The Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity

a reply to: Akragon
Well... At least trinity "illogical mystery" ends Jesus' evolution. Otherwise, we may get Morphing Seven Spirits as God(s) and someone has to explain why they are only one. You know how Crazy John of Patmos and the Book of Revelation is. Things could have been a lot more worst if Book of Revelation is accepted as the fifth canon gospels.

But well.. Each persons has to answers their own action.

May God has mercy on everyone.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Akragon

Erhman is just amazing..

He has changed my view o. Countless things..


His spiel on adoptions is just facinating!!!


The way how he explains that in Roman culture adopted kids were more important than biological children. But after that shifted Christians created the Virgin birth narrative..



I have literally watched everything I can find on erhman..

He is trying to connect Mark, Matthew, Luke and John into one union perspective, and fast forward it to Nicene Creed's declaration. I don't think it is a wise move.

What if one of two Gospels contain errors or missing datas? Then his entire premise will fall down. There're a lot of things going on and we have yet to uncover everything from Dead Sea Scrolls.

I suspect there are more that we do not know yet.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

Because your average Christian has no idea about erhman’s work..


If they did Christianity has a mass exodus over night..

Yeah evidently according to you

Do you really think he is the best, the greatest, the most prominent...you a fan boy?

I know Ehrmans even know how to spell his name 😄 But he isn't that special, he just spoke about some Gnostics and a few people who are called heretics. Ehrman said nothing new, nothing special, nothing outside what the standard ignorant person...oh that's right

Unlike you Josh, I understand and accept the opposing arguments, not just know the argument I also understand the argument
Unlike yourself who moans and cries and bitches about what they won't understand or accept as an alternate view, a view that isn't theirs,ma view that attacks their fundamentalist opinion
Yes, that's right, you are a fundamentalist, just a non Christian fundie, don't wear that label with pride. I think you would

I was a bit dissapointed in the minutes I lost watching that vid, he said nothing new, same old same old, pity ak didn't tell us what it was about before I wasted my time

a reply to: EasternShadow

Erhman’s?!!!


What?!?!


Lol

I would have to rewatch this particular video, but that seems like literally the opposite of what he does...

Erhman is constantly pointing out that apologetic scholars compress all the gospels into one story, while he does exactly the opposite..


Erhman reads the gospels like 4 different authors telling different accounts of the same base story. Only they disagree about a lot of things..


Just like any other time you ask 4 different people about an event.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


Erhman is constantly pointing out that apologetic scholars compress all the gospels into one story, while he does exactly the opposite..


Erhman reads the gospels like 4 different authors telling different accounts of the same base story. Only they disagree about a lot of things..


Just like any other time you ask 4 different people about an event.

The four gospels are not only differents, they are also contradicting with each other. For example, the three synoptic gospels mentioned Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus Cross. John said Jesus carried the cross all by himself. The three synoptic gospels said, Jesus did not drink the wine. John said Jesus drank the wine before said,"it is finished" and died.

This contradicting accounts could not be reconciled into one unified persepective. It make no sense. Erhman knows but he purposely left it out because it will destroy his evolution theory.

a reply to: EasternShadow

I disagree.

I already knew about Simon carrying the cross BECAUSE of erhman lol..he prob said it right before this clip starts..

He literally says your spiel CONSTANTLY!! Lol

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow

I disagree.

I already knew about Simon carrying the cross BECAUSE of erhman lol..he prob said it right before this clip starts..

He literally says your spiel CONSTANTLY!! Lol

So he decided to explain the missing virgin birth in both Mark and John through evolution, but choose to ignore the contradictions? That's fairly inconsistent of him. If he choose to complement the entire story, he should at least try to explain in what way those contradiction make sense in his evolution.

a reply to: EasternShadow

It is a 30 min clip.

He is saying that the contradictions ARE the evolution of it..


In Mark jesus was the Jewish version of a messiah. The Romans were the bad guys and the Jesus would return that generation to fulfill freeing them from Roman and the other messianic requirements.

Jesus doesn’t know what the hell went wrong at the crucifixion and is shocked it is all going down.

Years later when John was written Christianity had flipped from a sect of Jewish converts to a sect of pagan converts.

SO THE STORY EVOLVED. The Romans became the unintentionally ignorant and the real bad guy was the Jews.


I really think you are mid interpreting him. He might literally be the only reason you know about those contradictions because he is who popularized them decades ago.

He wrote the first book pointing out the contradictions and bashing smushing then all together into one book.

Listening to him up minute 5:00 his oratory is so full of holes. Hate to say so him being from NC. for a length of time. His logic betrays him, it's just that simple.

a reply to: EasternShadow

I watched half the video. I have seen this lecture in total, but I think I see where your problem is..


Erhman is saying Mark thought jesus was ADOPTED at the resurrection. Not born of a Virgin.

In Roman culture adoption >biological children, because YOU CHOISE YOUR ADOPTED KIDS. Your bio kids are a crap shoot.

Emporer’s would make an adopted person the heir instead of their own children.


This would later be evolved into the Virgin birth story. Maybe as the first born male line of succession stuff started.

I’m gonna keep watching , but thought that might be what you meant.

So what is the conspiracy here?

I have some time but not quite convinced to watch yet?

a reply to: Plotus

Your not getting his whole premiss.

This guy is the biggest named NT scholar on the planet.

He is the only person both sides (atheists and Christians) agree is a valid source to quote. I’m not saying he is infallible lol,

But he is THE most respected scholar in the field. Watch more of his videos and debates to get the whole picture.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Basically the video shows the best New Testament scholar on the planet as he lays out the evolution of Christian doctrine over the first 2 centuries.


How Mark, Paul and those who actually knew jesus didn’t think jesus became a divine being until the resurrection.

God basically thought jesus was soooo cool that he took time out of his busy day. To come resurrect jesus and basically adopt him as his true born son.

That to the society of the time adoption trumped your biological children. Bio children are a crap shoot. You choose the people (usually adults) you adopt.

He explains how the Virgin birth arose over the first century or so as people began to evolve and add stories to those already in circulation..

First he was adopted at the resurrection.

Second they moved it back to his baptism.

Then to a Virgin birth.

Then to jesus being eternal and always existed right beside god.


To god and jesus being one being.


In a nut shell paraphrasing of course.

a reply to: Akragon

You guys don't follow Jesus at all. You follow Paul's BS 100%.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Thanks.

How Mark, Paul and those who actually knew jesus didn’t think jesus became a divine being until the resurrection.

That say's much givin that the prophets had to hate their family and give up all their belongings among other things in order to just hang out with jesus at the closest level.

We do know that doubt did exist though in them from time to time.

I just really can't buy that line though givin the miracles he performed and the fact that belief and faith itself was the fuel they lived and survived upon.

a reply to: mekhanics

Well Paul, though his only claim to jesus is through visions, is the earliest Christian works we have...


At least the undisputed Pauline gospels are the earliest.


It seems crazy I know and one of the later things I learned... you would think the gospels were oldest, but they are only storyline wise the oldest..

They are prequels lol.

Paul’s letters are from 30-40 years after the crucifixion.

Mark first surfaces 60-80 years later . Then Matthew and Luke. Then lastly John.

a reply to: howtonhawky

A) faith healers were a dime a dozen back then as well as accounts of miracles.

There is a book that proposes that what made jesus unique for the time period (a guy running around preforming miracles to the poor for free) wasn’t the miracles.. they thought miracles happened all the time...

The unique part was that he was doing it for free!!

All the other faith healers charged for their services and would be wined and dined by the rich and famous. Then jesus comes along and is doing it for free..

This pissed off the Jewish establishment who charges for that kinda thing.

B) The stories of the lifetime miracles came later after 50+ years of oral traditions.

Paul is the earliest writer and he makes almost no claims about jesus’s Life. Only about what he did after the resurrection.

NONE of the gospel accounts even claim to be eye witness accounts. It was 60 years after the crucifixion before Greeks started writing the stories in circulation down.

Erhman here actually knows Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew and has read all the manuscripts that have survived to modern times. It is by contrasting them in chronological order that he makes his thesis.


Using metrics widely agreed upon even by Christian apologist scholars.

a reply to: howtonhawky

A religion didn’t pop up about jesus till after his death. He was only preaching for 3ish years.. or atleast we only have accounts of 3 years of his ministry.


It’s not hard to imagaine that even though they thought jesus was special and the Jewish version of a messiah. They weren’t ready to make the leap to “son of god yet”.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Yet it is recorded that they did indeed believe in Jesus as the son of GOD.

It is your right to interpret the scripture however you want.

A whole bunch of effort being put forth to undermine the christian belief system.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Actually Jesus performed four important miracles in Mark
Casted out demons
Controlled the weather
Raised the dead
Forgave sin, all recorded all important showing His Power over everything

That's how we know Jesus is God,Ehrman is disingenuous by leaving that out

All recorded and judging by the growth of the gospel,,all seen by eyewitnesses, cost Jesus His life

So,,talk it up, believe what you want about miracles, just don't compare what is recorded with snake oil salesmen and or magicians
Would you die for either, many people died for Christ