Steven Carr

Ehrman goes on to claim that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 were not about the Messiah, so could not have been used by early Christians.

But they were , of course.

Ehrman seems to think that people 2000 years ago knew how to interpret the Bible in context.

I can see his book being really, really bad.

dog-on

Ehrman cannot escape his education.

Juststeve

Dog-On

Poor Ehrman, hampered as he is by an education. I take it that isn't your problem.

Steve

GakuseiDon

And so the spoiling of the well begins.

Ehrman says that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 were not about the Messiah, so could not have been used by the Jews about the Messiah. His very point was that the early Christians had to twist those passages to suit their own purposes.

Steven Carr will talk crap the whole day long. This is fine, as he is an excellent example of mythicist thinking, so the more he posts, the better.

But for those who want to know what Ehrman actually said, the link is below. See if Ehrman says what Steven claims he said. By the way, ignore the last 10 mins or so, as the white-haired theologian seems more interested in giving his own views than allowing Ehrman to express his. But the rest of the one hour Youtube presentation is very interesting, esp for those interested in the topic of forgery in early Christian literature. And he does allude to mythicism, around 38 mins into the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ

dog-on

It's not an an, it's a his, but I guess that went right by you... :wave:

andrewcriddle

Hi Steven

Is it your position that Paul regarded the earthly powers such as the Roman authorities as agents of God, but he regarded the angels/daemons standing behind these earthly authorities as being rebels against God ?

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

But Ehrman's got it ass backwards though. I think the gospel narrative was originally about God's shame with the Jews and all of humanity. That's why he has to kill himself on the cross. Out of shame. And that became the original justification of martyrdom - "killing yourself to live" but starting as metanoia.

Steven Carr

No, Ehrman's very point is that it would have been iabsolutely impossible to twist those passages without a real historical Jesus, but with a real historical Jesus those passages became twistable, although Ehrman mocks people who think they are about the Messiah.

But that argument is a non sequitor. Untwistable passages don't need a real person to become twistable, as shown by the many times in history passages have been twisted.

Which is why Ehrman does not explicitly give such an 'argument' in his video. He has his reputation to think about. Stating such arguments out loud would not help his reputation.

And why it is impossible to give historicist arguments without appearing to caricature them, as they are often illogical.

For example, Ehrman never attempts to explain how the Romans went from being somebody needed to be overthrown by the Messiah to becoming God's agents sent to punish wrongdoers after they had killed the Messiah, in what Ehrman calls ' the lowest form of execution in the empire'.

If he did attempt such an explanation, and I tried to capture the gist of his logic , I would certainly be accused of talking 'crap', because I would have failed to grasp how that could have happened.

Steven Carr

Have I misunderstood Romans 13? Where in Romans 13 does Paul say angels/daemons stood behind these earthly authorities? Didn't Paul think his God was in charge of everything?

andrewcriddle

In 1 Corinthians 2 Paul refers to Christ being killed by the "rulers of this age". IIUC you, (maybe correctly), regard "rulers of this age" here as being a reference to angelic/daemonic rulers.

However such angelic/daemonic rulers are, almost certainly, as part of their job description, the spiritual forces behind earthly power structures. (See the later chapters of Daniel for this idea of the heavenly princes of the nations.)

Hence if Paul regarded earthly authorities as God's agents, then he almost certainly regarded the angelic/daemonic world rulers as also God's agents, although at least one of these must (according to Corinthians) have been involved in the death of Christ.

My explanation of Paul's thought here would emphasise the importance of spiritual blindness/ignorance. IE the powers killed Christ not realising what they were doing. They are intrinsically fallible but not intrinsically malicious.
(This is true whether the powers concerned are human or angelic/daemonic.)

Andrew Criddle