Jesus Claimed to be God and the Truth of Bart Ehrma's Mistaken Assumptions

"Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8.58).

"I and the Father are One" (John 10.30).

"Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14.9).

"Father, glorify Me with the glory I had in your presence before the world existed (John 17.5).

Bart Ehrman said, "The gospels are certainly expressions of the faith of the early Christian authors. Matthew, Mark and Luke were writing down their views of Jesus." Even Bart admits Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, and Luke wrote Luke.

The reason why Bart didn't include John as the author of John is because he claims it is a very late dated text and therefore, was embellished. He claims these more exacting statements Jesus claims to be God are not included in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

He claims the stories of the gospels were told for decades before being written down. But he is wrong. The early creeds go right back to the cross and the Apostles taught the resurrection from the beginning. John was converted when he saw Jesus resurrected. James, the brother of Jesus, converted when he saw Him resurrected.

His main reason for rejecting Jesus claimed to be God is he says the 4 gospels read side by side show discrepancies. But, of course, scholars have answered every alleged discrepancy so there are no discrepancies. They are just different perspectives viewed by John, Mark, Matthew and Luke. We can even grant discrepancies but they do not infringe on the fact Jesus claimed to be God. I believe Bart needs deliverance from his petty self so he can give his life to Christ. One his Bart's criteria for good historicity is corroborating sources. Well, since the gospels are different enough not be considered corroborating, that should be a plus for their authenticity.

A better approach since Bart agrees Paul's writings are earlier than the gospels is to appreciate Paul truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected, and said he spent 15 days with Peter, and James, the brother of Jesus. Years later he spent time with John, and again with Peter and James. That's where the resurrection story comes from, from the original Apostles that not only Paul knew personally, but so did Clement of Rome and Polycarp, for they said so. In recounting the gospel and early creeds takes us right back to the cross.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTgig9F782s

Bart says Matthew, Mark and Luke left out Jesus calling himself God because Jesus never claimed to be God. The problem with that is that they did have Jesus mentioning God though not distinctly in the way John did.

The problem with his theory is the Apostles believed they saw Jesus resurrected which is to believe Jesus is God. So give the authors of the gospels liberty in what they recalled how Jesus said He is God.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man 81 times. Son of Man is deity. Humans are not called the Son of Man, only God is called the Son of Man. The meaning behind Son of Man is that Jesus is for mankind to redeem them.

"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8.38).

Bart doesn't think Jesus is talking about himself in this verse but some other Son of Man. All instances of Son of Man Jesus is talking about Himself since only Jesus is divine. Bart said those words of Jesus when he was talking about the Son of Man referring to someone else, the writers would not have included that. Bart is contradicting himself, because he is suggesting Mark 8.38 was not referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, so why then did the writers include it when Bart said they wouldn't? Bart's contradicting himself.

When Jesus spent 40 days with the Apostles after His resurrection they would have discussed a great many things, e.g. what Jesus said in the council. Or the Apostles could have received from someone in the council what Jesus said through the grapevine. Either way "Jesus said, I AM. [Ex. 3.14 "I Am" is here or "I am the Lord"] And you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand [Greek "at the right hand of the power" Ps. 110.1] and coming on the clouds of heaven [Dan. 7.13].” Joseph of Arimathea a believer was at the council.

In the OT when you see the son of the father as saying the son of God, it is not in the same sense in the NT. Remember the OT is foreshadowing the one and only begotten Son of God.

Bart keeps saying Jesus never called himself God in Mark, Matthew and Luke as they go back to M, N, Q, or L manuscripts presumed to be earlier texts that make up Mark, Luke and Matthew. Actually, Jesus never said "I am God" anywhere so the different ways of saying He is God in the 4 gospel accounts should not be a problem. Bart is trying to demand of God what should be said and how it should be said, but Bart is just making himself out to be God by doing that -- seems like a rebellious attitude!

Bart was asked what argument would convince him Jesus professed to be God? He naturally would say the phrases for Jesus being God in John would also have to be found in Mark, Matthew and Luke. But that violates the argument from dissimilarity and makes the gospel accounts collaborative rather than independent sources.

Bart said it is irrelevant that Peter, John, Paul and John thought Jesus was God, but what matters is did Jesus claim to be God. I disagree with Bart's position. It is relevant that the Apostles believed Jesus is God because they believed it based on His resurrection appearances in various group settings.

Bart believes that the resurrection and ascension of Jesus was believed to be the same thing to early Christians. That's what he believes. There is no basis for this belief, but that's what he believes. This is important because he needs to back up his claim, and he doesn't do it in this video with regard to this claim. The basis for his claim is that ancient civilizations believed that if you were a righteous human being you become a God. Mormons teach this too. But this is not Christianity, for Jesus was sinless from day one. That's how the Apostles understood Jesus. Jesus came "in the likeness of flesh". And thus only He could atone for sins.

Bart says if you call Jesus Yahweh the "existing one" you are committing Sabellianism which is a heresy. No! Jesus is Yahweh. The Father is not Yahweh.

In Christianity, Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead—that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.] The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, who was a theologian and priest from the 3rd century.

Jesus is Yahweh. You know when Bart struggles with something, he raises his voice.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamo..._is_yahweh.htm

Bart said God is making Jesus equal with Himself. God can't do that for only God existed before time and space; therefore the Trinity must be true!

Bart insists that Jesus is not Yahweh with 1 Cor. 8.6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." The word for God here is not Yahweh but "theos".

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Rom. 10.13). This verse is taken from the OT Joel 2.32 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call." The LORD in Joel 2.32 is Yahweh mentioned twice as LORD. So Jesus is Yahweh. This is Bart's sore spot. Keep bringing this up for him to see how he misreads Scripture.

Bart said Paul never call Jesus Yahweh. What's the English word for Yahweh? Jesus.

Matthew emphasizes Jesus as king.
Mark emphasizes Jesus as a servant.
Luke emphasizes Jesus as a man.
John emphasizes Jesus as God.

So naturally, you will find phrases uniquely expressed by John emphasizing God more than the other gospels and in ways more potent.

Bart keeps saying that Matthew, Luke and Mark never mention Jesus as the Son of Man, therefore, the early Christians did not worship Jesus as God. That's Bart's claim. So he asks why would early Christians not call Jesus the Son of Man even though He is the Son of Man? He says these 3 gospels were written before John so surely they should have this phrase. But "Son of Man" is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John many times. "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Luke 21.27).

Making a statement about eyewitness, Bart says they are notoriously unreliable. So Bart asks why would you think after 50 years you could recall Jesus' sayings? Who says the NT was written 50 years after He died? Most scholars don't think that. I suppose that the NT was written soon after the events happened (or at least its first drafts). But in terms of eyewitnesses, you don't need to recall an entire chapter of what someone says. All you need is to see them with your own two eyes in various group settings. People don't walk around after they died so Jesus must have resurrected Himself.

Bart said people remember things in correctly. How do you remember seeing Jesus incorrectly in various group settings after He died?

Bart questions the zombie apocalypse he calls it in Matt. 27. Many did come out of their graves when Jesus was resurrected. If Jesus can resurrect Himself and resurrect Lazarus why is it so hard to imagine He resurrected many? He is going to resurrect everyone one day. I suspect they went back to soul sleep after some time since nobody is in Heaven yet. We are appointed once to die so this is the exception to the rule.

In another breath, Bart said Mark believes Jesus is divine, but doesn't make the type of divinity claims that John does. My response to that is so what? Aren't we working from the principle of dissimilarity and different perspectives? Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. The phrase “the Lord of the Sabbath” is found in Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28, and Luke 6:5. Jesus forgive sins which the Pharisees wanted to kill him for it because only God can forgive sins. God doesn't have a mediator apart from Himself to forgive sins.

"Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2.7) Jesus did not correct them or say only God forgives sins. John mistakenly worshiped the angel in Rev. 22. And the angel corrected John not to worship him. If an angel does this for John, would not Jesus correct other also that Jesus is not God? [Rev 22:8-9 KJV] 8 And I John saw these things, and heard [them]. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Bart Ehrman thinks Yahweh is the Father and Elohim is Jesus. He has them both mixed up. Elohim is God so Bart is saying Jesus is God. Bart's confused.

"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD [Jehovah], make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (Is. 40.3).

The LORD here is Jehovah or Yahweh or Jesus.

"And God [Elohim the Father] said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God [Jesus the "existing one"]of your fathers, the God [Elohim Father] of Abraham, the God [Elohim Father] of Isaac, and the God [Elohim Father] of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" (Ex. 3.15).

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord [kyrios] shall be saved" (Rom. 10.13). "Kyrios" is the translation of Yahweh.

The reason why this upsets Bart so much is because Bart sees Yahweh as God the Father, not God the Son, but he is just misreading the Bible all this time, and after all these years, confusing the Father and the Son. In particular he hates to see that you can even see the Trinity in the OT as well.

Bart said there is no way to prove a negative. There are no square circles that is proven mathematical. Bart said Jesus' divinity is only seen in John. Verses can be taken as divine in Matthew, Mark and Luke. John, the disciple whom Jesus loved most, and showed Jesus is god. John had some unique ways of saying Jesus is God. So what? This does not violate the law of dissimilarity. Bart said John was written 65 years after Jesus' death. Jesus died 33 AD. 33+65=98 AD. That would be weird if John wrote the gospel of John before he book of Revelation was written 95 AD. How strange too that nobody thought to put to pen the experience of the Apostles until decades later. Funny. The burden is on Bart to prove his claim.

In summary, Bart Ehrman literally said, "Paul did not think Jesus was the God of Israel". Wow! Paul quotes from the OT but doesn't think Jesus is the God of Israel? Just as the OT taught the Trinity and Yahweh was the 2nd Person of the Trinity, Paul taught Jesus was the 2nd Person of the Trinity also. It stands to reason of the 4 gospel accounts, one will emphasize Jesus as God more than the others. That's what John does. No big deal! Bart's petty self is getting the better of him. Bart is mistakenly assuming they started writing 65 years later after the events instead of right after the events. Christians don't have to prove the Bible is true, the skeptic has to prove it is false, according to Simon Greenleaf.

And so he became a believer that Jesus was God and was converted. He wrote, "In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind, and those who would investigate the truth of our religion..." He sees that Christianity is, in fact, the only evidential historical religion in the world, and the whole thing rests upon evidence which he finds so compelling and so overwhelming that any honest person with an open mind examining the evidence would be like himself inescapably drawn to accept it. And so he sets forth his first rule of legal evidence and for any other ancient document.

"Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

"This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."

(Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence)

"It was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29.)

Why is Bart Ehrman going through this argument when elsewhere he concedes the early creeds go right back to the cross at 33 AD?

Agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman both freely and often dates the earliest of these creeds to the 30s AD, sometimes within just 1-2 years after the crucifixion!Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper Collins, 2012), see pages 22, 27, 92-93, 97, 109-113, 130-132, 141, 144-145, 155-158, 164, 170-173, 232, 249-251, 254, 260-263; cf. 289-291.

http://biblocality.com/forums/showth...2861#post12861