(9 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...Here’s a new idea: feel free to suggest to me that I repost one of the posts that you most like from earlier days on the blog! That was done, unsolicited, by one of the long-time faithful followers of the blog, who wanted to see me repost a post from four years, ago, on why I continue to be obsessed with Jesus even though I am not a believer. Here it is!
*************************************************************************
There is a relatively new online journal, “On Faith,” that is top-of-the line and very interesting. A couple of days ago they published a short article that I wrote, in connection with How Jesus Became God; I called the article “Why I Am Obsessed with Jesus.” It contains some views you will have seen from me before, and some others. Here is the article as I sent it to them. (The full link to the online version in the journal comes at the end).
**********************************************************
I finally figured out why I’m so obsessed with Jesus.
It makes sense that Jesus mattered to me when I was young. I was raised in a Christian household, we went to church, we revered the Bible, and Jesus was God.
It makes sense that Jesus mattered to me as a late teenager, when I had a born-again experience and became a conservative evangelical. (What I converted from to “become a Christian” continues to puzzle me.) At that point Jesus became not only my Lord and Savior, but also my best friend and closest ally.
To see the rest of this post, you will need to belong to the blog. Joining is quick and easy. And every penny you pay goes to help the needy. So why not join???
One of your best blogs for sure.
It seems to me Jesus is what you make of him.Everyone is free to interpret the gospels to their own liking to fit Jesus’s words to suit themselves and their church . I’ll wager the real Jesus would be surprised that the Jesus business is a multi billion dollar enterprise.
“Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher…” Bart
If He had been merely an apocalyptic preacher, He couldn’t reveal Himself to be God. To construe everything in the N.T. that refers to Him as God as inaccurate is wrong.
I deny that the REAL Jesus ever proclaimed himself to be God. The gospel claims that he did are spurious, putting words into Jesus’ mouth that he never really said.
Spurious? Explain why you believe that, would you?
IMO, it is exactly the opposite and much more. He made it more than abundantly clear He was God, in what He said and did. The N.T. bursts with the that news.
I will answer your question, why would I think that the Gospel claims that Jesus said he was God are false and spurious.
1) NUMEROUS times in the Gospels — anyway, in the first 3 Gospels — Jesus defers to the “greaterness” of the Father. In other words, Jesus says that the father is greater than the Son, that the Father knows things that not even he, the Son, knows.
* Matthew 24:26: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”
* Mark 13:32 is even stronger, for in it, Jesus explicitly says the Father knows stuff that not even he, Jesus knows. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” That is impossible if Jesus himself is God.
* Matthew 26:39: “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” If Jesus himself were God and therefore co-equal with the Father, then this verse makes no sense, for Jesus would have as much say in passing the cup as the Father.
* Luke 2:49: “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” If Jesus is God, why would he put it that way to his mother? Would he not say, “wist ye not that I must be about MY business”? Or, if you suppose that God is a Trinity, would he not say, “wist ye not that I must be about OUR business”? (By the way, “wist” is an archaic English word no longer used which means “knew.” It comes from the German “wusste.”)
* Luke 22:29: “And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;” Here the delegation of authority is clear. Just as Jesus delegates kingdoms to those who are less than he is, so too does the Father delegate kingdoms to Jesus.
2) Acts of the Apostles makes it abundantly plain that the known followers of Jesus were readily accepted in synagogues and the Great Temple itself. That would be impossible if those other Jews had any suspicion that Jesus’ own followers worshipped him as God Himself. From this I conclude that, while the disciples did genuinely believe in Jesus’ Resurrection, they did NOT infer from that what YOU do — that Jesus therefore was God. Instead, they infer merely that God had performed a great miracle and raised THE MAN Jesus back to life.
You ought not confuse a miracle from God with divinity itself.
In 1 Kings 17:22, the Prophet Elijah brings a small boy back to life from the dead, but nobody says that either he or the boy were God.
Similarly in Acts 9, Peter raises a young woman — called, alternately, Tabitha or Dorcas — back to life, but nobody says either Peter or the young woman were God.
In Judaism, it is NOT a blasphemy to say that someone rose again from the dead — as long as you make it clear that it was GOD who did this favor, and that the resurrected person therefore is not God Him/Herself. Indeed, Pharisaical Judaism holds that ALL of us someday will rise from the dead.
So the fact that the original disciples happened to believe that Jesus rose from the dead was NOT intrinsically, in and of itself, offensive to the rest of the Jews. Their attitude could have been, they can believe that all they want to. WE think they’re CRAZY, but they have a right to be crazy if they wish.
In fact, there is a modern example of this. About 25 years ago, the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson died. He is buried in Springfield Gardens in Queens NY. (And, in fact, there is a photo of Ivanka Trump and her husband visiting his grave site.)
Thousands of Rabbi Schneerson’s followers revered him as the Messiah when he was alive. They LOVED him. And some of his followers actually did he DIDN’T die at all, but instead went into hiding, to re-emerge at the right time. Others think he died but will resurrect when it suits him. The rest of the Jews think these Jews are CRAZY. But it doesn’t prevent them from accepting these Jews AS Jews. As long as they keep the commandments and don’t literally worship Rabbi Schneerson as God himself, as far as the rest of the Jewish world is concerned, the Lubavitchers are free to believe all the nonsense about the late Rebbe that they like.
Anyway — the fact that the rest of the Jews tolerated the Christian Jews PROVES that the disciples themselves — the ones who actually KNEW Jesus in the flesh and walked the earth with him — did NOT regard him as God.
Since they knew him the best, I have to conclude that Jesus never claimed to them that he is God.
3) Professor goes into this issue in his writings. I suggest you consult his works.
4) And another thing I suggest you do is disabuse yourself, at once, of the idea that the New Testament is infallible, inerrant, and the Word of God.
As Professor himself will readily tell you, the New Testament is FILLED with gross errors and self-contradictions.
Have you ever watched any of professor’s debates on youtube? I have. I have watched at least two of them.
And the MOST amazing thing about them is that his debate opponents — self-professed BELIEVING Christians — AGREE that the New Testament is chock filled with ERRORS.
What I suggest you do is disabuse yourself of the false notion that the New Testament contains only truth. It simple does not. It is a fallible human document like any other from ancient times. It needs — and deserves — to be analyzed critically.
When you do that, you may come to the conclusion I have come to, which is —
Jesus himself, the REAL, HISTORICAL Jesus, NEVER claimed he was God.
Latter-day redactors put such words into Jesus’ mouth to give retroactive justification to their false theology of Jesus. Jesus himself NEVER ACTUALLY said such things.
I hope this answers your question.
Well, thanks for your explanation. You went to considerable effort to prove your point of view. I just happen to disagree with you.
He was God alright and the N.T. is all about telling the whole world about that fact; that God came to this planet in the form of a man for a few brief moments. The writers emphasized this truth repeatedly in no uncertain terms. Now, you are correct when you point out that His Father was called greater than He by Christ, but only in terms of a few specific responsibilities. And, He did put aside temporarily a few divine characteristics in order to be able to dwell among us—He couldn’t be everywhere at once and He could die and bleed and become physically exhausted.
We could play bible ping-pong with verses that prove and challenge the idea that He was God, all the fullness thereof in the flesh, and not get very far.
For me, looking at the N.T. as a whole, its focus and emphasis and reason for having been written are for the sole purpose of proclaiming to every human being, everywhere/anywhere with ears to hear that Jesus Christ was and is God almighty. Nothing in the universe is as exciting and you can see their enthusiasm on every page.
Leaving aside the absurdity of a distinguished scholar of early Christianity having to come up with an excuse for being ‘obsessed’ with the one person without whom no such phenomenon would have come into existence……
It is true that for Christianity to have succeeded, Jesus had to be deified in some way. Not necessarily in the way that he was. Look at the success of Islam, which has always insisted on the humanity of Muhammad (while still obscuring the historical figure to some extent, and closely controlling how or if he is portrayed, which Christianity has mainly not done).
But for me, it’s the man, not the man who became God, who obsesses me. I want to understand him. And yet, I know if he had been properly understood by his contemporaries and those who came after, I never would have heard of him. (I never would have been born, and neither would you, and neither would anyone in the world today–other people would be in our places, in a world that would be different in many ways, and in many ways the same).
I doubt you’ve read “Teresa: A Woman” by Victoria Lincoln–a biography of St. Teresa of Avila, written from a 20th century feminist’s perspective. I think it has the most beautiful ending of any biography I have ever read.
To set it up briefly, there was a political dispute over the remains of Teresa after she died–she was not then a saint, but was venerated for her personal holiness, and in Christianity then, relics–pieces of a saint’s body–were considered priceless. This led to her body being entombed in a church wall, where the cold kept it in a state of ‘miraculous’ preservation, which, when she was later disinterred for similarly political reasons, led to a revival of interest in her, and her eventual canonization. And because of this, her writings have survived, have found new and appreciative audiences in each generation, and we can know more about her than simply “She founded a religious order.” We have something of the real woman behind the saint, because she was declared a saint, through a rather absurd sequence of events.
And Lincoln finishes her book with these words:
“I should like to believe that God wanted her to be remembered, and used the world as it was then in the hope that what was so saved of her reality would be better understood in an age that could respect her life, and yes, her sanctity, for what they are.”
Would it kill any of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist–to respect Jesus’ life for what it was? To think about the courage and devotion he showed, to feel his anguish in failure as our own, and in understanding, at last, what he really meant, what he truly wanted of us, and for us?
And to say to ourselves, “Ecce homo!” He is a man worth beholding, if only through a glass darkly.
“I know if he had been properly understood by his contemporaries and those who came after, I never would have heard of him.”
How should He have been properly understood do you suppose?
As somebody who was trying to help. Or rather, to help people help themselves.
He didn’t think he had some special power to fix everything. He was a messenger. He was telling people that God was in them too–the power to heal themselves was already present. They just had to harness it. Individually and collectively. Through faith and good will. When they were ready, the Kingdom would come.
He knew, of course, that many would never be ready (the goats). And they would hold everyone else back. He probably got more and more frustrated and aware of this as his ministry went on, and eventually resorted to desperate measures.
That was his message. Live as if the Kingdom is already here, and it will be. But that’s so hard. It was easier to just make it all about him–to just say “I believe in Jesus” and go on living the same way as before. So with every generation, his message got watered down a bit more.
But there have always been some who got it–and lived it.
And that in itself is worthwhile.
“I know if he had been properly understood by his contemporaries and those who came after, I never would have heard of him.”
Interesting. I’m still not sure why you believe He was misunderstood back in the day. For example: “He didn’t think he had some special power to fix everything.” What makes you believe that to be the case?
Note to Bart: I am just an ordinary idiot, not the savant kind, so I don’t know how many words I’ve typed. But I just checked with an online counter thingy, and my other response to preston was 472. This is the edited down version. Please post this, and forget the other. I’ll try to be more careful in future.
1)He repeatedly tells people he’s healed that they have healed themselves through their own faith. He believes anyone with the same faith as him could work the same miracles. He tells Peter he can walk on the water too, and Peter does, briefly, before losing confidence and sinking. Now do I believe that literally happened? I believe it’s a story that reflects what Jesus told his disciples and anyone else who’d listen. Jesus went to some pains to tell people that they could work miracles too, and for some time afterwards, even as Christianity moved towards thinking of him as God, there was still a belief, even among those such as Ireneaus, that the purpose of Christian faith was for the believers to become God themselves.
2)As Bart has explained, and I find it highly credible, Jesus didn’t believe he was the Son of Man. The Son of Man was a divine being in heaven, waiting for God to send him to implement the Kingdom. So the Son of Man is the one with the power to fix everything.
3)Why do I think he was misunderstood? It’s the abiding theme of the first gospel we have. We have repeated instances in all the gospels of Jesus being misunderstood by others. And the authors of these gospels (and Paul) all have a different understanding of Jesus. If so many people understand him differently, doesn’t it go without saying that most if not all misunderstood him? And really, has anyone ever been perfectly understood? I haven’t.
I think there has never been a human being more perfectly MISunderstood. And the history of Christianity (and many of its critics) speak to that point more eloquently than I ever could.
“It makes sense that Jesus mattered to me as a late teenager, when I had a born-again experience and became a conservative evangelical. (What I converted from to “become a Christian” continues to puzzle me.) At that point Jesus became not only my Lord and Savior, but also my best friend and closest ally.” Bart
I am going to offer a few of my opinions about what Bart is saying here.
You were still born-again into your twenties. You converted as a person who didn’t know God personally to someone who knew beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus Christ was God’s son. You believed that because He, Jesus, became real to you like nothing else you’d ever known. You knew you weren’t dreaming. You weren’t hallucinating. You weren’t under the influence of a magic spell or hypnosis or the power of suggestion. You received Him, personally. You found Him, the God of the universe. You met and fellowshipped with His Son. The entire world as you knew it became new. It was given to you, freely, and you were absolutely astonished and embraced your new life. You embraced Him. You didn’t try to make all of this happen. You weren’t expecting squat when you prayed that Jesus would become your savior. In fact, the whole thing blew you away. Nothing before or since has been as beautiful, as revolutionary, as wonderful as coming into contact with the God of this universe through His son. He is the reason you went to Moody and Wheaton and Princeton. You were in full pursuit of the One who was your hero, your example of real, self-giving love and your aim was to share Him with the world!
I believe you haven’t gotten over what took place then. It is hard to deny reality when, That Reality is the most Real Reality ever. I don’t think you honestly believe that your awakening was on the same level as those William James describes. (And you know there are people all over the place pleading with God to bring you back safely into His arms.)
Keith Greene, remember Keith? could barely find the words to express his joy over finding Christ, but you could hear his unspeakable joy and gratitude when he sang.
Boat to heaven: The February/March 2014 issue of “Archaeological Diggings” (Volume 21, No.1) has an article entitled “Intuition Meets Science.” It describes the uncovering of a boat in an Egyptian cemetery dated at 2950 B.C. Evidently, ancient Egyptian royalty were buried with boats so they could be transported to the Afterlife. I will mail you a copy of the article.
Ra the sun god was said to ride in a boat every day as he / the sun crossed the sky.
“The overwhelming majority of Christians do not, and never did, believe in the historical Jesus…” Rather provocative but I think insightful and true based on my experience. The churches I knew preached the Gospel of John and the letters of Paul, with everything else just used as supporting material when needed. Church doctrines determined who Jesus was and is, not an earnest dissection or discussion of the actual history.
And true of just about any system of belief, theistic or secular, that gains any large number of followers.
You have a simplified version for the great majority of people.
A more sophisticated qualified version to people who want to go deeper.
I think there have always been Christians who thought of Jesus more as a man than as God.
But it was important to maintain the illusion of unanimity, even when the reality never existed.
How many people under Marxist rule do you think ever had the slightest understanding of what Marx meant?
Even Stalin would say things like “Let the God of History Guide Us Now.”
(By which he probably meant himself.)
I am replaying to your posting to me of yesterday, indirectly by Replying to this posting of yours (not addressed to me) because there is no link for me below to respond to you directly from it.
You said, “Jesus never said he was going to damn anybody. It’s unclear if he even believed in hell. He said God would separate the sheep from the goats, etc.,” and “But he most certainly never said “I personally am going to send you to hell for not believing in me.””
You DON’T know that. Just because there is no written Gospel citation with Jesus explicitly saying these words, doesn’t mean he really didn’t.
Secondly, it’s irrelevant. I don’t know or care whether Jesus spoke words of hellfire or not. The purpose of my response to that (obvious) Christian who asked me if it were that I’ve said “good-bye” to Jesus, was to respond to HIS evident beliefs.
In HIS world, conversion to Jesus is all-important, because whoever does not follow Jesus WILL go to Hell. And WILL do so whether Jesus is specifically quoted as saying so, or not. In HIS world, the entire NT is authoritative, so it really doesn’t matter if Jesus directly is quoted, as long at the NT itself holds this position. And it DOES.
You also said, “Behave decently, and you’ll be in the Kingdom.” That may be true; I HOPE it’s true. But that is NOT what traditional evangelical Christianity teaches. It teaches, “behaving decently” (doing good works) does NOT avail unless you also believe in Jesus.
You also said, “Nobody said you were going to hell.” That also is not true. While prestonp himself didn’t say that himself, I’ve had numerous Christians of his kind who HAVE told me EXACTLY that. And I’m confident that he himself WOULD say that, if I were to ask him directly.
To me, his simple, short question, did I say “goodbye” to Jesus, told me everything I need to know about his level and state of belief. And I reacted accordingly.
I think you overreacted accordingly, but we’ll agree to disagree.
And I think you said goodbye to Christ, not Jesus. The image of Jesus, not the real man, whose influence continues to shape the world, if not always in ways he would have approved.
I feel like the Cult of Nietszche vastly overrates him (and ignores his well-documented anti-semitism because it doesn’t match with the image in their head, they don’t want to deal with his influence on the Nazis, and he’s a lot more fun to read than Kant or Hegel), but I don’t say goodbye to him, because he’s still an important thinker, he had decent points to make, and what does that even mean? An emotional flourish, nothing more.
If you’d said goodbye to him, you wouldn’t be here every day, would you now?
I think you’ve misunderstood Preston. And I think you’ve confused what people tell you about Jesus with what Jesus himself taught, which is the nicest thing you could possibly do for those people who said you were going to hell. Giving them a whole lot of power they don’t deserve.
Well, he did say do good to those who persecute you. Well done, brother. 😉
I said goodbye to Jesus. And to Christ. And to Jesus Christ. It’s all the same. The difference between Christ and Jesus is a difference without a distinction. And it’s as pointless and counting angels on a pinhead, or watching grass grow. I have no idea, and even less interest, in any “difference” between “Jesus” and “Christ.”
As far as I’m concerned, Jesus was a (probably) holy MAN, who was wholly Jewish, and who attempted to bring about God’s Messianic Age to the world — an age defined by the entire world’s acceptance of The One True God of Israel. It is of course a wholly JEWISH vision. He FAILED, is all. And we KNOW that because if he had succeeded, the entire world would have ceased all war, and all people would have come to know The One True God of Israel.
His failure was NOBLE, but in the end, it was just that — a FAILURE. And now it’s time to move on and reform our own ways so we can help bring in the Age of the Messiah for the TRUE Messiah, whoever he may be.
It might be that Jesus’ failure wasn’t even his fault but OUR fault. The rabbis say, King Hezekiah was worthy to be the Messiah, and if the people had deserved it, and him, he would have been. But he wasn’t, and Jesus wasn’t, and that’s that.
I said goodbye to JESUS (Christ). I did NOT say goodbye to GOD. THAT is why I am here.
All I know is what the NT says. And the NT by definition is authoritative. Therefore, and by definition, anything the NT says in the name of Jesus IS what Jesus himself either said, or would have said, or SHOULD have said.
I therefore have no patience for anyone like you who tell me to concentrate on the “real” message of Jesus, and to ignore anything, even from the NT itself, which differs.
Failure is something we all have to deal with in our lives. Jesus was one of us, so that tracks. But his failure led to something even he couldn’t have imagined, that changed the course of world history. If you look at history (I think there’s a lot you don’t know) you realize that all the great names we remember were failures to some extent. Jesus was unusual in only becoming a great name centuries after his death. But he ended up being more remembered than anyone.
Jesus was a Jew, absolutely. You’re not telling anybody here anything they don’t already know. I don’t believe he thought he was Messiah. But he did believe he was there to bring about the transformation of the world, not over time, but all at once. I think it’s pretty obvious that he cared more about how people treated each other than what they believed–he figured if you behaved decently, you already believed the right things, just needed a bit of help. Jews could be rotten, Non-Jews could be decent–by your actions you proclaimed yourself sheep or goat. The Son of Man would divide the two, so the latter could no longer afflict the other. Problem is, whatever God may be, the Son of Man was Jesus’ creation–because he couldn’t see a way out of the cycle of self-destruction humankind was in. It’s still pretty hard.
You’ve seemingly adopted your own form of Judaism, and have decided that the Messiah is still coming (and will always be coming, because if the Messiah ever came, Judaism would cease to exist. It became a way for a persecuted people to go on, year after year, but please recall, that persecution existed before Jesus, and would have gone on quite well without him–also, the persecution isn’t always one-way.)
That kind of Millennarian thought, in itself, has never led to anything good. It is the source of Jesus’ failure. His success came through imagining ways that we could make ourselves better, while awaiting the Kingdom. Not from his ‘holiness’ but from his goodness. The rest is just promotional material (without which, I suppose, he might not have been remembered, but that’s not all he’s remembered for).
So if there are still people a thousand years from now, he’ll still be remembered.
You and I (and perhaps even Bart)–alas.
.
I listen to the Moody Christian radio channel (because I’m a masochist) and I have noticed that 90% of the scripture quoted in their broadcasted sermons comes from Paul. That’s why a lot of people say that Christianity is really the religion of Paul’s Jesus — not the actual, historical Jesus. Paul’s version of Jesus. I would tend to agree with that characterization.
I used to listen to the Moody broadcast in German, to exercise my German chops. And you’re right; mostly it IS about the Apostle Paul.
You’re quite right about Christianity being about, not the real, historical Jesus, but the hellenized Pauline myth of Jesus.
Which was why I asked Professor the other day, who is more important — Jesus or Paul? And he replied, “Jesus, I suppose.” Because, if there is no Jesus there is no Paul, but if there is a Jesus but no Paul, then Jesus survives in some other form.
Even after 2,000 years He remains the most popular, studied, examined, well known, discussed, debated, admired, loved, worshiped, adored and controversial human being in recorded history.
I was raised nominally Jewish. I became an atheist as a teenager and continue to be an atheist three decades later. And yet, I too am obsessed with Jesus — so much so that I have spent several years now writing a novel about Jesus. How do you explain that, Dr. Ehrman?
Uh, I’m afraid I have no explanation!
Well then. That’s one more book for you to research and write!
The explanation would depend on the depth, details, and aspects of your obsession. I was “brought up” christian before walking away from church and ministry. I now have what might be defined as an obsessive desire to know more about Judaism (religious and non-religious). One of my biggest curiosities is the differences/similarities between atheistic Jews and Atheistic Christians. (the first being a reference to a persons belief, the second being to their given culture/religious epistemological etiology (The framework we first view the world through due to it’s prevalence in our childhood communities)). So far I have been profoundly moved by the things that I have learned, but I could never convert to Judaism because I am not looking for a new god, or religion, or religious view of god. I am simply interested in learning about the culture, community, and beliefs of people.
So, why you have what seems like a paradoxical obsession depends completely on the details and motivation of your obsession. No one can answer that for you. Well, unless you want to share more details. Then people could assume and make guesses, but the determination of the real answer will still reside with you.
Then, too, labels like “an apocalyptic preacher” and the “man who became God” are ways to completely ignore the “blinding light and irreversible change” experiences that have occurred here and there in the last 2000 years.
Except changes like that happen to all kinds of people, in all kinds of contexts.
It’s not exclusively a Jesus thing.
If somebody told you they had an extraordinary life-changing revelation from Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, or even atheism (I’ve seen atheists write about their conversions in terms awfully similar to those of born-again Christians), would you respect that?
We’re never all going to believe the same thing in the same way. All beliefs that are not hate-based should be respected. All those that are based on hate, and fear, and a desire to look down on and devalue one’s neighbors are wrong. And sadly, all belief systems, theistic or secular, have that potential.
We can still believe in Jesus, still revere him, without seeing him as God. Or we can see him as divine, and acknowledge that the divine can take many forms.
And then there’s the great puzzle which is impossible to piece together. Is Jesus truly the savior of the world who is aware of everything happening on planet earth? Is he an eternal intelligence who exists somewhere out there, perhaps with no knowledge of his own legacy? Or is he in the ground, with no consciousness, destined to be portrayed for things he was and was not? Time will tell.
“…recent scholarship which focuses on literary details within the Gospels themselves has demonstrated that they are in fact the product of eyewitness testimony…”
Christian apologist Amy Orr-Ewing–Dr. Amy Orr-Ewing is the Director of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and the Europe, Middle East, and Africa Director of RZIM. She leads a team of pioneering apologist-evangelists and speaks around the world on how the Christian faith answers the deepest questions of life.
I suppose that’s why she’s an apologist and not a university scholar with an expertise in the NT….
Scholarship is to be commended. The amount and quality of work you’ve put in to your field is phenomenal and mind boggling. However, I can’t help but think of those who were His greatest enemies? They were the highly esteemed, the best of the best, not a speck of knowledge about the Law they hadn’t conquered, and yet they missed the whole darn thing. (He’s not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.)
Because, as we all know, God needs a lawyer.
Dr. Ehrman,
This is the first time I’ve read this particular blog-post (from years prior) and WOW, what an incredibly powerful journey, eh? THANK YOU FOR THIS!!! Your childhood, parenting, born-again experience, then gradual journey away from Fundamental and Liberal Christianity is all quite intriguing! From my perspective it is the eventual recognition of the stark incompatibility of Jesus the Apocalypticist and Reformer/Teacher (history) versus the hyped-up Hellenistic Apotheotic God/Christ (Christology) that in the latter permeates and oozes anti-Semitism. And for our modern Western times, it now (sadly & dangerously) sometimes/often invades (corrupts?) our American politics despite our implicitely SECULAR Constitution, DoI, and federal, state, and local governing/legislation! This is the public side to why Jesus/Yeshua — the simple man who failed as the Jew’s Messiah(?) — is wrongly turned into the Hellenistic Supernatural Apotheotic God/Christ promoted/sold today. Like in 4th – 6th century CE Rome, basing sociopolitical agendas and legislations on mythical supernatural ideology is hazardous at best!
But this Jesus/Man-turned-Supernatural-God has had devastating effects on my personal life as a husband (now ex) and as a father of my two children — I was FORCED by Conservative Texas Family Law to become a Part-time Dad, then quickly much LESS THAN a part-time Dad to my kids. Now they know so little about their real Father. (big frown)
I say all this to simply share with you why I have been and still am QUITE (bitterly) OBSESSED with this Jesus/Man-falsely-turned-Supernatural-God because his convoluted myth-ideology has ruined many a public, personal and family life, including mine! Yeah, I’d say this Jesus-mythology folklore is pretty freakin’ important these days! So please believe me when I say what you are doing and writing here is SO VERY IMPORTANT!!!
Thank you Sir.
“Sally O’Connor: My Life in Story” is a Jew for Jesus woman who has much to offer.
There’s no doubt but that the history of the world pre-Jesus leads to Jesus; and the history of the world post-Jesus proceeds FROM Jesus.
And I say this as one who has left Christianity.
You said “good bye” to Jesus?
Yeah. I did. What of it?
Let’s say the worst is true — that by leaving Jesus, I earn a one-way ticket to Pitchfork City. Why a loving Jesus would do such a cruel thing to someone who HONESTLY can’t follow him, is beyond me. But you take Jesus; I’ll take God.
But let’s say, I’m going to hell for my decision. What of it? That’s between me and Jesus. No business of yours at all.
I suggest you learn to Mind Your Own Business.
Jesus never said he was going to damn anybody. It’s unclear if he even believed in hell. He said God would separate the sheep from the goats, and the goats would get the bad pasture, and gnash their teeth in frustration that they couldn’t torment the sheep anymore.
But he most certainly never said “I personally am going to send you to hell for not believing in me.” That came later, and you’re not leaving him (whatever that means) by not believing in it. If anything, you’re joining him. Behave decently, and you’ll be in the Kingdom. Because one’s behavior is the only legitimate expression of faith, and therefore those who act as if they have faith really do have it.
Obviously if we knew for a fact that this was true, there would be no virtue in good behavior. We’d just be punching our ticket to the good life by leading a good life. But there’s always some doubt, and we’re all inherently selfish from birth, so it does mean something when you overcome your nature, and behave like others matter. It has its won rewards, to be sure–the joys of community. But it also really sucks sometimes. A lot of people like to fake caring, while doing exactly what they want. That sucks most of all.
Nobody said you were going to hell. Why’d you take that so personally? I know. Mind my own business. Personally, I wasn’t even clear if you’d ever been a practicing Christian. You don’t talk about yourself much–just about your ideas, which isn’t the same thing.
Peace, brother. We’ll all get to heaven in our own way. Probably sooner than we think. 🙂
Professor — a proposition:
Who is more important, Jesus or the Apostle Paul?
Most people would say, Jesus, of course; what kind of dumb question is that?
But I hold that the Apostle Paul is more important that Jesus, that it is Paul and not Jesus who is the REAL founder of Christianity as we know it today. Jesus has the same relationship to Paul that the puppet Charlie McCarthy had to his puppetmaster Edgar Bergen (father of the actress Candace Bergen). Paul is the puppetmaster of Christianity whose genius was his willingness to stand back and let Jesus his puppet seem to do all the talking, when in fact the Jesus whom Paul created was a being that Jesus himself would not have recognized.
I also hold that the original Jerusalem Church — really, a SYNAGOGUE — had outted Paul as the preacher of the forbidden doctrine that even the Jewish followers of Jesus should abandon Mosaic Law, and had triumphed over Paul.
Paul’s heresy (of renouncing Mosaic Law even for the Jewish followers of Jesus) might have consigned Pauline Christianity to the ashheap of history, but for the fact that the Jewish Revolt, shortly after Paul’s 2nd trial (Acts 21) put and end to the Jewish Christianity of the original mother Jerusalem Church and left Pauline Christianity as the only form left standing.
I suppose Jesus. Without Jesus we couldn’t have Christianity. Without Paul we’d have a different *kind* of Christianity.
“Who is more important, Jesus or the Apostle Paul?”
Read what Paul says.
And remember the way He summed up our duties to God like this: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
I hold that it is Paul and not Jesus who is the REAL founder of Christianity as we know it today.
Paul’s genius was his willingness to step back and present Jesus as the linchpin of it all.
He used Jesus as a puppetmaster puts words into his puppet’s mouth. So who’s more important? The puppet who actually speaks the words? Or the puppetmaster behind the puppet?
But Professor makes a good point. Without Jesus, there is no Paul and no Christianity. Without Paul, there is a different kind of Christianity.
Paul was a lot of things, but he wasn’t a hypocrite.
He genuinely did believe all his ideas came from Jesus. And a lot of them did. But believing as he did that Jesus had spoken to him after his death, he was free to basically continue the thread of Jesus’ thought (in fact, all the other early Christian leaders did the same, because Jesus left a lot of blank spaces for them to work in.)
Jesus never intended to create a new religion. He didn’t believe there would be any need for religion, as such, in the Kingdom. But you might as well say Martin Luther isn’t a founder of Protestantism, just because he never originally intended to split from the Catholic Church. It’s a certainty that much in modern Protestantism, and the world it helped give birth to, would horrify and repel him.
Nothing as significant and enduring as Christianity ever has one founder.
And you know, saying Paul is the real founder isn’t exactly an original observation. Bernard Shaw said the same thing in his prologue to Androcles and the Lion. And he was hardly the first.
“Who is more important, Jesus or the Apostle Paul?”
False alternatives. The most important is Paul’s Jesus.
Professor put it pretty well. His answer to the question was, “I suppose Jesus.” Because, without Jesus, there is no Paul, but without Paul, there still is Jesus. His movement goes in a different direction, is all. But by saying “I suppose,” in effect, Professor understood where my question came from.
There was a point to my question, and it was, when Paul promoted the character of Jesus, he altered Jesus in the process, turning Jesus into someone that Jesus himself wouldn’t recognize.
Paul and not Jesus is the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Which is why I thought it a fair question to ask.
“when Paul promoted the character of Jesus, he altered Jesus in the process, turning Jesus into someone that Jesus himself wouldn’t recognize.”
What was Jesus like before Paul altered Him and how do you know?
Professor, here is another short question that perhaps no one has ever asked you before.
In this blog above, you tell us what motivated YOU to become what you’ve become.
What in your opinion motivates your graduate students?
Yes, the topic is compelling. All of us who visit this blogsite agree. But Religious Studies is like the Lilies of the Field — it spins not; neither does it sow. It doesn’t produce tangible goods and services.
It is hard for me to imagine how a career in Religious Studies has a high probability of putting food on the table.
What kind of jobs can your grad students aspire to, other than waiting for their mentors to retire?
Most of them have a passion for teaching and research, and want to spend their lives doing both.
Man shall not live by bread alone…
Professor, you wrote a lot here about the critical influence of Jesus upon Western Civilization.
But I now ask you — what might have happened had there not been the Jewish War of 66-73 AD which destroyed the original Jerusalem Church and left Pauline Christianity as the only form of Christianity still left standing?
As a result of the 2nd Trial of the Apostle Paul before the Jerusalem Church and the Apostle James himself (Acts 21), Paul was successfully outted as the preacher of the heretical doctrine that not only Gentile Christians (Acts 15) but also the JEWISH Christians must now abandon Mosaic Law. The Jerusalem Church, acting in partnership and alliance with the Sanhedrin (Acts 23) put a permanent end to Paul’s missionary career.
But despite this victory over Paul, the Jerusalem Church’s time was almost up. The Jewish War came around 11 years later, and as a result, the Jerusalem Church was destroyed and only Pauline Christianity remained.
I ask the question: What might have happened had there been no Jewish War? Would mainstream Judaism have continued to make inroads into the Empire and eventually become the Official State Religion? Would a Jewish (non-Pauline) version of Christianity have come to dominate the Empire? Might a secondary level of Judaism based on the 7 Laws of the Sons of Noah, appealing to Gentiles, have become the Official State Religion?
No one knows.
And one final and VERY short question:
Do you know what the 7 Laws of the Sons of Noah are? Have you ever even heard of them? Are you aware of the influence they exerted over certain portions of the Christian scriptures?
You’re asking if I know what the Noahide laws are? (!)
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m asking you — do you know about the Noahide Laws? Have you ever even heard of them?
In the Orthodox Jewish world of yeshivot and Talmud, the 7 Laws of the Sons of Noah are well known. But few outside this world have ever heard of them.
And yet, there are certain passages of the gospels + Acts in which the Noahide Laws ARE present — and which CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD PROPERLY, unless one knows about these laws. Not even by a scholar such as yourself.
I refer to the following passages:
* The Gospel story of the Good Centurion;
* The story in Acts about Cornelius the Good Centurion (whom I hold is the same person as the unnamed Good Centurion in the 2 gospel accounts;
* Certain aspects of Paul’s missionary journeys;
* And most of all, the stories of both of Paul’s trials before the Jerusalem Church, first in Acts 15, then in Acts 20-23, and especially in Acts 21.
I say unto you, Professor, that unless you know about the Noahide laws, these passages will remain opaque to you; but with an understanding, the REAL meanings become simple and crystal-clear.
***
So — do you, Professor Ehrman, know about the Noahide laws, and if you do, do you realize their impact on 1st century Christianity?
OK, yes, I do know about the Noahide laws. You do know I’m a biblical scholar, right?
Being a Biblical scholar doesn’t mean you would know about Noahide Law, since general knowledge of Noahide Law tends to reside exclusively in the Orthodox Jewish world, not yours. But I’m very happy you do.
What then is your opinion about their influence on 1st century Christianity — in particular in the areas of the Gospels and Acts I stated above? Thanx,
Actually, I learned about them when I started studying the Bible as a 19 year old. They are commonly invoked to explain certain passages of the Bible (the decree from the Apostolic Council of Acts 15, e.g.)
The late Hyam Maccoby — I think you know who he was and what he did — wrote a book called “Revolution in Judaea / Jesus and the Jewish Resistance.”
His very first paragraph in his Introduction is this:
“There are certain advantages in being Jewish (which he was) when attempting to understand the Gospels, especially if one has been brought up in close contact with the Jewish liturgy, the ceremonials of the Jewish religious year, the rabbinical literature and the general Jewish moral and cultural outlook. Many aspects of the Gospels which, (emphasis added) ARE MATTERS FOR SCHOLARLY ENQUIRY, are for the Jew as familiar as the air he breathes.”
You could easily excused for not knowing about the Noahide Laws. And I wonder how many of your worthwhile biblical scholar colleagues who are Christians and whom you debate have heard of them?
Christians I debate: probably very few. Academic colleagues: I assume all of them.
You said “below, “Actually, I learned about them when I started studying the Bible as a 19 year old. They are commonly invoked to explain certain passages of the Bible (the decree from the Apostolic Council of Acts 15, e.g.)”
Excellent! And to that, I add Acts 21, for in that chapter, James’ words repeat what he said in Acts 15.
And the smoking gun, as I’m now confident you would agree, are James’ references to refraining “from blood, and from things strangled” (Acts 15:29). The other prohibitions (idolatry, “fornication”) James mentioned in that verse COULD have come from the 10 Commandments, but this particular reference to blood and things strangled has no parallel in the 10 Commandments at all.
Quite right; it can only refer to the Noahide Laws!
But now, consider the IMPLICATION of this: By making a ruling based on the Jewish doctrine of Noahide Law, this proves that James and his Jerusalem Church maintained their connection with Judaism. They never broke with Judaism at all.
Never heard of the Noahide Laws, but then I’m a far cry from a Biblical scholar and will plead guilty to being a Catholic. Anyway, I looked it up on Wikipedia. Five of the laws (adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, murder, and theft) seem to be covered in the 10 Commandments. That leaves the mandate to establish a judicial system to enforce these and other laws, and lastly, the proscription of “tearing” or eating the “flesh of a living animal.” That could mean more than one thing: is the animal still alive when one eats it? I doubt too many people would do this. Does “living” simply refer to the presence of blood? This would explain the kosher process of removal of blood before consumption, even though the animal is not alive. Lastly, I’ve read the law, as interpreted today, simply forbid cruelty to animals. Which is it?
Ironically, Catholics violate this last law daily at communion. Christ’s “resurrected” body still exists, and the doctrine of transubstantiation holds the bread and wine are changed into flesh and blood!
Don’t feel bad about never having heard of the 7 Laws of the Sons of Noah. I was surprised that Professor had heard of them (he was surprised when I asked him if he’d heard of them.). He did say that most of the Christians he debates with have never heard of them.
I trust by now that you understand the role the 7 Laws played in the words of the Apostle James in Acts 15 and 21. Basically, James made the ruling in Acts 15 that he made, based on the 7 Laws.
Though few people today outside the world of Orthodox Judaism (and, evidently, the world of theologian-scholars) have ever heard of these Laws, Acts gives evidence that they were very well known during the 1st century. Look at the stories of the missionary journeys of Paul. His technique was to preach in synagogues on the Sabbath. There, he would find not only Jews but also Greeks. But how could this be if, as the Apostle Peter said to Cornelius in Acts 10, Jews were not allowed to associate with non-Jews? And the answer is, Jews COULD associate with non-Jews IF the non-Jews were not heathens. i.e., if they followed The one True God. In other words, were Noahides.
Acts 2 says, of the first 3000 converts on the 1st Pentecost, some were “proselytes” from Rome. But proselytes to WHAT? NOT Christianity, for there were as yet no such proselytes. It can only be non-Jewish Noahide proselytes.
The same point is made in Acts 13 which talks about Paul’s visit to a synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia.
In Acts 17, Paul preaches in a synagogue in Thessalonika to disbelieving Jews and Greek “devout persons.” But Martin Luther gets this one correct when he refers to these as “Gottesbefürchtiger.” This means, “God-fearers,” and is the expression of art used in the Talmud to refers to Noahide converts.
Dr. Ehrman
In your experience, do other scholars of early Christianity (the ones not believers) share in your obsession?
I mean, do they share your love in the same way or do you feel you have a unique obsession for the historical Jesus?
Thanks
To a greater or lesser extent, indeed. But the vast majority of them are Christian.
I am now reading your “Triumph of Christianity.” What a HUGE accomplishment to have written this book. Today, I read pages 106-108 in the book about the classic work of Edward Gibbon and was struck with the following question:
Clearly, Christianity had much to offer in contrast to paganism and clearly Christianity has made HUGE contributions to the advancement of civilization. On the other hand, are there things about Christianity (its exclusivity, its focus on the coming Kingdom of God in contrast to the here and now, its contention that belief trumps reason, and so on) that contributed to the fall of the Roman empire and, if so, is it possible that these same factors might contribute to the fall of American democracy?
Certainly Gibbon thought so. But I don’t really see it myself. Rome had been ruling for about a thousand years. All good things must come to an end!
I agree with your view of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.
Now Jesus foresaw the Kingdom of God as near. so how is that consistent with “imminent destruction of his world”? if you mean the imminent destruction of sin, suffering and evil, then that is reasonable.
Prophets are responsible to speak the words of God regardless of whether people listen to them or not (see Ezekiel’s words about the watchman). So Judging Jesus by that standard we are more likely led to the conclusion that God’s hope and intention was the establishment of the Kingdom of God during Jesus lifetime, and yet God’s fervent expectation was frustrated, rather than saying somewhat glibly that “[Jesus’] core message proved to be wrong”.
Jesus said, “everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.” He achieved what He set out to do, even before time began, His purpose was to bleed and die and provide a propitiation for the sin of the world
His core message screams throughout the universe that He conquered death
please explain what you mean by
“He conquered death”
and
“everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die”
Those words are from the Gospel of John, so it is highly unlikely they were actually spoken by Jesus,
but for the time being, lets accept he said them. I would be curious what you [prestonp] mean he conquered death
It means, obviously, something to you and something to the author of the Gospel of John.
Paul was very devout yet he died physically as did every other christian and non christian since.
Paul has spoken about believers going from death to life, Billy Graham has spoken of christians having eternal life and many others have spoken similarly in between the times of these two.
I really want to know if anyone at all thinks Jesus (or the author of the Gospel of John) and Paul and Billy Graham all use the word “death” with the identical meaning.
and if so what is that meaning?
and if not, what leads you to believe their usage of the same word was so radically different?
I’ve tried to answer yours and others’ questions but I haven’t had much luck with posting lately.
There are different definitions for the word death. People are described as dead in their sins. There’s a second death. The death of the body is another form. How could Jesus be God and die? Raised on the third day? Yet, He was in heaven with the crucified stranger who repented that same day they were killed.
We enter a realm of the beautifully mysterious when GOD’s Son gives us new life. “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!” Bart
We soon realize that this world and all we know about it are small pieces of a vast drama playing out through dimensions unimaginable before we began this dynamic, breathtaking plunge into the spiritual world. We become aware of the angels and vistas and scenery more spectacular than we ever dreamed. We feel the presence of dark, evil principalities, the titanic battles raging behind the scenes, the energy exerted among creatures so large they need the vastness of our universe to carry out their warring endeavors.
Death is a diploma for us. We graduate to another dimension when our physical machines wear out and we don’t face the possibility of dying ever again. I can’t describe hell very well, but I promise you this: no one should go there. It is a realm of unspeakable horror. I’ve come this close. It is real. It is beyond the worst.
269
I do not post comments after the first three. No problems posting: just stick to three.
prestonp
thanks for the response, I completely agree with you
the words “death” “life” are used by us all the time with two different definitions
Billy Graham when exhorting us to accept eternal “life” with Jesus did not mean to imply our physical body would not experience “death” .
Paul says christians have gone from “death” to “life”, I am pretty sure he did not think his converts were zombies.
Jesus when advising one particular disciple to “let the dead bury the dead” must have been using the word “dead” with two very different meanings. But I think Jesus even more clearly explained his ambivalence toward the physical body and its constituent parts when he said it is better to enter ‘life’ crippled or eyeless, than to be cast out.
I feel like Jesus took the Our Father from 1 Chronicles 29:10–18. What do you think?
I don’t think the words are the same!
The Our Father prayer is a classic example of prayer of Pharisaical Judaism.
It is an entirely kosher prayer — kosher in the Jewish sense.
A Christian once asked me, do Jews say this prayer, and I replied, no they do not, but they COULD recite this prayer and commit no blasphemy against God or Judaism in the process.
The word used in 1 Chron. 29:10 that you’re probably refering to is the Hebrew word avinu, which does literally mean “our father”. But depending on context it can also mean “the one from whom we are descended” — i.e. forefather. Compare it to, for example, just a few verses down (15 & 18) where the word avoteinu is used, which literally means “our fathers,” in reference to the patriarchs. That is, by “our fathers” the Chroniclers are refering to their forebears or “forefathers”. In this context, God is, therefore, one of their forebears — in fact, the original forebear, the father of all humanity. That’s what it meant to call God “our father”.
Anyhow, that’s probably how Jesus meant it as well.
Bart,
What you believed before your “conversion” was certainly what I and probably most others believed.
We of the “herd”, followed the program, doing what we were supposed to be doing: working, relaxing, raising hell, eating, sleeping, whatever we thought would make us right in face of our friends and colleagues. Your mentioned “conversion” was a glimpse of there being something more, of a greater nature within. Being of a more inquisitive mind you eventually came to see deficiency in the new program. At each juncture you are becoming more “self-aware”.
Famed psychoanalyst Carl Jung described his practice as tearing down the beliefs of his patient and giving them a healthier set of beliefs. But no beliefs are actually “true”, and so the process continues, tearing down and rebuilding, indefinitely — or as I see it, until the patient come to understand the nature of beliefs and rise above them. This is also the goal of the greater share of our world religions.
You know, He wasn’t the worst guy who ever lived. He really does love us, Bart. I know, I can’t say that, but I know He does. Looking at the record of His life from a distance reminds me that this whole thing is all about a really cool guy. Look at a dollar bill under a magnifying glass and everything becomes tiny, tiny little dots, impossible to see the image the artist created. Stepping back and refocusing allows the dots, imperfect as they may be, to reveal what was intended all along.
About 100 years after the crucifixion, Rabbi Akiva did not proclaim himself to be the Messiah, but he did instead the next-best thing — he proclaimed Shimon bar Kochba (literally, “Simon son of the Star”) to be the Messiah. Bar Kochba led the 2nd Jewish Revolt, of 132-135 AD, which succeeded in driving out the Romans from Judea for a few years until the Emperor Hadrian mobilized a large army and crushed this revolt even more decisively than Vespasian and Titus had crushed the 1st Jewish Revolt of 66-73 AD.
Professor wrote above, “If Jesus’ followers had simply seen Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher of the imminent end, after his death they either would have died out – since his core message proved to be wrong — or they would have continued to revere him as a teacher of the Torah, whose interpretations, for them, were still worth following.”
This in fact is EXACTLY what happened with Rabbi Akiva. He continues to be revered in Judaism to this day for exactly the reasons Professor states. He came along less than a century before Rabbi Judah the Prince commenced the compiling of the Mishna, which eventually became the Talmud.
Professor — I find your remark about having a “born again experience” to be puzzling.
I know people who have had “born again experiences.” In the first place, I’m not altogether certain what it even means to have one. It must vary from person to person.
But in general, I think it to say that a “born again experience” is a mystical experience, one that transcends reason and logic. A “born again experience” is like the apparition that the Apostle Paul experienced on the Road to Damascus.
When someone tells me he’s had a “born again experience,” my only response is, I am unable to comment about something which transcends my sense of reason, logic, and knowledge, so I make no comment at all.
In my experience, “born again experiences” are very POWERFUL things. Generally, those who’ve had such experiences remain committed to Jesus for the rest of their lives.
Professor, how was it that you had such an experience, yet subsequently moved away from belief?
It happens a lot. People have all sorts of experiences in life that htye look back on and interpret differently from the way they did at the moment. Very common! Otherwise we would never change anything we thought or felt when we were 15!
Jeff Sessions recently quoted Paul’s Romans 13 defending Trump immigration policy. Romans 13 has always been a favorite of Christian conservatives to justify law and order abuses, the illegal invasion of countries on false premises, and more. If Obama had done the same, the Christian right would have been outraged and surely quoted some family values biblical quotes to justify their deep displeasure.
In Romans 13 Paul states his fawning support for (Roman) authority as they have been instituted by God and do God’s work. Resisting authority will incur judgment. Authority can do no wrong and good conduct need not fear authority. Authority is the servant of God and punishment is for the wrongdoer only.
Paul never writes a word about a Roman execution of Jesus in Jerusalem by Pilate. That stuff only comes from the later gospels. Strangely, the gospels assure us that Jesus was innocent, but the authorities, according to the gospels, killed him anyway. It appears that, according to Paul in Romans 13, Jesus must have been guilty as sin!
Another huge disconnect between Paul’s Jesus and the Gospel’s Jesus of Nazareth. I’m sure historical Jesus apologists have an answer!
I also began learning about Jesus like Dr. Ehrman, and believe that he was historical. Though the New Testament provides the best historical sources, they’re not typical, historical sources. With that in mind, these unique documents require a method of research different from the methods used for sources that are written by historians. That is lacking. The scholars have given us so much, but we still can’t see the forest because of the trees.
“All of that hinges on the belief that Jesus is God.
But the historical Jesus didn’t say so. (Proving that he didn’t say so, of course, is a major part of my book.)” Bart
Whether historical or celestial, Jesus was God and He proved it then and He proves it today inside you and me.
You accept the historical existence of Jesus? Einstein replied, “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
“the followers of Jesus had no inkling that he was divine until after his death.” Bart
If you believe that, you and Metzger cannot agree on the basic tenets of traditional Christianity.
But who do you say that I am? You are the Messiah/Christ
Please post something on the 3rd century Syriac Peshitta and the use of MarYah in the NT
Mar=Lord and Yah=the shortened form of the Divine Name Yahweh or YHWH
“מריא/MARYAH – This is an Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew tetragrammaton and it shows up in direct reference to Y’shua over 30 times in the Aramaic Peshitta (the original New Testament, contrary to the popular seminary belief). One of the places it is seen in reference to Him is where Y’shua is asking the religious leaders whose Son the Messiah is. The passage is Matthew 22:41-46 and Y’shua is making reference to the prophecy in Psalm 110. If one were to read the Massoretic notes of the Hebrew text of Psalm 110, one would find that the Massorete scribes changed the Name of YHWH in Psalm 110:5 to “Adonai” (“The Lord”); this they did in 133 other passages as well. But, Psalm 110:5 would read: YHWH at Your right hand will strike through kings in the day of His wrath…
The Peshitta Tanach (The Aramaic Old Testament) has the same reading. Our Messiah’s quotation of Psalm 110:1 suggests the whole Psalm of seven verses. No Greek
manuscript [found as of yet!] indicates this Divine Tetragrammaton Name MARYAH (YHWH) in Matthew
22:43-45. The Peshitta has it there three times! It also names Y’shua as YHWH an additional 29 times throughout the rest of the Aramaic NT. The Greek has no equivalent for the Sacred Name. There are only about 6 times that the Greek translators rendered מריא/MARYAH as Κυριος Θεος “Kurios Theos” (“Lord God”) or, Θεος“Theos” (“God”) to indicate The Deity, even though the Name “MARYAH” (“The Master YHWH”) is referenced 239 times in the NT Quotations of the OT Scripture. All other places where they saw the Sacred Name מריא/MARYAH, the translators simply put Κυριος (“Lord”), which can refer to The Deity or to a mere man. The Aramaic מריא/MARYAH never refers to anyone but The Deity. “
But was some error of the believers
who wrote the 3rd century Syriac Peshitta but it does show the use of the Divine Name YHWH or Yah in early “Christian” NT writings
Aramaic MarYah I meant.
Beware that earlier quote was
from an apologist in defense of the Trinity
Maybe was error of those who wrote the Peshitta but I can’t say for sure without further research
I just watched some of your Kyle Butt debate and I think he interrupted you 1 million times. How do you keep your cool in those moments? Lol.
Yeah, he was getting a bit riled….
when you wrote: “Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher of the IMMINENT DESTRUCTION of his WORLD”
do you mean that literally Jesus preached the earth would be destroyed? (contrary the passage 1:4 in your favorite book ecclesiastes)
if not, then are YOU, on this occasion, using hyperbole?
Or do you think JESUS, on occasion, used hyperbole?
or both?
if you think Jesus occasionly used hyperbole, then don’t you think he may possibly have used hyperbole when he made statements like
son of man coming in glory with angels [Matt 16], or
son of man coming on clouds {Matt 24], or
sun and moon darkening stars falling from heaven {Mark 13] ?
Yes, he thought God was going to destroy this world and start over. I don’t think that means he thought the earth would blow up, but it certainly means that history as we know it would come to a crashing halt and God would bring in a *new* kingdom
obviously, , ,
Jesus in Matt 16 and 24 and Mark 13 used same rhetorical techniques as you have just demonstrated
If you have written anything about the Johannine Thunderbolt (Matt. 11:27, Luke 10:22, +Q), could you repost such post on blog. Thanks.
I don’t think I ever have! Maybe I should!
Jesus said, “everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.” He did in fact return before those standing there would die. The transfiguration is the answer to this “dilemma” according to some. But, Jesus had a way of speaking in several dimensions at once. Perhaps we really don’t die, we just graduate instantly to heaven. Eternal life never begins and never ends.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one
I just finished a YouTube presentation on the “psychological significance of the Bible stories”.
I think most people are attracted to understanding Jesus because Jesus is presented as perfect archetypal For which we should strive.
Jesus is portrayed as making the greatest sacrifice and living the perfect life. So through the story of Jesus’ life and death we are encouraged to Do the greatest good (for ourselves , our family and society) that we can possibly do given our abilities.
“The reality is that if Jesus had never been declared God, we wouldn’t have Christianity.” Bart
No offense, Bart, but of course that is true! That is why Christianity is Christianity. He was declared to be God throughout the N.T. because He was God. He made that obvious. If someone else had been declared to be God, he would not have become God. Jesus backed up the claims then and now, a model of self giving love, introducing people to an entirely different relationship with the universe! He made it abundantly clear He was God in numerous ways, like no other human being ever did before or since. Trying to convince the world that He was God is the theme, the essence, the purpose, the entire reason that the N.T. was written, the reality of His coming.
For William James the practical consequences of saintliness are asceticism (pleasure in sacrifice), strength of soul (a “blissful equanimity” free from anxieties), purity (a withdrawal from the material world), and charity (tenderness to those most would naturally disdain). For James, a saintly character is one where “spiritual emotions are the habitual centre of the personal energy.”
Saintliness includes:
“1. A feeling of being in a wider life than that of this world’s selfish little interests; and a conviction … of the existence of an Ideal Power.
2. A sense of the friendly continuity of the ideal power with our own life, and a willing self-surrender to its control.
3. An immense elation and freedom, as the outlines of the confining selfhood melt down.
4. A shifting of the emotional Centre towards loving and harmonious affections, towards “yes, yes” and away from “no,” where the claims of the non-ego are concerned.”
So, What makes your Belief different from Islam’s?
Quran says that Gospels contains truth about God but also many forged and inserted fallacies about God and Jesus, Quran claims that Jesus was sent only to Jews to warn them if they don’t follow the Law of Moses, Quran insists on considering Jesus is a messenger of God, a human being never equal to the creator, all the miracles attributed to him was given to him by God to prove he’s a real messenger of God but not God himself, Quran tells that Jesus denied to be equal to God and he clearly told his followers that God is one and he is a servant of God, his message to Jews “warning” and “blessing”, to warn them if they don’t follow the Laws then the Blessing will be taken from them and be given to another nation, and a blessing and breaching “Gospel” of the last message of God that will come which is the message to all mankind by the Last messenger. Muslims do believe Jesus is a Man and a real Prophet who was supported by miracles, that he was born from Mary the Virgin, that he was saved from the Cross and ascended to heaven. God is one and no one equals to him. Are they right according to your conclusions?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I”m not a Muslim, so naturally I don’t base my views on the Qur’an….
I too believe He was born of a virgin. Imagine that! She had never known a man and yet she was soon to become the most famous and beloved mother of all time. What she did was impossible. Absolutely, without a doubt, totally could never happen. But, IT Happened. It happened 2,000 years ago and the world has never been the same. How did it happen?
Jesus’ life was a miracle. His physical human tissue, his physical structure was inhabited by God and was God. And you know what, why not? Why, if He wanted to, couldn’t God inhabit flesh and blood? Guess what? He could and did and some people who were essentially just like us and lived a long, long, long time, saw Him, talked to Him, ate meals with Him and heard Him teach stuff they barely understood
Even if Jesus was a whacko, I respect him from what I can gather from the Bible. He didn’t try to convince others for his own financial benefit, didn’t seem to have formed a harem for himself and generally tried to exhort each person he met to love others as his brothers and sisters. Perhaps he wasn’t a practical person and didn’t see the greed and selfishness that drive most people, but even if he was not the God or Son of God, I admire Jesus. But I am not sure I admire people who ride his coattail and utter his name to gain power and influence that they would otherwise not be able to achieve.
Question: Why is it that if “God’s utopian kingdom would arrive on earth within his disciples’ lifetime” has NOT come to pass, people continue to believe in Christianity? Or could the Bible passages be interpreted as having not said that God’s utopian kingdom would arrive on earth within his disciples lifetime but that God’s words would be preached widely throughout the world which did occur sort of?
Some, of course, dropped out of the faith, probably for this reason . Maybe lots of people — we just don’t know. But many/most simply put a different spin on the words ,understanding them in a different way. Happens a lot. Think American politics.
His Kingdom of peace and love and goodwill to man did come and is still making its way into the lives of people all over the world. His Kingdom is here in the hearts and lives of those who love Him. His Kingdom reigns in our hearts and thoughts and intentions.
“Well I’m pressing on
Yes, I’m pressing on
Well I’m pressing on
To the higher calling of my Lord
Many try to stop me, shake me up in my mind
Say, “Prove to me that He is Lord, show me a sign”
What kind of sign they need when it all come from within
When what’s lost has been found, what’s to come has already been?”
Dylan
Ask a true disciple if His Kingdom has arrived. Many expected Him to be something other than what He was and to do things He doesn’t do. Many physicists cursed God for being malicious. Einstein said God isn’t malicious, He is subtle.
There is a proven way to find out whether or not God is real, if that is what you want to know. For anyone/everyone who wants to discover if there is a God and if so, can He be known, I assure you, He longs to make Himself real. He’s died to join us.
Given the scientific validation behind repeatable, confirming experiences to a given stimulus, we can verify the core doctrines of the New Testament. That’s how important personal experience is, when it is consistent and measured over thousands of years among millions and millions and millions of people.
BTW, Jesus addressed common reasons believers fall away, comparing Christians to the planting of seeds. Some start but have have no root, some believe for a season, some are choked and some get it and flourish.
“…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
Have you read A-J Levine’s Jesus for Atheists? I haven’t yet, but the promos seem to run along a similar line to this post, though I’m expecting she’ll argue that the historical Jesus himself is worthy of emulation, with adjustments for social context.
Nope, haven’t read it.
Since someone mentioned Romans 13, I’ll ask about a book I’ve been reading on stoic influences in the NT. One chapter argues specifically that Romans 12-15 presents a stoic view of natural law, not the applicability of the Jewish (or Noahide perhaps) statutes to gentiles. Do you think this is a plausible reading of Romans 12-15 and, if so, is obedience to civil authority for Paul less about obeying God than the foolishness of taking on powers that one person cannot hope to defeat?
Interesting idea. I haven’t thought about it.
I think I have 15 minutes left in this 24 hour period to make 3 comments and then I can make 3 more starting at midnight?
1)He repeatedly tells people he’s healed that they have healed themselves through their own faith. He believes anyone with the same faith as him could work the same miracles
Faith in what?
In God, presumably.