Posted on 04/25/2014 7:48:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Bart Ehrman, prolific author, New Testament scholar and former evangelical Christian, says it took him eight years to research and complete his new book, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. Yet, a group of fellow scholars responded in their book, How God Became Jesus, by claiming that the Christian-turned-agnostic's "sloppy" scholarship on Jesus' divinity leaves much to be desired.
Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, says his research reveals that Jesus, a first century Galilean, never claimed to be God, and that it was his followers who elevated him to a deity after his death.
"What I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God, didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God," Ehrman has said.
Ehrman ultimately concludes in his work that there is no reliable evidence to support the belief that Jesus was ever resurrected from the dead, even though it is the most essential aspect of Christianity. Instead, his followers had "visionary experiences," or hallucinations of Jesus after his burial that led them to determine that Christ was alive.
Ehrman discusses his latest published work in a lengthy interview with NPR's "Fresh Air." Listen below, or at NPR.com.
How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature—A Response to Bart D. Ehrman was written by Christian historians Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon Gathercole, Charles E. Hill, Chris Tilling. The book was released the same day as Ehrman's, with Bird apparently being the main initiator of developing a response.
Bird, Lecturer in Theology at Ridley Melbourne College of Mission and Ministry and author of several theology titles, revealed that his team was "very graciously given the opportunity to read a pre-publication copy of Ehrman's book" and upon receipt immediately went to work.
Bird and company applaud Ehrman for his "challenging and thought-provoking book," yet remain unconvinced by his claims and conclusions.
"Bart Ehrman's book...has an number of perceptible strengths. Not only is it well-written and you'll learn a lot about ancient history and the early Church from it, but what I like the most is that Ehrman forces people to ask a very important question. Namely, who is Jesus?" says Bird in a video on How God Became Jesus.
Yet, the authors claim to "offer a better, historically informed account of why the Galilean preacher from Nazareth came to be hailed as 'the Lord Jesus Christ,'" according to a description of How God Became Jesus. They insist, contrary to Ehrman's findings, that "the exalted place of Jesus in belief and worship is clearly evident in the earliest Christian sources, shortly following his death, and was not simply the invention of the church centuries later."
Bird, in a submission made to The Christian Post, argues for "5 Lines of Evidence Missing from Ehrman's Latest Popular Study, How Jesus Became God." Read it here. Bird explains how he and his colleagues' challenges to Ehrman's work in the video below.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEOS
however, according to Tony Lane in his The Lion Concise Book of Christian Thought (Lion, Oxford, England, 1992 edition) :
Tertullian (160?-230?), who has been called the father of Latin theology, coined the terms later used to define the Incarnation and the Trinity. He wrote that God is one substance in three persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — but he did not portray them as equal in precedence or power or esteem. Judged theologically, he was almost a Jew. [Lane]
Origen (185-254) has been called the greatest and most influential Christian teacher between Paul and Augustine. He described a three-level divine hierarchy in which the Father is greater than the Son, and the Son is greater than the Holy Spirit. He was not certain whether the Holy Spirit should be considered a person or a principle. At this time, many Christians believed as Origen did. [Lane]
Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch 260-272, emphasized the sovereignty of God and the humanity of Christ. He said Jesus was a sinless man, uniquely united with God in will and purpose. By his perfect obedience despite his temptations, struggles and suffering, Jesus overcame the sin of Adam and grew in intimacy with God. This doctrine of “Low Christology” was condemned by a local synod. However, the same synod also rejected use of the term homo-ousios (of the same substance) in reference to the relationship of God and Christ. [Lane]
Thus there was not the trinity as postulated by Athanasius before he went on his nearly 40 year crusade to make his concept of the Trinity as the sole doctrine of the Christian Church.
However,According to The Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade, Trinity, Vol 15, p53-57
In the immediate post New Testament period of the Apostolic Fathers no attempt was made to work out the God-Christ (Father-Son) relationship in ontological terms. By the end of the fourth century, and owing mainly to the challenge posed by various heresies, theologians went beyond the immediate testimony of the Bible and also beyond liturgical and creedal expressions of trinitarian faith to the ontological trinity of coequal persons “within” God.
The shift is from function to ontology, from the “economic trinity” (Father, Son, and Spirit in relation to us) to the “immanent” or “essential Trinity” (Father, Son, and Spirit in relation to each other).
It was prompted chiefly by belief in the divinity of Christ and later in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but even EARLIER by the CONSISTENT WORSHIP of God in a trinitarian pattern and the practice of baptism into the threefold name of God.
By the close of the fourth century the orthodox teaching was in place: God is one nature, three persons (mia ousia, treis hupostaseis).
So, the trinity was NOT A LATER INNOVATION.
The doctrine of the Trinity developed from IMPLICIT to EXPLICIT form in the early centuries of the church and was not invented at Nicaea. The early church believed the doctrine in its general form based on the revelation of Scripture.
The foundation of the early doctrine of the Trinity was the baptismal formula and the doxologies in the Epistles along with the Logos-doctrine of John. The earliest confessions professed Jesus to be God. Peter exclaimed, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), and the eunuch whom Phillip baptized confessed his belief,: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:37). Admission to the church was connected with belief in the doctrine of the Trinity as evidenced by the early baptismal formula that was used in accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19. The doctrine of the Trinity was essential from the beginning of the Christian Church.
The earliest of the formal creeds, The Apostle’s Creed, have the Trinitarian elements that would be developed later. However, there was no need for a technical definition of the Trinity during the first two-and-a-half centuries until heresies arose challenging Jesus’ divinity. Shedd says that belief in the Trinity “started not so much with three Persons as the deity of the Son. It is indisputable that they [the early church] worshipped Jesus. They emphasized the deity of Jesus as much or more than the Father in the early church. The incarnation is the great dogmatic idea of the first Christian centuries and shapes the whole thinking and experience of the church.” The person of Christ was the catalyst for the Trinitarian debate. Consequently, the person of Christ would follow quickly after the Trinity as needing more precise expression, which the early church was fully equipped to do with their theological and philosophical skills.
The Apostles’ Creed was used by the early church from the second century and was probably condensed from the Apostles’ writings. The creed is very clear and concise concerning the essential doctrines of Christianity. It teaches the existence of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The biblical language of the Apostles’ Creed was sufficient for the time; there was no need for exact and rigorous Trinitarian distinctions until heresies arose.
The Apostolic Fathers freely applied the term “God” to Jesus in the strict sense of divine substance. They admitted to only one divine substance and confined worship to the one true God, yet worshipped the Son. They attributed the properties of the divine essence to the Son.
Fortunately or unfortunately, some of the “heresies” such at what was labeled “Arianism” became heresy because Athanasius lead the assault against it. the “Goths” who took Rome were actually Arian Christians.
RE: some of the “heresies” such at what was labeled “Arianism” became heresy because Athanasius lead the assault against it.
Whether or not Athanasius led them or not, Arianism is INHERENTLY a heresy because it held an UNSCRIPTURAL view of the nature of Jesus Christ. In this case, His diety.
Athanasius might have led the assault, but even if there were no Athanasius, others would have led the charge.
Eusebius of Caesarea would have been one of them. Eusebius was a participant in the Council of Nicea. His conclusion was that the Council merely AFFIRMED what the Church had ALWAYS believed and taught about Jesus’ divinity.
For one who lives entirely in a two dimensional world the concept of a cube would be totally mysterious. All they could ever see would be either a line or a square. Just because only one side is perceived, does not mean the other sides do not exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.