Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[Gary]

Ehrman, unlike Gary, will confess his Christological position is held by a small minority of scholars.

But don't let that get in the way of the preferred narrative.

The following quote from Bart Ehrman is long, but fascinating. I'm sure that you Stein, Nick, and maybe others will find it very interesting...although controversial. Ehrman explains his view of Early Christology

[Gary]

I did not say that. I said he uses sensational claims of dubious truth to sell books.

Sounds like you are accusing him of purposefully not being truthful to sell books, ie, he is lying to sell books.

[Mikeenders]

The great thing, is my Christian friend, the "truth" is now available to every one at a click of a mouse. One of my blog readers left this comment today which sums up the current state of affairs regarding the "truth" of supernatural-based Religions, such as conservative Christianity.

I am sure you have no idea how you just shot your claims in the foot. IF People on the internet are reaching out to the likes of your blog to find the "light" with the multiple times you have had to back track, refuse to read books, admit to being hilariously wrong on basics in addition to all the times you show yourself utterly clueless of the issue but won;t admit to being

then

the issue even if people were abandoning faith anywhere near as you have dreams they are (No polls show any significant growth among agnostics and atheists -especially not out side the error range - just on the level of connection to established churches which is an entirely other matter) would be they are being fed incomplete , faulty ,suspect nonsense the like that you have demonstrated you are capable of and willing to feed the public (except your site gets such low traffic it cannot claim any status at all).

I do admit that online atheists are rabid to the point of controlling some areas where you would think they are the majority. Christians have been entirely too easy going in not pushing back but to your chagrin and bitter complaining in several places not only here but elsewhere they are beginning to be direct in rebuking your senseless babble.

Dark days are ahead for you I fear. Look even on this site and you have failed to put anything convincing. You continue to do one thing chiefly -blast the supernatural as senseless but when you are challenged to come up with a non supernatural way the universe began - you have no answer and flee quickly into your make believe world that one day in the great by and by science will have a naturalistic answer for a first cause where it shall be found that "nature just done did it" ere derrr without a cause but err derr totally ummm cough cough naturally.

on the science front things are not looking as peachy either. QM is presenting a reality that is nowhere near as hostile to the supernatural as you would claim, all the studies at naturalistic abiogeneiss are coming up empty and things like epigenetics is showing some hard o explain design features. Your whole shtick relies on claiming the miraculous nature of things in the Bible are unbelievable base don your materialistc worldview but QM and many other sciences has that worldview in a state of flux.

Meanwhile the failure of your skeptic of the bible side keeps mounting. David monarchy which was a certainty not to exists errr is now known to have existed - oops, Kadesh has signs of inhabitance which you claim did not exist - oops. a few more finds of that nature and you are toast. stick around for those days and we will add the jam :)

[lilpixieofterror]

Still ignoring you...

I see • Edited by a Moderator • and I don't even read the comment.

:)

Bye bye, now. Bye bye.

Still showing your sexist side, eh Gary?

[lilpixieofterror]

And how much of "his" does he actually get?

Depends on what bowel the little munchkin decides she's going to steal out of first.

[lilpixieofterror]

She is still here and we are enjoying her input. She is just having more fun not going back and forth with the forum's troll. . She sends her regard and thanks.

I mostly enjoy watching him as you might watch an animal in a zoo. Just for a little cheap entertainment. Besides, his little sexist comments just offer more proof that the new atheist seem to be suffering from bouts of sexism (and this isn't coming from Christians, many atheist and liberal news sites have noticed the same trend).

Or posting furiously on a Forum to try and convince yourself if you post enough nonsense then he isn't.

Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess...

[lilpixieofterror]

That movie release is going to be insane. I won;t even think of going to see it in the first week if there are even any seats left at this point

I might not see it on the first week, but I am going to see it while it is still in the theater.

[Gary]

I am sure you have no idea how you just shot your claims in the foot. IF People on the internet are reaching out to the likes of your blog to find the "light" with the multiple times you have had to back track, refuse to read books, admit to being hilariously wrong on basics in addition to all the times you show yourself utterly clueless of the issue but won;t admit to being

then

the issue even if people were abandoning faith anywhere near as you have dreams they are (No polls show any significant growth among agnostics and atheists -especially not out side the error range - just on the level of connection to established churches which is an entirely other matter) would be they are being fed incomplete , faulty ,suspect nonsense the like that you have demonstrated you are capable of and willing to feed the public (except your site gets such low traffic it cannot claim any status at all).

I do admit that online atheists are rabid to the point of controlling some areas where you would think they are the majority. Christians have been entirely too easy going in not pushing back but to your chagrin and bitter complaining in several places not only here but elsewhere they are beginning to be direct in rebuking your senseless babble.

Dark days are ahead for you I fear. Look even on this site and you have failed to put anything convincing. You continue to do one thing chiefly -blast the supernatural as senseless but when you are challenged to come up with a non supernatural way the universe began - you have no answer and flee quickly into your make believe world that one day in the great by and by science will have a naturalistic answer for a first cause where it shall be found that "nature just done did it" ere derrr without a cause but err derr totally ummm cough cough naturally.

on the science front things are not looking as peachy either. QM is presenting a reality that is nowhere near as hostile to the supernatural as you would claim, all the studies at naturalistic abiogeneiss are coming up empty and things like epigenetics is showing some hard o explain design features. Your whole shtick relies on claiming the miraculous nature of things in the Bible are unbelievable base don your materialistc worldview but QM and many other sciences has that worldview in a state of flux.

Meanwhile the failure of your skeptic of the bible side keeps mounting. David monarchy which was a certainty not to exists errr is now known to have existed - oops, Kadesh has signs of inhabitance which you claim did not exist - oops. a few more finds of that nature and you are toast. stick around for those days and we will add the jam :)

Finding one stellae that indicates there once was a "House of David" in Palestine, in no way confirms the historicity of David, son of Jesse, slayer of giants and lions; collector of Philistine foreskins.

Mike, the number of people who identify as "non-religious" in the United States is now over 20%, and is much higher in Europe, Canada, Australia, and other educated Western societies. "Atheist" is an out of date term with today's young people. The "in" term is "secularist" and "non-religious". You theists have so demonized the term "atheist" that the term is synonymous with anarchist and child molester.

All we need to do to see if I'm right or if you are right is to look at the annual membership totals and baptism totals of the major Christian denominations in the United States.

The numbers are NOT good, Mikey.

What denomination are you, by the way? Let's look up the annual figures for your Church.

[psstein]

I am sure you have no idea how you just shot your claims in the foot. IF People on the internet are reaching out to the likes of your blog to find the "light" with the multiple times you have had to back track, refuse to read books, admit to being hilariously wrong on basics in addition to all the times you show yourself utterly clueless of the issue but won;t admit to being

then

the issue even if people were abandoning faith anywhere near as you have dreams they are (No polls show any significant growth among agnostics and atheists -especially not out side the error range - just on the level of connection to established churches which is an entirely other matter) would be they are being fed incomplete , faulty ,suspect nonsense the like that you have demonstrated you are capable of and willing to feed the public (except your site gets such low traffic it cannot claim any status at all).

I do admit that online atheists are rabid to the point of controlling some areas where you would think they are the majority. Christians have been entirely too easy going in not pushing back but to your chagrin and bitter complaining in several places not only here but elsewhere they are beginning to be direct in rebuking your senseless babble.

Dark days are ahead for you I fear. Look even on this site and you have failed to put anything convincing. You continue to do one thing chiefly -blast the supernatural as senseless but when you are challenged to come up with a non supernatural way the universe began - you have no answer and flee quickly into your make believe world that one day in the great by and by science will have a naturalistic answer for a first cause where it shall be found that "nature just done did it" ere derrr without a cause but err derr totally ummm cough cough naturally.

The fundamentalists aren't disappearing, they're just switching sides.

Many cultural Christians are disappearing, the people who go to church on Christmas and Easter and no other time. The believing Christians are not.

[lilpixieofterror]

The fundamentalists aren't disappearing, they're just switching sides.

Many cultural Christians are disappearing, the people who go to church on Christmas and Easter and no other time. The believing Christians are not.

Bingo, that's what I've noticed too.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Yes. Uninformed Christians are becoming uninformed skeptics. Their mindset doesn't change. Just their loyalties.

[robrecht]

No he didn't. His view is that Jesus was seen as an angel and he made a passage in Galatians 4 the key to Paul's Christology. Hurtado and Bauckham have Jesus immediately in the divine nature after the resurrection. Ehrman does not interact with any of their arguments. If you read Ehrman's book, you will not learn any of the arguments of the early high Christology club.

Another key example is the chapter on the burial of Jesus. Ehrman does not quote the leading scholars of burial who are even non-Christian, such as Jodi Magness. Why her in particular?

Because Ehrman would have an easy time contacting her since she works at the exact same school he does.

Well maybe he didn't know about that.

That's doubtful because he's the very one who hired her. Her specialty is Jewish burial customs and Ehrman doesn't mention her at all.

Note this quotation of Hurtado that Ehrman cites in How Jesus Became God, p 61:

One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (London: SCM Press, 1988), 82.

See also Ehrman's favorable summary of Hurtado's view on pp 234-235.

Ehrman does not see an early angel-christology as the only way that an early high christology emerged, but, again like Hurtado, he too employs other types of divine agency, for example in his view of 1 Cor 8,6 (How Jesus Became God, p 267):

Even more striking, Christ can be described as the agent of creation:

For us there is one God, the Father,

from whom are all things and for whom we exist,

and one Lord, Jesus Christ,

through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor. 8: 6)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Note this quotation of Hurtado that Ehrman cites in How Jesus Became God, p 61:

One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (London: SCM Press, 1988), 82.

See also Ehrman's favorable summary of Hurtado's view on pp 234-235.

Ehrman does not see an early angel-christology as the only way that an early high christology emerged, but, again like Hurtado, he too employs other types of divine agency, for example in his view of 1 Cor 8,6 (How Jesus Became God, p 267):

Even more striking, Christ can be described as the agent of creation:

For us there is one God, the Father,

from whom are all things and for whom we exist,

and one Lord, Jesus Christ,

through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor. 8: 6)

That's the problem. He quotes Hurtado, but he doesn't interact with his arguments. He gives the false impression Hurtado would agree. He wouldn't. Ehrman does not hold to early high Christology. Jesus as an angel is not high Christology.

And where is the interaction with Bauckham?

[robrecht]

That's the problem. He quotes Hurtado, but he doesn't interact with his arguments. He gives the false impression Hurtado would agree. He wouldn't. Ehrman does not hold to early high Christology. Jesus as an angel is not high Christology.

And where is the interaction with Bauckham?

I don't know what argument of Baukham you were referring to so I only focused on Hurtado's early high christology. Ehrman does hold to an early high christology, as has been acknowledged by Hurtado if memory serves. Pre-Pauline creedal statement about a pre-existent Christ as an agent of creation--you don't consider that to be an early high christology?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I don't know what argument of Baukham you were referring to so I only focused on Hurtado's early high christology. Ehrman does hold to an early high christology, as has been acknowledged by Hurtado if memory serves. Pre-Pauline creedal statement about a pre-existent Christ as an agent of creation--you don't consider that to be an early high christology?

Necessarily? No. Ehrman considers Jesus to still be an angel and then a more adoptionistic Christology. Bauckham and Hurtado are the leading writers in this area. Had Ehrman shown a high Christology, you would not have seen a book coming out like How God Became Jesus.