Your defense would be to show us why he is wrong.
..show us why the "critical scholars" that you accept are right.
OK, I can see that.
An issue is this is what Ehrman does, he takes a sometimes complex point, and simplifies it according to his opinion. To test the truth of what he says, you'd have to examine the evidence and weigh the arguments. People generally can't be bothered, which is why theology according to the proper process rarely make best-sellers. People take what he says as 'gospel' because they don't look beyond it.
A: Ehrman's contention is that early Christianity did not see Christ as a pre-existent divine being; that the idea of incarnation was late.
B: Paul's Letter to the Philippians would appear to say otherwise:
"Who being in the form of God,(Philippians 2:6-7)
thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being made in the likeness of men,
and in habit found as a man."
Simply: Jesus took human form.
As this is regarded as an authentic letter, written around AD55, So Ehrman's contention would seem to be wrong.
Further, as this is believed to be a popular hymn, that Paul included in his letter, then the idea of the incarnation must have been around for years before the letter, which pushes back perhaps to the 40s, then as a theological development, it's quite early.
etc ...That's it .. dodge the issues
Even without wiki I do understand what is meant by the historical Jesus. But thanks for the purple cut-and-paste anyway. It doesn't incude virgin birth and miracles and ascension, now does it? Or aren't those supernatural? What parts do you want to keep?From an historical viewpoint, Ehrman is correct, imo.
The term 'historical Jesus' refers to the reconstruction of the life and teachings of a non-supernatural human Jesus by critical historical methods, in contrast to Christological definitions (the Christ of Christianity) and other Christian accounts of Jesus (the Christ of faith). It also considers the historical and cultural contexts in which Jesus lived..
What do you think Paul means here
The term 'historical Jesus' refers ... - wiki Historicity_of_Jesus -
No I don't think this describes Bart Ehrman. He doesn't reject the Gospels. He falls into the third category. He carefully compares them for clues and cadences in the original language, imoBy the 21stcentury, the "maximalist" approaches of the 19th century, which accepted all the gospels, and the "minimalist" trends of the early 20th century, which totally rejected them, were abandoned and scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.
I think Ehrman's critique of the gospels puts him in the latter camp. He's simply too dogmatic to be tenable.
Ehrman extends that in the M. Hijab video I posted above to qualify that he means crucified, dead and buriedBart Ehrman says: "The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life"
..By the 21st century, the "maximalist" approaches of the 19th century, which accepted all the gospels, and the "minimalist" trends of the early 20th century, which totally rejected them, were abandoned and scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.
I think Ehrman's critique of the gospels puts him in the latter camp..
Most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable, as do Bart Ehrman...
Bart Ehrman says: "The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life" (on his blog).
Do you agree with that?
Ehrman is not saying that Jesus's followers did not quite early begin to claim Jesus's divinity? This would probably include Peter and likely even James the brother of Jesus, who Paul met.
What do YOU think Paul means hereI have no idea on the origin of this.
If you think that this is proof [ along with John Gospel], that all the other verses that imply he is NOT G-d in the NT are wrong, then that is your prerogative.
I agree with Ehrman that so-called historical scholars that already proscribe to a creed, would find it difficult to be objective, particularly if they don't have an open-mind to start with.
I, along with Ehrman, think it is highly improbable. The promised Messiah does not suddenly become G-d without a reason.
I know what that reason was, and so does Ehrman. It is his speciality.
Don't forget, Ehrman is agnostic. He doesn't believe in the Qur'an. He also knows little about Islam.
..only that which he has encountered in his debates. He has not studied it, and certainly does not agree with it.
If you could admit that you do not know these texts or their context -- that whenever you want a NT quote to suit your immediate argument you enter the subject line on Google and then cut and paste the wiki passage that gets thrown up -- then we could have a proper discussion, each listening and gaining with a semblance of wisdom from the other's religion, instead of you pretending to be the grand adversary expert on Christianity?
But you do. That's the whole problemI don't pretend to be an expert on Christianity.
I think the familiarity ended at Sunday school, topped up around here with WikipediaI am more familiar with the 4 Gospels
I am just asking questions. I won't try anymorePlease stop these ad hominem attacks
..with the unexpected result of sparking a whole new false religion that took over first the Roman empire then the world – that Allah had to try to correct by sending another prophet 600 years later, but who so far also has failed to fix the problem, despite having had 1500 years to get it right?