You have turned a thread about the Trinity into an attempt to discredit a highly regarded Biblical scholar. I am going to listen to my better angels and will stop responding to your endless evasiveness.

So, according to Ehrman, “people forged books to influence Christianity”. — Apollodorus

The claim of misattribution is not an accusation that begins with Ehrman. What he is saying is that if people had known who actually wrote the book they would regard it differently. The issue is whether this was an accepted practice and were people who read these works aware that these works were not written by the person named as author.

It seems clear that people were not aware because even today many are not aware of misattribution.

In any case, the question of authorship does not change what is and is not said in the Gospels.

Even you are denying the authenticity of the Gospel of John. — Apollodorus

I do not know who was the author of this work. What is known is that it differs markedly from the synoptic gospels and the writings of Paul. This difference is not insignificant, and yet you are doing everything you can to avoid addressing this.

As to the question of proof. I am not trying to prove anything. I am pointing to the evidence in the books and evaluating it. Again, you have avoided doing this.

So, he is implying that forgery was involved in the writing of early Christian texts. — Apollodorus

He is not implying anything. That the writings were falsely attributed is not in question. What he is contesting is whether false attribution was an accepted practice in antiquity.

You attempted to discredit Ehrman. The following makes it clear that you did not understand what was at issue.

Why would anyone forge four different scriptures instead of just one? — Apollodorus

It is not that someone forged these works. Their authenticity is not in question.

So now that the dust has settled we still see the problems you have been evading.

Did you read what the Wiki article says?

Although it has long been recognised that numerous books of the New Testament bear names of authors who are unlikely to have written them, it has often been said that it was an accepted practice in antiquity for a writer to attribute his work to a well-known figure from the past, or a teacher who has greatly influenced him.

Ehrman's contention is that what are referred to as "pseudepigraphs" or falsely attributed works, was not an accepted practice in antiquity. That they would have regarded false attribution as forgery.

This has nothing at all to do with the content of the books.

Each Gospel is a collection of different eye-witness reports, hence the difference between them. — Apollodorus

With the exception of John, there is no difference between them with regard to the claim that Jesus is God. None of them make such a claim.

Instead of addressing the issues at hand you attempt to divert attention to something you claim Ehrman said. You have not cited where he said this and have not said why it is relevant to the truth of the quoted material.

Using quotes from John does not show that Paul, Mark, Matthew, and Luke contain claims that Jesus is God.

1) The idea that God would have a begotten son is a pagan idea completely foreign to Judaism.

2) Again, where does he say this? Even a forgery has content that can be examined. Upon examination it is clear that the Gospels say nothing about Jesus being God.

1) Revisiting old issues in order to avoid the one at hand. The issue was what the term "son of God" meant in its Jewish context versus its pagan Christian context.

2) No, I am not able to quote non-existent statements. I am pointing to the conspicuous absence of any claim that Jesus is God in these Gospels. That does not prove anything. It does, however, raise a question you are doing your best to avoid. Why would they be silent on such an important claim?

3) Repeating the same accusation, one that he have failed to cite, has nothing to do with the truth of what was quoted. It is just evasiveness.

1) What Ehrman may or may not have said elsewhere has nothing to do with what he said in the material quoted. And as I said several times, what he said is supported by a significant number of Christian scholars.

2) What is at issue, as you know, is not whether Jesus called himself son of God, but whether the Gospels say that he is God. Nowhere in Paul or Matthew or Luke or Mark do we find such a claim. Given the importance of this claim its absence cannot simply be ignored. In John we find ambiguous claims that can be interpreted either way.

The question of whether Jesus is God arose here out of the question of whether there is a rational explanation of the Trinity. You say there is but you have not been able to provide such an explanation. You have done nothing more than kick up a lot of dust and make ad hominem attacks in hopes of obscuring and deflecting this inability.

If, as a matter of faith, one accepts the Trinity, then that is, as far as I'm concerned a personal matter. If, however, one claims that it is a rational doctrine then it is no longer simply a matter of faith and must be shown to be rational.

I have already made the arguments.

In fact, there are a number of posters on this thread who are actively trying to shut down the discussion, claiming there is no issue to be discussed at all. FWIW I think there is a discussion, but there seems to be no traction here. — Possibility

Some people are all too eager to make their beliefs known but defensively unwilling to have those beliefs examined or called into question.

I agree, but neither of them is my argument.

You don't seem to know how this community, who believes their spirit and state of mind go back to Jesus, thinks. — Gregory

That may be what they believe but it is inconsistent with the historical facts. There is no one single Christian community. Christianity began as a pluralistic religion. The Church Fathers tried to put an end to that. They were largely but not completely successful.

See my earlier post on the indwelling spirit. That was a belief that was suppressed by the Church Fathers. It threatened the hierarchy.

The Gospels make perfect sense as Christian documents. Why are you taking them historically? — Gregory

I am taking them historically because there is a long history of their establishment and disagreements between Christian sects. Some people think that questioning the Trinity means you are anti-Christian. History shows that the challenges to the doctrine were from the beginning largely from within Christianity. The history makes clear that the Trinity does not make perfect sense, if by perfect sense you mean rational, logical sense.

Most Christians just try to point towards their faith FOR YOU. — Gregory

Except:

So, there is no contradiction. It's just a matter of formulating it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy in general, not just to Christian philosophers. — Apollodorus

A formulation that is acceptable to philosophy is a rational argument.

But when you claim their story is inconsistent, you need to back that up and no one on this thread has done that. — Gregory

You have not been paying attention.

I am saying you can't disprove Christianity from logic. — Gregory

I agree. I said earlier:

Now one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality, and it has been done, but one cannot then argue that the irrational is rational. — Fooloso4

Im referring to humans on the individual level. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

So am I.

At conception and birth we are blank slates — Cartesian trigger-puppets

We are not. Anyone who has children knows this. It has been a long time since I read the literature, but the last I looked the idea of a tabula rasa had been rejected by developmental psychologists.

Before your conception and subsequently your birth, you had no opinions. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Children do not begin by doubting or with uncertainty, they begin by making associations, just like other animals. A bit later they then begin to tell themselves stories. They are quite convinced by their stories.

As Wittgenstein said, there can be no doubt without certainty.

The Gospels were written for believers who already believed God was Jesus. — Gregory

How do you know they already believed? And even if it were true, that still not not explain why something so important is not even mentioned.

Here's the thing. You have a vested interest in this I don't. If I'm wrong nothing changes. If you're wrong, and Jesus is not God, then your whole Christian world collapses. And so, it makes sense that you avoid the issue and pretend that there is no problem.

Christians believe that early believers already knew Jesus was God. — Gregory

Christians are not monolithic. They hold a variety of beliefs. If Matthew, Mark and Luke believed that Jesus was God why isn't that part of the good news message?

Okay, you got me, its Bart not Bert. You are still avoiding the issues.

Rationalists critique things that in reality they don't understand. I don't like how Christians try to prove their faith is true but they have every right to defend the logic of their beliefs from rationalist attacks — Gregory

Isn't a logical defense a rational defense? If it can be defended rationally or logically then it should be capable of being understood rationally or logically.

You have not rationally, logically, or otherwise explained away the reason why there is no mention or claim that Jesus is God.

For the third time, you misspelled Ehrman's name. — Apollodorus

What is the difference between:

'Ehrman's' and 'Ehrman’s'. The first is from my post, which you quoted. The second is yours.

Once again you avoid substantive matters. The following statement is either true or false. If you think it is false then point out the errors. Show where in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus calls himself God.

I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.

Christians believe the Trinity and Incarnation were originally truths of oral tradition — Gregory

Some Christians, not all. I have previously pointed to the First Council of Nicaea where these issues were argued and left unresolved, but one side was declared the winner for political reasons.

There enough ways for you to doubt the Bible and enough reasons for Christians to see it as consistent. It depends of which eyes you use to read it — Gregory

This is a fundamental mistake of Christian apologists. There are plenty of Christians who do see the inconsistencies. This does not mean they doubt the Bible.

I am glad you see this. I am sure that others do as well. I have repeatedly pointed to the NT and he repeatedly turns away from it.

I did not misspell his name. His name is correctly spelled. It is the same spelling you used. The error is that I wrote 'scholar's' rather than 'scholar'.

The real issue is not typographical. This is simply your attempt to avoid addressing the issues raised.

Most US colleges and universities are notoriously dominated by atheists and anti-Christians like Ehrman. The same applies to journals of "Biblical scholarship". — Apollodorus

Yes, I figured you would say that. My response is to your claim:

The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general.

Scholars in general include university scholars and board members of journals.

Once again, you have done everything you can to avoid addressing the issues.

For the third time:

According to Hurtado:

... To anyone familiar with a historical approach to the topic, these will not be novel conclusions. Indeed, they have been affirmed by a significant number of New Testament scholars, especially over the past several decades.

Now unless you are able to identify these scholars you have no basis to label them all as atheist or anti-Christian. The work they do stands on its own merits.

I’m vaguely aware of how Christianity came to be, and I’m not trying to deny any of it. I wasn’t aware of much that’s been discussed, so it may just be a confused thread from a confused mind. — Pinprick

I do not think you are confused. The Gospels do not form a single coherent whole. Most notably the differences between John and the canonical gospels. And then the imposition of the doctrines of the Church Fathers.

Which is the better guide to living depends on the individual, her capacities, desires, and inclinations. Some people want be shown the way and would otherwise be lost. Others are motivated by inquiry and want to find their own way.

If all (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance, and a subset of humans value intellectual honesty, then the subset of humans must by default begin from an agnostic position. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

All human knowledge begins with opinion. That is why Aristotle typically begins with the opinions of others and why Descartes begins by rejecting the opinions of others and seeks something certain. Plato's divided line begins with the imagination and moves up to trust or opinion (pistis). Kant and others begins with experience.

First of all, you can’t even spell Ehrman’s name. — Apollodorus

First of all, if I misspelled his name then so have you.

The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general — Apollodorus

According to Hurtado:

... To anyone familiar with a historical approach to the topic, these will not be novel conclusions. Indeed, they have been affirmed by a significant number of New Testament scholars, especially over the past several decades.

This is not Ehrman's theory and cannot be dismissed by you as such.

Daniel Wallace has argued that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct." — Apollodorus

This is what you omitted when you quoted Wallace from Wiki:

Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known".

Whatever disagreement Wallace has with another of Ehrman's books does not speak to the issues addressed here.

Following Wallace's statement in the Wiki article:

Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is widely used at American colleges and universities.

A text that is widely used in American colleges and universities is about as mainstream as it gets.

"Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock and Josh D. Chatraw have disputed Ehrman's depiction of scholarly consensus — Apollodorus

This lacks necessary specifics. Consensus about what? Ehrman's writings cover a lot of issues.

And following this quote:

Michael R. Licona, notes, however, that "his thinking is hardly original, as his positions are those largely embraced by mainstream skeptical scholarship"

And this:

Gary Kamiya states in Salon that "Ehrman's scholarly standing did not soothe the evangelical Christians who were outraged by Misquoting Jesus. Angered by what they took to be the book's subversive import, they attacked it as exaggerated, unfair and lacking a devotional tone.

Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock and Josh D. Chatraw are evangelical Christians. That they faulted Ehrman's work for lacking in "devotional tone" is telling.

Ehrman is an atheist and anti-Christian agitator. I'm not surprised that you seem incapable of citing impartial sources in support of your spurious theories. — Apollodorus

Funny. A source that criticizes him for not being devotional is hardly an impartial source. You skip the stuff about Ehrman's professorship at a major university, that his text on the history of early Christian writings is widely used in American colleges and universities, and that he serves on the board of several journals of Biblical scholarship.

The fact that you are agitated by scholarly work on Christian history does not make him an agitator.

There are yet further distinctions. Rather than describe it in my own words, here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God"

The ascription of divine status to Jesus and the accompanying devotional practices that are reflected in the New Testament arose only after—though astonishingly soon after—Jesus’ crucifixion. Key to this development were experiences (“visions”) of the resurrected Jesus, which generated in the earliest circles of Jewish believers the conviction that God had raised Jesus (bodily) from death and exalted him to a unique heavenly status and glory. Further developments in christological belief over the ensuing decades and centuries led to the classic doctrine of the Trinity ...

... To anyone familiar with a historical approach to the topic, these will not be novel conclusions. Indeed, they have been affirmed by a significant number of New Testament scholars, especially over the past several decades.

... Many Christians unacquainted with the historical data will assume that beliefs about Jesus’ divine status derive from Jesus’ own claims ... https://www.christiancentury.org/reviews/2014-07/lord-and-god

The bolded statement is from the reviewer Larry W. Hurtado, professor emeritus of New Testament language, literature, and theology at the University of Edinburgh.


And from an interview with Ehrman on NPR:

During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...

You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things. ...

I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.

Right at the same time that Christians were calling Jesus "God" is exactly when Romans started calling their emperors "God." So these Christians were not doing this in a vacuum; they were actually doing it in a context. I don't think this could be an accident that this is a point at which the emperors are being called "God." So by calling Jesus "God," in fact, it was a competition between your God, the emperor, and our God, Jesus.

When Constantine, the emperor, then converted to Christianity, it changed everything because now rather than the emperor being God, the emperor was the worshipper of the God, Jesus. That was quite a forceful change, and one could argue that it changed the understanding of religion and politics for all time.
https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/300246095/if-jesus-never-called-himself-god-how-did-he-become-one

The problem is solved if the Gospels are read and interpreted on their own merits rather than through what came to be the "official" doctrines of Christianity. What the Gospels say and what Christianity came to mean as the result of the work of the Church Fathers is two different things.

Another distinction is made between the early followers of Jesus and the establishment of the the canonical Gospels. The early Jesus movement was best characterized as 'inspirational', that is, by the indwelling of spirit. There was no one single expression of this. It was rather a matter of the witness of personal experience. The Church Fathers wanted to unify this movement and created the "catholic" or universal church. To do so they had to assemble gospels that provided a unified message, condemning all others, such as those of Gnostic Christianity, to heresy.

Despite what some here might say, this is all part of the historical record.

It's up to the individual of course. — Janus

It is, but the consequences of that decision go beyond the individual.

The point is that moral life isn’t dependent on religion, as some seem to claim. — praxis

Yes. I agree. I have known many who hide behind a religious facade.

The conceptual separation of church/state apparently dates back to at least Seneca. — praxis

An interesting claim. What evidence is this based on?

Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward. — praxis

Right, but the common man is not a stoic philosopher.

Religious life doesn't require moral development at all ... — praxis

In so far as you associate moral development with independence I agree. Religion can, however, promote behavior that is consistent with the political and social order of the ruler. Independence may be desirable in a democracy but not so much in other regimes.

All of this is off topic though. Perhaps a topic for a new threat.

I agree. This is an issue that came up in the thread on individualism.

An irrational personal attack is not a rational defense of the rationality of the Trinity.

You may have noticed that those in control have a tendency to do whatever it takes to remain in control. Is that wise? Sure, if you’re self interested. — praxis

I don't think that this is the whole of the story. If people could be self-governing the need for government would be minimal, but they are not.

Any moderator agreed on by us both will also be judged by the audience as to whether s/he moderates fairly. The only relevant requirement is 'demonstrably informed, patient, judgment' which a number of members more than show, IMO, like Banno or yourself, among others. I'd accept such a moderator so qualified who is also an avowed believer; why shouldn't my opponent do likewise the other way? Given our particular history, without moderation this debate could descend in to a circle-jerking shitshow real quick which would be of no use to anyone. Just my 2 shekels. — 180 Proof

As long as you can agree on a moderator. The way things often go my concern is that a moderator would be needed to moderate the disagreement over who is to moderate.

I think it sensible that you do not think a moderator's personal beliefs should disqualify them.

come to a close. — Jack Cummins

"Close to doing" not come to a close. This was another thread on another forum.

There is a problem with the Trinity. It is an historical fact that has been wrestled with by Christians for and against the doctrine for all long as it has existed. That debate has not been limited to how it is interpreted, but rather whether or not it should be accepted by Christians as true or not.