Top Biblical Scholar Bart D. Ehrman Leaves Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

Son of God "greater than equal to" God
or Son of God implies God

-Jake

Son of god implies at least half god but given the mythos, it'd be all god.

Exactly.

"Half-godism" is not accepted as a doctrine by the Scriptures. Biblically, it's either Jesus is fully God or he is not.

Of course, that comes with a lot of complications. Hence, the Trinity doctrine was "invented".

or early xtians did not care god half-god meh.
when rich pagans started to convert it hurt their platonic sensiblities and they invented the trinity.
-Jake

As you wish.

its really the same story but avoids using the word biblically
we could further generalize it to the first xians did not seem to require a trinity
but for some reason needed one later.
I lay the credit/blame on the helenistic portian of the movement.
the trinity is pretty offensive to the the jewish mind.
-Jake

-Jake

Well not really. The early Christians debated the nature of God; the Apostles most likely had a triune understanding and this is evident in the scriptures themselves. The earliest conceptions (during second century) were modalistic but these were never adopted in a widespread fashion and were abandoned; at Nicaea the debate was between Arianism, Homoousianism and the Trinity. The result was a victory for St. Athanasius and St. Nicholas (who famously decked an Arian supporter during one of the more heated debates... guess he really does know who is naughty or nice). Neither the arians, modalists or homoousianists could reconcile their views with the oneness of God.

(1) change it to may have and we have concord
(2) strong word.
(3) I lost interest in the Jesus movment at about the 2nd century but arians, modalist and Homoousianism , trinitarianism seem to me to be equivelently incomprehensible.
Adoptianism on the other hand is less aberrant to my mind.
(there are jewish precedents or parallels)
I have no horse in the race but if the apostles conceptions were modal why reject them?

-Jake

I appreciate the move towards understanding; it is quite rare. Let me claify: I would say the Apostles probably had a Triune understanding, or something close to it.



Agreed. If one reads the discussion of the theology involved in the Triune conception of God it becomes clear how well it works. St Augustine's work on the subject, subsequent to St. Athanasius dealt with most of the doctrinal attacks on the concept and it is still a theologically sound document today having survived over 1500 years of scrutiny.



St. Augustine had the same problem. He actually used the Trinity as his example of the sort of truths that people can grasp but not really understand.



The idea that Christ was adopted at baptism is difficult to maintain in relation to the scriptures. The scriptures repreatedly attribute all of creation to the Son. For example John 1:1-3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.



Sorry, this is a mistake in my own choice of language. Modalism developed after the deaths of the Apostles. Tertullian effectively discredited the movement on the grounds that it did not reflect the independent person-hood Christ displayed to that of the Father.

Didn't Jesus say somewhere "I and my Father are one"?

ruveyn

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <-stealing your use of the line of carrots.(mispelling is funnier)

I always seek concord it has been a compulsive tic of mine since I read 'Nicomachean Ethics' as a kid.
sometimes peoples arguments and my other compulsions make that harder but it is always my goal.

-Jake

0h I think the man from Hippo could have given a defense of adoptionism
that would have very convincing. (if that was his goal)

In matters of ethics, Aristotle was much better than he was in the area of physics and nature. For Aristotle, virtue was much more a matter of developing good habits of thought and behavior than it was a shining holiness. If Aristotle is right, then we all could become virtuous although some of us would have to work harder at it than others.

ruveyn

Back to the original question the bartman say in his book on the topic,
that theodicy was his reason for leaving.
-Jake

The Gospel of John is an interesting book. It's true that John 10:30 quotes Jesus as saying "I and the Father are one." This is often quoted to me as proof of a Trinity. However, at John 17:22, Jesus says of the Apostles, "In order that they may be one, just as you and I are one." This Greek word, hen, is the same used as the one at John 10:30. Surely Jesus does not wish his Apostles to become part of the same triune Godhead that he and the Father are allegedly part of. Furthermore, at John 14:28, Jesus states that, "the Father is greater than I." He also refers to the Father as "my God" at John 20:17. There is never an occurence of the Father calling Jesus "my God."

Another point to consider is the author. If any man could be called Jesus' best friend while he lived on Earth, it was John. This is, after all, the man Jesus entrusted with the care of his widowed mother upon Jesus' death. If anyone would have known Jesus to be God-on-Earth, it would've been John, who saw many things most of the other Apostles did not. And yet, what did he consider most important for us to know? "...that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (John 20:31)."

As you may have gathered, I am interested mostly in what the 1st century Apostles wrote about Jesus. Tertullian and the Nicean Council do not concern me much, as they lived hundreds of years after Jesus's death and resurrection. This is the equivalent of me writing a book about Dr. Samuel Johnson and trying to compare it to Boswell. While many fashionable theories and philosophies came about starting in the 2nd century, I stick to Holy Scripture and the inspired writers of these.

The Apostle John made it clear that he believed that Jesus is God regardless of verses that show oneness in purpose between the Father, the Son and the disciples of the Son.

John 1 is one obvious example.

It doesn't matter how you twist things. Facts remain facts.

It's really not my intention to "twist things." I merely consider myself a serious student of the Bible. I am therefore open, not just to what tradition dictates, but what the verses themselves say. I believe that, were Jesus God in the flesh, it would've been very clear in the writings of all the Gospels, as well as the Epistles of Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude.

While it's true that John 1:1, KJ version, states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." However, an examination of koine Greek shows that the word for god, "theos," occurs here without a definite article. This denotes god, with a small g, showing the Word (or Jesus) to be divine, or god-like, but not THE God. Interestingly, the Bible makes clear that there are more gods than just the True God (see 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6). John 1:18 goes on to say "no man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

We should also ask ourselves this: if Jesus and God are one as part of a triune Godhead, where is the third member, the Holy Spirit? Why is it never depicted in Scrpiture as a seperate personality?