Linguistics and Recognizing Individual Written and Spoken Word Usages” would conclude that many individuals had a hand in creating this document?
* “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith* in God; have faith also in me. 2In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? 3* And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be.a 4Where [I] am going you know the way.”* 5Thomas said to him, “Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?” 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth* and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.b 7If you know me, then you will also know my Father.* From now on you do know him and have seen him.”c 8Philip said to him, “Master, show us the Father,* and that will be enough for us.”d 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?e 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.f 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves.g 12Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father.h 13And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.i 14If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.
15“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.j 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate* to be with you always,k 17the Spirit of truth,* which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.l 18I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.* 19In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live.m 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.n 21Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.”o 22Judas, not the Iscariot,* said to him, “Master, [then] what happened that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?”p 23Jesus answered and said to him, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.q 24Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.
25“I have told you this while I am with you. 26The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that [I] told you.r 27Peace* I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid.s 28* You heard me tell you, ‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’t If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. 29And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.u 30I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world* is coming. He has no power over me, 31but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me. Get up, let us go.”
These words are the heart of the gospel. They pour forth, they gush, honest, sincere unrehearsed thoughts, feelings, instructions and promises of someone unique to this world. Dr. Bart was an active member in his congregation, partaking in various religious functions and rituals. It wasn’t until he was born again that god became real to him. (I believe that is an accurate way of stating what happened. I pray I am not putting words in his mouth. That is when he had a profound religious experience, from what he’s written and it a common experience. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, entered into him, just as promised.) This was not a fleeting, momentary happening to some teenage space cadet. And, Dr. Bart trusted this “spiritual awakening” until his late twenties.
Again, who said these things in what we call John 14? who said the following from john 15? Who on god’s green earth could possibly have thought of these things to attribute them to some fictitious godman? “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 17 These things I command you, that ye love one another. 18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you, 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.”
Can anyone identify even one human being with the potential ability to create what is written here?
There have been scores and scores of brilliant authors of deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical works. I’d suggest you read them!
Like that?
“There have been scores and scores of brilliant authors of deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical works. I’d suggest you read them!”
Those people claimed to be god? and said things like, “These things I command you, that ye love one another”?
And, “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.”?
“8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things…”?
I always thought no one else spoke like this.
I don’t think Jesus ever claimed to be God. You really should read my book How Jesus Became God.
But there have been lots and lots of people who *have* claimed to be God, as you surely know.
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things…
Dr B., specifically, who wrote these words, and the others I quoted from John 14 and 15, any idea? There are plenty of scholars who wrote “deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical work” but not these guys. They were mostly poor, non-professional scribes for the first few centuries, not brilliant scholars, from what you wrote in Misquoted.
I have an idea. Let’s identify everything we believe Christ actually did say. Let’s build a complete record of each and every word that he spoke and add to it as we discover more and more words that can be attributed to him alone. We could approach this argument from a more balanced perspective that way, wouldn’t that make sense?No need to answer.
I have never read or seen anything like that which we find in these verses. We read the words of a human being, known to have existed, as he’s saying farewell to his friends and companions, as their god and as god almighty. He’s eloquent. Utterly human, but much more than human, obviously. He says things that people don’t say to one another, ever. In fact, he spent his ministry saying things that confounded the well educated. Who put those words in his mouth?
32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it[d] is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” This apparent discrepancy has been resolved as have many other issues raised by textual criticism.
I”m not completely sure what you’re asking. The author of the Gospel of John wrote those words. Or the source that he used wrote them. I can’t think of any alternative. They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus. The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.
Besides the gospel of Thomas, which fails miserably on this score, imo, who or where else, specifically can we find someone who sounds just like Christ?
I think the bigger question is how you know what Jesus sounded like. No one was recording his teachings at the time. The accounts of his words were weritten 40-60 years later. And the way he sounds in Mark is VERY different from the way he sounds in John (and in the Gospel of Thomas, or Philip, or Nicodemus, or Mary, or … take your pick)
“I think the bigger question is how you know what Jesus sounded like. No one was recording his teachings at the time. The accounts of his words were weritten 40-60 years later. And the way he sounds in Mark is VERY different from the way he sounds in John (and in the Gospel of Thomas, or Philip, or Nicodemus, or Mary, or … take your pick)” Dr. Bart
I have read and reread what he said many, many, many times. I have studied the words attributed to him intensely. Reading is a passion of mine and I’m not altogether unfamiliar with how others express themselves verbally.
We have no credible evidence that his words were not written down soon after he spoke them. Ms. Hezser has written that well to do people of that time could afford to and did have such people writing down what was said immediately after it was spoken.
Yes, if you assume that the words in the Gospels are the words that Jesus really spoke, you don’t have much of a problem!
“Yes, if you assume that the words in the Gospels are the words that Jesus really spoke, you don’t have much of a problem!” Dr. Bart
I made no such assumptions. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. It just wasn’t possible 1. that god existed. 2. that he had a kid. 3. that his kid visited planet earth. 4. that he loved us. 5 that he died to set me free from me. 6. that any kind of true record existed. 7. at best we had a santa claus nut running around back then. In fact there were many of them. that’s what I believed when I opened that book
COULD NOT BE TRUE.
“As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love”
“There have been scores and scores of brilliant authors of deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical works. I’d suggest you read them!” Dr. Bart
I have not found a single example of someone who spoke like this guy, nor have I seen anyone quoted who sounds anything like him, either. I don’t know what kind of scholarly discipline it is called, or even if there is one, but it is fascinating to come to understand that his words are indeed, “the unmatched expression” as an argument for his divinity.
(“Divine non-criticism”, perhaps?)
Not one of these many brilliant, powerful, deeply moving authors has produced anything like the gospel of John has he?
It is important to notice that “he” doesn’t sound like this in Matthew, Mark, or Luke either. Also: you’ll notice that John the Baptist sounds just like “him” in the fourth Gospel. And so does the narrator. Why is that? They are not three different voices. They are all the voice of the author.
“It is important to notice that “he” doesn’t sound like this in Matthew, Mark, or Luke either. Also: you’ll notice that John the Baptist sounds just like “him” in the fourth Gospel. And so does the narrator. Why is that? They are not three different voices. They are all the voice of the author.” Dr Bart
Dr Bart, would you cite some examples, please?
Imo, John was a melancholic or he had a melancholic personality, if that is more accurate. He viewed the world and everyone in it from that inborn perspective, He was very sensitive. He was a “feeling oriented” man who valued human relationships and interactions above all else.
Say General Schwarzkopf and Michelangelo lived 2,000 years ago and had gotten to know jesus, or of him, and set out to describe him. Can you see how differently their views of him might have been expressed?
The lines you cited from John do not sound anything like Jesus sounds in any of the other Gospels. You cited the examples yourself! As to the three sounding the same. Ask yourself: who is talking in John 3:13-15? Who is talking in John 3:16-18? How do you know? And consider JB’s words in John 1.
The brilliant, spiritually powerful and deeply moving authors to whom you refer did not emerge from that time and place, did they? None of them wrote about a godman sharing his life with others with radically different ideas like jesus, did he?
Off topic a bit: Somerset Maugham’s Of Human Bondage blew me away.
You banter around with words that make no point. You assume the reader of your comments will discover the point in your verbal wanderings. Make a point.
“My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.”
Dr. Bart The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old
At the beginning of every season, Jack Nicklaus took time out to return to the basics of the game and stayed there until he was confident in his grip, his stance, his set up routine, his putting, his turn, etc. Vince Lombardi ran the sweep in practice until Kramer, Thurston and Hornung consistently could go full speed and get their footing within one half inch of the route he designed for them to take. Over and over and over and again and again, repeatedly, and then again and again…It was their bread and butter. The play they relied upon to gain a chunk of yardage, no matter what. Off of it they built various formations and complex plays and passing schemes, even a few trick plays. In fact, Lombardi boasted that opponents might very well know what play the Packers would run next (some version of the sweep). Didn’t matter. They would simply run it perfectly. The point is we can grow, and we must grow, but we don’t have to shed the foundation.
But if Jack Nicklaus played golf the way he did when he was sixteen, for his entire life, he never would have won a *single* golf tournament, let alone a major, let alone 18 majors! And if Lombardi coached when he was 40 the way he would have when he was 16, he never would have been the most awe-inspiring figure in football coaching history….
Ha! on a more serious note, Dr. Bart wasn’t delusional or susceptible to brain washing or hocus pocus magical thinking. How was the burden lifted? How did he connect in such a powerful fashion to the universe in a way never known to him? Why have multitudes proclaimed they too found the same kinds of things? “For me, at the time, it felt like an enormous relief, a lifting of burden, a sense of connecting with the universe in a way I never had before. Very powerful!” Dr. Bart to this day maintains this was a very real, very significant, true experience for him. Burden lifted. Enormous relief. A sense of connecting with the universe. How did it happen?
There’s really no difficulty explaining religious experience psychologically. You may want to read some psychological literature, starting with William James!
I agree with James that many of us may experience a variety of special states of mind for different reasons. No doubt. That doesn’t disprove the born again experience. Dr. Bart, what happened to you? When you say you were born again, did god become real to you, or no?
Of course. Otherwise I wouldn’t have remained a Christian. But there really is no difficulty in explaining Christian conversion — or conversion to Judaism, or Islam or Krishna or to any other religious view/person on psychological grounds.
Dr. Bart, what happened to you? When you say you were born again, did god become real to you, or no?
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Of course. Otherwise I wouldn’t have remained a Christian. But there really is no difficulty in explaining Christian conversion — or conversion to Judaism, or Islam or Krishna or to any other religious view/person on psychological grounds.
God became real to you, not something psychological. It wasn’t a conversion to christianity that became real to you. God, himself, revealed to you, Bart, that he was REAL, in the present tense. Experiencing God cannot be explained away on psychological grounds, or any other grounds, can he?
I think I’d rather that we focus principally on the historical study of early Christianity. I occasionally say things here about what I believe, or used to believe, but it’s not really the central feature of the blog.
“Why Join Bart’s Blog?
As a member, you will gain full access to read Bart’s thoughts and dialogue with him about his books, debates, beliefs and more! All membership fees will be used in full to aid the poor in the most difficult living conditions.”
Dr. Bart, If you prefer not to go in depth about your beliefs, that is ok. I have no desire to be a thorn in your side. I do think, in light of the promised benefits upon joining your blog, and your very warm and open, personal style of communicating, not sharing with your audience the details of your transformative shift from knowing god is real to denying that fact, is quite a let down.
I have gone into considerable depth into my beliefs in my books and on the blog. I just don’t want to keep repeating the same things about it — with so many other issues that we could be addressing.
Nicklaus won the Tri-State High School Championship (Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana) at the age of 14 with a round of 68, and also recorded his first hole-in-one in tournament play the same year. At 15, Nicklaus shot a 66 at Scioto Country Club, (Site of five Major Tournaments: 1926 U.S. Open. 1931 Ryder Cup. 1950 PGA Championship. 1968 U.S. Amateur. 1986 Senior Open.) which was the amateur course record, and qualified for his first U.S. Amateur. He won the Ohio Open in 1956 at age 16, highlighted by a phenomenal third round of 64, competing against professionals. In all, Nicklaus won 27 events in the Ohio area from age 10 to age 17.
Lombardi “went to church 365 days of the year. He never missed.” In fact, while he coached the Packers, he not only attended church every day, but also served as the altar boy (as an adult)… Lombardi often shared his beliefs with players and coaches….
I’m not sure what your point is. My point is that if you stay where you were as a sixteen year old, you will be a stunted adult.
Nicklaus was a phenomenon before he was 16! I am approaching this lightheartedly. My point is this: I don’t have to become “sophisticated” and “more advanced” in every area of my life to prove that I’m a growing, fully-involved adult. To grow and to develop as a human being who follows him means that I will become more like him as I pass through young adulthood, midlife and old age. Initial contact with god is exhilarating for many. We are “high on Christ” some say. We are not meant to stay forever in that state of pure ecstasy. Nor do we need to deny the wonder of it to be able to move forward.
Dr., I am just saying that followers aren’t supposed to rot after conversion, but that doesn’t mean we have to study and interpret the new testament in a more “modern”, a more “sophisticated” fashion, necessarily. Truth is truth, wherever it originates and wherever it takes us. I may fear the outcome, but if god is god, can’t he lead me into more truth that confirms his presence and reality when I encountered him at first? If he is not the real deal, he wasn’t then and he cannot be now. If he was then, he is now. IMO, anyway. Dr. Bart, no one can or will interpret “the book” perfectly, imo, and we don’t have to, at least in terms of enjoying friendship with god. I think as we learn and grow, we find he is more interested in sharing life with us as a co-traveler, a co-creator, happy to be as intimate with us as we want to be. Don’t mean to preach. Trying to point out that we are designed to keep maturing, as you say, just in a different realm.
“I’ve never, ever written a book that, in my opinion, is as important as this one, since the historical issues are of immense, almost incalculable importance, Ehrman said. “The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.”
Whose assertion? A multitude of anonymous scribes over 15 centuries who spun a ridiculous tale based on unreliable 50 to 70 year old oral traditions from the first century? How and why did their various assertions challenge anyone to do or to think anything of significance? I mean, how did they manage to pull off such a huge fraud? Their assertion arguably is the most important development in the history of the development of the West? (Not to mention the same assertions enormous impact on the East.) All kinds of nuts were running around back then claiming all kinds of things. For centuries, some have asserted that Santa is real. All kinds of myths have been perpetuated throughout the millennia. What makes Dr. Bart and many others believe this “assertion” about jesus rises to such an extraordinary level?
If you don’t believe in miracles, these unknown, non-professional scribes, who were biased and unrelated, these lying forgerers separated by thousands of years and concocted this absolute nonsense conning the western world, might make you think twice.
The assertion that Jesus is God is made and has been made by most Christians from the first century down until today. I’m not completely sure what you’re objecting to.
If you are correct, there’s no valid reason to believe that jesus was god. So, how did they con the world? How did they pull off a hoax that revolutionized the world? The written stories about jesus were embellished, modified, and altered repeatedly over the centuries and were the product of hear-say. So, how did they manage to fool so many for so long? If they had tried to do create a story that would have such phenomenal results, they couldn’t.
No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God. I just disagree with them. My book is not about whether Jesus is God. It’s about how the idea that he is God arose and developed. Those are two very different things.
Are you referring to the assertions we find in the new testament?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. (When I get comments for moderatoin, they do not include the comments on which the comments are commenting on — so you need to make sure you explain what you’re referring to)
Right from the start, one gets the impression Ehrman’s Jesus is a truncated version construed by a historical-critical scholar—and an unduly skeptical one at that. This isn’t only Ehrman the historian; it’s also Ehrman the ex-believer and notorious skeptic. [3]
From beginning to end Ehrman dichotomizes between faith and reason, history and theology, the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. [4] With such premises in place, the outcome of his historical research is predictable: Jesus never claimed to be God; he viewed himself as an apocalyptic prophet (echoes of Albert Schweitzer); and his followers never considered him to be God either. In customary fashion, Ehrman assigns the emergence of the notion of Jesus’ divinity to the latest possible date. He asserts ancient people frequently thought of a particular human as a god or of a god having become human, so there’s nothing unique about Christians’ claim that Jesus was divine. [5]
How Jesus Became God
Bart D. Ehrman | Review by: Andreas Köstenberger
While Dr. B. is unusually gracious and attempts to be fair to all sides, unfortunately Kostenberger is correct. His commitment to skepticism is as strong or stronger than any fundamentalist’s devotion. It is his religion and his god. Dr. B. is so smart (perhaps too smart) and articulate it is easy to ignore his weaknesses. One expects him to be practically perfect in everything he tackles as a scholar, to recognize his faults and to modify his positions accordingly.
He’s only human, after all, and though a remarkably talented one, he’s prone to all the weaknesses which challenge the rest of us. George Will uses a line that applies here. To accept Dr. B’s view, we have to overlook volumes of data and common sense.
This seems to be mainly name-calling and branding to me. If there are substantive points that can refute my position, I’d rather deal with those.
When we consider what you believe to be overwhelming evidence that the new testament is a farce, a forgery, a twisted batch of distortions based on unreliable 60 year old collections of hear-say, how can anyone assign any significance to it? After decades of research, you have proven it does not represent what most christians claim it does: a revelatory expression of god’s incarnation. Therefor, any assertion or claim that the new testament presents the case that Christ is divine must fail. It does no such thing. Isn’t that your position?
I am reading your books and related material. My questions remain.
No, just the opposite. I maintain that the NT *does* present Christ as divine.
The Christian world is doing the asserting that Jesus was God. Who else is making that assertion? Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Where is the proof that Jesus was God or the son of God? So what is your point?
What substantial reasons do christians have for believing in Christ according to Dr. Bart, do you know?
I cannot for the life of me understand where you are going with these arguments. The point is that as one investigates the truth of any matter, one’s mind changes over the course of that investigation. I used to think certain things about Shakespeare until I read a great deal more about his life and his work at the Globe.
I cannot for the life of me understand where you are going with these arguments. The point is that as one investigates the truth of any matter, one’s mind changes over the course of that investigation. I used to think certain things about Shakespeare until I read a great deal more about his life and his work at the Globe.
As some investigate this matter, they become more certain that Christ is god.
“I”m not completely sure what you’re asking. The author of the Gospel of John wrote those words. Or the source that he used wrote them. I can’t think of any alternative.” Dr. B.
The original account given in John was altered and added to and subtracted from depending on the scribes who copied it, in your opinion, I thought.
“They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus. The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. B.
What he said on that occasion, and every other time he opened his mouth, could have been written down at any moment after he spoke them. Maybe someone did take notes at the last supper. The “many” Luke refers to in chapter 1 may include some of those present at that meal. They were free to record everything they could remember, whenever and wherever they could. We have no reason to believe they would wait 60 years to begin jotting down their recollections of what was said and had occurred. Just the opposite. The earliest band of followers were supercharged to tell the world, everyone/anyone/all who would listen to them, or read what they wrote, concerning those things that had taken place in that obscure tiny dot on planet earth.
How much scripture did you memorize after your religious experience?
If you peer back in time and observe them (silently from the shadows) you can tell they were absolutely overwhelmed (smitten) by the reality of having spent many months hanging with the one they were certain was god, himself. They couldn’t help themselves. They engaged in every conceivable activity to inform others what they had just seen and heard and handled. 1 john 1: 1, even as you began telling everyone about what happened to you. Some were better at preaching, some organizing, some writing.
I memorized a number of the shorter books of the NT.
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God.” Dr. Bart
Can you tell us what a few of those reasons Are? Thanks
Personal experience. Decision to stand within a certain faith tradition. Sense of the meaning of the world.
How is your certain account of these witnesses conceivable in a time when most people were illiterate? You sound like everyone walked around with notebook and pen and paper writing down comments. How silly. No one had that ability to do so. If you had taken the time to read many of Dr. Erhman’s books, one would find how this “story” of Christ emerged through a long litany of concocted stories.
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
This seems to be mainly name-calling and branding to me. If there are substantive points that can refute my position, I’d rather deal with those
I am sorry Dr. My errors.
I was referring to your quotation, not to your views.
The words spoken in John 14, 15, 16 and 17 were extraordinary. In all that has ever been written down, of which we are aware, what comes closest in content and meaning? What is the most similar example that you can recall or find? Anyone?
Dr. Bart, can a valid argument be made regarding the authenticity of certain words having been spoken by a particular individual from antiquity in part using the process of elimination?
Do we have any good reasons to believe the followers would (or could restrain themselves) for 60 years to begin jotting down their recollections of what was said and what had occurred?
“The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, at the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. B., how can we say that no one took notes or wrote down soon after the supper, what he said?
Jesus’ own followers would not have been restraining themselves. They were illiterate. They couldn’t write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.
Ehrman’s argument that Peter and John were illiterate based
on the use of the word !”#$%%&Therefore'() to describe the two disciples in Acts 4:13
is unconvincing. The word !”#$%%&'() is the opposite of “#&%%&’*+), which
is used in the NT to denote a professional scribe. , !”#$%%&'() can
simply mean to lack rabbinical training. 7 In the context of Acts 4, the Jewish
council is described as “#&%%&’*,) (Acts 4:5), in contrast to Peter and John
who are !”#$%%&'(-. It is evident that the contrast is between those who have
formal rabbinical training (the Jewish council) and those who do not (Peter
and John). In any case, as Carson asserts, “The astonishment of the authorities
was in any case occasioned by the competence of Peter and John when
they should have been (relatively) ignorant, not by their ignorance when they
should have been more competent.” 8 Moreover, most Jewish boys did learn to
read, and since John’s family was not poor (Luke 5:3 and Mark 1:20 indicate
his family owned boats and employed others), it is highly probable that he
received a better-than-average education. 9 Ben Witherington responds pointedly to Ehrman’s overall argument that the first disciples were mere illiterate peasants: First of all, fishermen are not peasants. They often made a good living from the Sea of Galilee, as can be seen from the famous and large fisherman’s house excavated in Bethsaida. Secondly, fishermen were businessmen and they had to either have a scribe or be able to read and write a bit to deal with tax collectors, toll collectors, and other business persons. Thirdly, if indeed Jesus had a Matthew/ Levi and others who were tax collectors as disciples, they were indeed literate, and again were not peasants. As the story of Zaccheus makes perfectly clear, they could indeed have considerable wealth, sometimes from bilking people out of their money. In other words, it is a caricature to suggest that all Jesus’ disciples were illiterate peasants.
JETS 54.3 (September 2011) 449–65
DISUNITY AND DIVERSITY:
THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF BART EHRMAN
Josh Chatraw
Dr., they could have asked others to take dictation, too. Many probably did. They were not proud. Christ had some wealthy women who supported his ministry as well. They were besides themselves with joy, preaching and sharing the good news with everyone in sight. They were overwhelmed by the same “religious experience” that meant so much to you and others you helped to find god.
Isn’t it “illogical” or against some debating rule to make a blanket statement about what others could or couldn’t do without knowing for sure? Just look how important writing about jesus is to you, and he isn’t your god. (Now, you’re brilliant, but you could write about many topics.)
I am convinced, in my own non-scholarly way, that it was jesus and none other, who spoke the words recorded in john 14-17. No human being thought up what was said there. It is not possible. It is a different language. The words are words we use yes, but on a different level, a different plane and from a different dimension. I don’t know how to speak that language. Nothing like it is spoken by mankind, as far as I know. At least, I have never seen anything or heard anything like it, anywhere, have you Dr.?
If you’re interested in a full discussion of the dictation theory, I’d suggest you read my extended discussion in Forgery and Counterforgery. I show there why that can probalby not account for the books we have.
Most Jewish boys certainly did not learn how to read. Don’t take my word for it. The definitive study is Catherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine. She is quite clear and convincing on this point. On fishermen not being peasants — good grief. This is Romance, not History. I’d suggest you read up on what we know about the social context of rural Galilee.
If you’re interested in a full discussion of the dictation theory, I’d suggest you read my extended discussion in Forgery and Counterforgery. I show there why that can probalby not account for the books we have.
Will do. Thanks for the reference. I just hope I get a passing grade when I’ve finished all the reading you’ve assigned to me!
Most Jewish boys certainly did not learn how to read. Don’t take my word for it. The definitive study is Catherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine. She is quite clear and convincing on this point.
Ok. As soon as I’ve finished my homework, remember the 37 volumes you gave me?
On fishermen not being peasants — good grief. This is Romance, not History. I’d suggest you read up on what we know about the social context of rural Galilee.
I will. Got to catch my breath
Dr. Bart, let’s say fisherman were illiterate, dictation is not an option and most jewish boys were illiterate. Among his followers were tax collectors, 2 members of the Sanhedrin, several wealthy women, etc.
A tax collector was not necessarily educated; he could simply be the guy who bangs on your door telling you to pay up. And tehre were no members of the Sanhedrin among Jesus’ followers.
“We shall obviously never know in a clear-cut numerical way how many people were literate, semi-literate, or illiterate in the Graeco-Roman world in general, or even in any particular …”
Catherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine.
That’s right — we will never be able to put a number on it.
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
“Jesus’ own followers would not have been restraining themselves. They were illiterate. They couldn’t write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.”
Dr. Bart, as a true scholar, (an amazing one at that) are you unaware that your statement here cannot be true? You do not Know they were illiterate. You Cannot know that, so you cannot make that an honest statement of fact, isn’t that true?
History is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. I have no trouble saying that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, even though it is only *probably* true.
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
“Jesus’ own followers would not have been restraining themselves. They were illiterate. They couldn’t write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.”
“Dr. Bart, as a true scholar, (an amazing one at that) are you unaware that your statement here cannot be true? You do not Know they were illiterate. You Cannot know that, so you cannot make that an honest statement of fact, isn’t that true?” pp
“History is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. I have no trouble saying that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, even though it is only *probably* true.” Dr. Bart
Would this be a more acceptable statement from an intellectual such as yourself? “Jesus’ own followers may not have been restraining themselves. They may have been illiterate. They may not have been able to write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.”
Jesus’ followers may have been unable to refrain from writing all about him from the moment he called them. A few of them may have been literate. They certainly may have written down exactly what he said.
As a scholar, as a widely respected and even a beloved, true-blue, “peoples’ scholar”, you may not have given this particular matter enough purely objective analysis, imho.
It appears very probable that they wrote down what they heard and the world has never been the same. Their pronouncement that god dwelt among us, died and was resurrected was the most significant factor in the development of Western civilization. I agree. pp
Unrelated, have you watched old tapes of NASA test firing the Saturn 5 rockets on the net, from Huntsville, Alabama? Got to
There’s really no difficulty explaining religious experience psychologically. You may want to read some psychological literature, starting with William James! Dr. B from above.
I cannot imagine You were somehow tricked into a psychological ruse–that you were the victim of a pseudo-spiritual experience, especially given the way you changed and the profound influence you describe it has had on your life. Some other people? Absolutely! You? Dr. Bart, that is tough to swallow. I bet most people who know even a little bit about you would say you would be the last person to be fooled by some kind of bull. “I told my friends, family, everyone about Christ,” he remembers now. “The study of the Bible was a religious experience. The more you studied the Bible, the more spiritual you were. I memorized large parts of it. It was a spiritual exercise, like meditation.” Some of those you reached out to continue to enjoy him and walk with him. Not, I expect, the kind of response we’d anticipate from normal, healthy people who rely on forged, misquoted, altered, added to, removed from, embellished and twisted words of biased boobs, primarily and originally built upon information that was 60 years old, which itself was mere hear-say and rumors– all about some obscure, uneducated, average appearing, jewish peasant who lived 2,000 years ago.
“In fact, as I argue in the book, the followers of Jesus had no inkling that he was divine until after his death.” Dr. B. Huffington Post on “How Jesus Became God”
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
You really need to read my book.
I’ve been reading your books, Dr. and they are great.
To say that his followers had no clue he was Christ before he was resurrected, when we have examples from the new testament that contradict that position, is a legitimate argument, I think. I am enjoying your books very much. haven’t found your explanation for this yet. I do think that your position that his followers were illiterate is not supported very well. To conclude that no one wrote down what he said for 60 years is a leap of faith and cannot be proven. Components of your arguments, I suggest, weaken its foundation.
I don’t think psychology is a matter of being tricked into ruses. The psychology of religion is a profound and complicated field. Again, I’d suggest you do some reading to help inform your opinions.
“Regarding Matt 24:36, although many witnesses record Jesus as speaking of his own prophetic ignorance (“But as for that day and hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father alone”), many others lack the words “nor the Son.” Whether “nor the Son” is authentic or not is disputed, but what is not disputed is the wording in the parallel in Mark 13:32—“But as for that day or hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father.” Thus, there can be no doubt that Jesus spoke of his own prophetic ignorance in the Olivet Discourse. Consequently, what doctrinal issues are really at stake here? One simply cannot maintain that the wording in Matt 24:36 changes one’s basic theological convictions about Jesus since the same sentiment is found in Mark.
In other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best. Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong.”
Review of
Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005)
by
Daniel B. Wallace,
Executive Director,
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org)
Yes, this is another instance in which Dan Wallace completely misunderstands my point, as I think you’ll see if you actually read my discussion of the problem.
“…over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise”.
Bruce Manning Metzger
American biblical scholar
and textual critic,
professor at Princeton Theological Seminary
“Ehrman points to the fact that in Matthew’s version of the ignorance saying (cf. Mk. 13.32 to Mt. 24.36) as some sort of proof that Jesus should not be seen as divine, at least in Matthew’s Gospel. We can debate the textual variants, but even if we include ‘not even the Son’ here which is certainly present in Mk. 13.32 it in no way proves that Matthew presents a merely human Jesus. The Emmanuel (God with us Christology) which we find at the beginning and end of this Gospel rules that notion out all together, as do various other texts in Matthew where Jesus presents himself as the Wisdom of God come in the flesh…”
Daniel B. Wallace,
Executive Director,
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org)
Reading various points of view
Metzger was my teacher, and I agree with his statement. I agree with Wallace that Jesus is divine in Matthew, but not for the reasons he thinks.
I know. Thought it was interesting that you and Metzger seemingly drifted far apart on some important issues.
While 85 to 90 percent of the population may have been illiterate where and when Christ grew up, and while Petaus and Ischyrion may have been barely literate, you apparently recognize that as little as 60 years after his death, at least a few, who wrote the new testament, were brilliant. Common sense mandates that very likely they would have insisted on using qualified scribes.
Don’t forget that something else factored in to the early minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years following the murder of jesus. He was loved.
Loving someone is not a guarantee that you will remember his words and deeds accurately, as cognitive psychologists have demonstrated time and again.
Probalby 97% of Jesus’ world was illiterate. Those who could read and write were the very upper crust of the wealthy elite.
Loving someone in this case means they were devoted to getting his message out to everyone, everywhere, and to ensure it was accurate. They didn’t love him hoping to get rich. If he was savagely murdered, so could they. They faced real danger being his devotees. Look at what Saul, on his own, was doing and later what Paul faced for his efforts to tell the world.
Remember, too, your own first love for him.
3% of 100,000 is 3,000.
Doesn’t agreeing with Metzger regarding the “90%” contradict the pronouncements you’ve made that the mistakes and contradictions textual critics have found in the n.t. are major, numerous and profound?
“…over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise”.
Nope. I think you need to read my views (and Metzger’s) more closely to see what they are. Metzger’s comment is unrelated to my discussions of discrepancies in the NT.
A tax collector was not necessarily educated; he could simply be the guy who bangs on your door telling you to pay up.
He would have to handle and read receipts
And tehre were no members of the Sanhedrin among Jesus’ followers.
Joe of Arimathea and Nicodemus were not members?
Nicodemus is almost certainly a fictional character; Joseph may be as well. But in any event, neither of them (even inthe preserved stories) accompanied Jesus during his ministry.
Wouldn’t it have been risky to name them as members when it was verifiable?
Members of what? Remember, the Gospels were written decades later in a completely different part of the world, to people who for the most part were not alive when the events narrated took place.
“Remember, the Gospels were written decades later…”
The gospels reveal words that were spoken and describe events that took place thousands of years ago. As these things unfolded, people began to write about them for their personal reasons, in their diaries, in letters to loved ones near and far. Children would tell their parents what they saw and heard, undoubtedly, which may have become part of the family’s written history. People are people. I cannot imagine that he wasn’t the topic of conversation wherever people gathered. They knew something special was taking place; even the highest ranking officials were familiar with his reputation and were eager to meet him. Why would his followers or anyone else hesitate to make an accurate accounting? Why would they wait? Most likely they didn’t. Repeatedly, they proclaim that what they had heard and seen and handled was the greatest experience known to mankind, their first hand encounter with the creator of all things. Not trying to preach. Trying to make clear that they were motivated, eager, in fact they were bursting to share the most precious thing they’d ever known. Just look at Dr. Bart’s actions as a young man and new believer. Immediately, he shared with those he loved and others what had become so meaningful to him.
Even if they didn’t follow him on the ground, that wouldn’t disqualify them in any way from being true believers. Whoever wrote that they were members and followers was foolish if he was lying. They weren’t stupid back then. For the writer to say that herod was curious about him, if untrue, was a good way to get killed real quick.
Dr. Bart, the names of the members of the Sanhedrin would be on record when Joe and Nick were mentioned as members and as disciples. Whoever included their names in the account we have would have taken a big risk if he lied because the Sanhedrin was viable and what he wrote would have been available.
If the authors of the accounts of Pilate were lying, even years later, they took a big risk. They could not be certain someone wouldn’t check other sources and they executed people back then for less.
Sharing the gospel was dangerous from the get go. The accounts we have of the birth of the church are filled with threats, imprisonment and death. They murdered him to rid their world of the threat of genuine spirituality. He said, expect the same.
They hated me. They will hate you.
There are too many texts that support this reality.
To say that none of his disciples was literate is impossible. We don’t know that. It may be a certain probability, fine. But, it cannot be established as a fact. When “criticism” is scrutinized with the same standards with which it examines the n.t. the culture, the politics and customs, etc. of that era, usually the best it can offer is probabilities of probabilities which decrease sharply the possibilities of 100% certainty. For example, 70% of 90% is only 63%.
“Criticism” should and must be evaluated in the same fashion it is used. It doesn’t hold up, imo.
“I have no argument with them. My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.”
If everyone obeyed the unsophisticated, old fashioned, ancient 10 commandments presented by hebrews of antiquity, our civilization would be totally revolutionized, completely rejuvenated for the good.
Much of what was written in the time frame of Christ’s first appearance could be cross-referenced with relatives and others close to those who were intimately involved in his mission.
Does anyone care to explain/clarify what an, “infantile religious worldview” is?
And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gad’arenes.
2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, 3 who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: 4 because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. 5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, and cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
We think Schwarzenegger is pretty strong. No contest! This guy had superhuman strength and he knows god when he sees him, even if the account is found in the gospel that doesn’t say jesus was divine.
Mark doesn’t seem to be trying to cover up christ’s divinity, does he?
“…she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. 30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?” Magic?
“While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead; why troublest thou the Master any further? 36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe…And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Tal’itha cu’mi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, (I say unto thee,) arise. 42 And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment.”
Was she still alive when this was written about her, or her sister or her children, etc. Additionally, all those who were astonsished knew people and many of them would have kids and grand kids, nephews, nieces and on and on. They could affirm the story or say it was hogwash. The writer had to be aware of that. These kinds of miracles fill the new testament. If criticism claims the synoptic gospels don’t promote his divinity, who was the guy doing all these miraculous deeds? How? Sleight of hand? If criticism uses the synoptic’s omission of his pre-incarnation divinity, it doesn’t take great reasoning skill to understand that by definition, god is eternal, and therefore he must have been divine forever.
If you’ve read my recent book, you’ll know that I think Mark does understand Jesus to be divine.
Thanks Dr. Bart. My understanding of your most recent thoughts on Mark is that he, jesus, doesn’t talk about himself much as divine, rather others make those claims about him. Also, Mark doesn’t establish that he was always divine, as john does, that is, from your point of view.
Your scholarship is absolutely incredible and much appreciated by many, many from all walks of life and all different beliefs. Amazing, truly amazing.
Though a wet behind the ears novice, one thing textual criticism demonstrates to me is that a force outside of man was/is behind the formation of the n.t. In Romans 5, the difference between, “Let us have peace” and “We have peace” for example, is one way of conserving words and space. Rather than finding it troublesome, both meanings are true and applicable. I digress, in a sense. The point is this: the final product, the n.t., just as it is, thoroughly, completely, explains for his purposes, who Christ is, who we are, and the path to redemption.
Dr., Bart, Christ said, “Be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect”. Doesn’t he mean, be complete? Can’t we say the n.t. is “complete” in the same way, or no?
I do not think it is possible for human beings to have produced a volume of books and letters, as in the n.t., on our own. This “Volume” has inspired our greatest minds to devote their lives to study it, to analyze it, to dissect it and to devour all pertinent information about the culture, the politics, educational opportunities, the economic status, etc., of those who lived around the time it was written. Why? Who cares? What difference does it make? Folks, it is 2,00 years old! How tough can it be? We think of these ancients as a fairly primitive, unsophisticated bunch of knuckleheads, generally, don’t we? How is it then that they produced this work that is so unique, so convincing and intriguing and controversial and powerful that it has consumed the minds and lives, the energy, of thousands of brilliant men and women. By itself, that is absolutely amazing. No other “Volume” in recorded history is comparable.
The difference in Romans 5:1 does not involve words and space. It’s a question of one word and it’s spelling — a long o or a short o.
I meant to say both words are perfectly acceptable, imo. (Just as the n.t. doesn’t provide specific instructions on what we are to do in every particular circumstance we encounter, rather we can rely upon his teachings and him personally, to guide us, can’t we argue that the n.t. gives us everything one needs to engage in a completely mutually satisfying relationship with jesus?) Dr. Bart, I don’t know how to ask that question without sounding like I’m preaching or professing.
No need to address this next question. I’m still working on it. If people gave names to the various books of the n.t. to try to deceive folks into believing they were authoritative, that doesn’t make them forgeries, if the writers themselves didn’t participate in such a scheme, imo.
—
“Are you asking what “born again” means in the passage in John? There Jesus means that you have to be born from the heavenly realm in the spirit if you hope to see eternal life. The emphasis is not when (“again”) but where (“from above”).” Dr. Bart
Dr, this was a slip, wasn’t it? “Jesus means…” Because, you believe, “They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus.”
—
The following is confusing:
“No, just the opposite. I maintain that the NT *does* present Christ as divine.” Dr. Bart
“My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.” Dr. Bart
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God.” Dr. Bart
“Can you tell us what a few of those reasons are? Thanks” pp
Dr. Bart, “Personal experience. Decision to stand within a certain faith tradition. Sense of the meaning of the world.”
—
“The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. Bart
How do we know Jesus had a last supper? Why would he?
—
Sorry — this string of comments and questions confuses me. Maybe ask one question at a time and I can address it.
“Are you asking what “born again” means in the passage in John? There Jesus means that you have to be born from the heavenly realm in the spirit if you hope to see eternal life. The emphasis is not when (“again”) but where (“from above”).” Dr. Bart
Dr, this was a slip, wasn’t it? (“Jesus means…”) Because, you believe, “They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus.”
No, it wasn’t a slip. I meant “means” in this narrative context. I agree he means “where.” But the point is that Nicodemus thinks he means “when.” That confusion would not have happened if he were speaking Aramaic. And if Jesus were in jerusalem speaking with a another Jewish teacher, they would have been speaking in Aramaic (since that’s what Jesus spoke).
“No, it wasn’t a slip. I meant “means” in this narrative context. I agree he means “where.” But the point is that Nicodemus thinks he means “when.” That confusion would not have happened if he were speaking Aramaic. And if Jesus were in jerusalem speaking with a another Jewish teacher, they would have been speaking in Aramaic (since that’s what Jesus spoke).” Dr. Bart
Then, whom did nic ask? Who answered him?
Critics know this passage is phony because had jesus been speaking to a real jewish teacher in Jerusalem, the two would have spoken Aramaic and in that language a real jewish teacher couldn’t have been confused over the concept of being born-again?
I’m not sure what you mean by “phony.” That’s certainly not the category I have ever used for this passage. The problem is that the double meaning of the Greek word ANOTHEN, on which the entire conversatoin is based, cannot be replicated in Aramaic, the language in which they would have been speaking.
Critics know this passage is phony because had jesus been speaking to a real jewish teacher in Jerusalem, the two would have spoken Aramaic and in that language a real jewish teacher couldn’t have been confused over the concept of being born-again?
“I’m not sure what you mean by “phony.” That’s certainly not the category I have ever used for this passage.” Dr. Bart
What it describes never happened so it is phony.
Well, maybe that’s your definition of phony. But I don’t use the term.
Well, maybe that’s your definition of phony. But I don’t use the term.
What it describes never happened so it is phony.
it never happened. what describes it?
There are lots and lots of true stories that never happened.
The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. Bart
How do we know Jesus had a last supper? Why would he?
My view is that everyone who dies has had a last supper.
I know, but he was preparing for his death at that particular meal which happened to be his last, which is exactly what he said, no?
“My view is that everyone who dies has had a last supper.” Dr. Bart
Sorry for not making this clear and I appreciate the time you take to address the many questions asked of you.
On the one hand, christianity promotes an infantile world view. The n.t. is a forged, thoroughly debunked document. On the other hand, you say, “No, just the opposite. I maintain that the NT *does* present Christ as divine.” And, “My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.” Dr. Bart
You add,
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God.” Dr. Bart.
How can intelligent and thoughtful christians have substantial reasons for thinking jesus is god when they check their intelligence at the church’s door?
You are misreading me. I have never said that Christianity presents an infantile world view. But some Christians do indeed hold an infantile Christian world view. You shouldn’t think that every Christian has the same views or the same level of sophistication.
Richard Thrift June 2, 2014
“Child-like” faith is not limited to evangelicals. When I was a Lutheran minister (and a believer) I was oft disheartened in realizing that most (not all but certainly most) of my parishioners had the spiritual understanding of a 13-year-old. That’s the traditional age with most were confirmed…and it also marked the end of their Christian education.
Bart June 2, 2014
Good point!
1 John 1:1-4 New International Version (NIV)
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
More than an hallucination, imo. Much, much more, imo. If we lived back during this episode of history with the exact same set of tools they had and nothing more, what would we have done differently to try to convince others that we had actually experienced god, god, himself, in a human body? They saw him. They heard him. They even touched him.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
how could they see, touch and hear god?
For the Johannine community, Christ was a divine being who became human. This passage is opposing those who deny Christ’s humanity.
“For the Johannine community…” Dr Bart
To reduce it to that is rewriting the passage.
“…Christ was a divine being who became human.” Dr Bart
You are saying this passage was written with this concept in mind?
“This passage is opposing those who deny Christ’s humanity.” Dr. Bart
And it is asserting that he is indeed god almighty incarnate. We saw him and heard him and even touched the guy! That’s how recent it has been since he was here. I, who write this to you, even me, am among those with firsthand knowledge of him!
I’m not asking for a response or anything. This just helps me stay organized.
http://pattycake1974.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-religion-of-teenager-vs-beliefs-of.html#links
How is your mom doing? Are you still occasionally visiting Lawrence?
Thanks for asking! Two weeks ago we moved her to Kent Ohio to be near my brother, just in time for her 90th birthday!
Thank you for sharing this to us ????
Now for some reasons my comments on the other blog posts are not getting posted for couple of days now. I am beginning to think that maybe I am typing something that’s been interpreted as silly or offensive of some sort. I apologize if this is the case, it is purely unintentional.. but I am guilty however of trying to add some sense of humor ( but maybe I’m not very good at it, sorry I’m just being my goofy self ????)
Anyway, I would like to ask Dr. Ehrman if you had some kind of a prejudice (homophobia, sexism, racism or anti-semithism) when you were a conservative fundamental christian?
And did you overcome this while you are still or just when you are no longer a believer?
Thank you Dr. Ehrman
I do take two days off a week from posting comments, and so sometimes if you make a comment on a Wednesday it won’t show up till Friday. But yes, I was a homophobe and a sexist on principle whan I was a fundamentalist, and a racist by upbringing. I tried very much not to be the latter, and it was not related to my fundamentalism. I worked hard to establish friendships with African Americans and to treat them equally. But looking back I see that I was as wrapped up in the systemic oppression as everyone else in the system, and not proactive in countering the racist impulses of my environment. On the other two issues, I thought that “homosexuality” was a sin and that women were made to be subservient to men. What a religion fundamentalism is!!