I have heard of Bart Ehrman and the things I have heard have not been too positive. He is just one in a long line of many who have tried to discredit the Bible and will fail miserably like all the others.I am currently reading Ben Witherington's New Testament History which I highly recommend.I'm not sure which book you finished but here is Witherington's take on Ehrman's book Jesus,Interrupted.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of.html

Thanks for the link to Ben Witherington.  What I got out of his dissertation is that the bible is definitely too complex for anyone except for a "trained" scholar of his rank and elite clique of theology to understand. 

Guess that God was only trying to write to the scholars. So if we laypeople are unable to discern what the writers actually said, which would of course mean that we would have to know whether the writer was only telling us a folksy tail, maybe even an overly ambitious gratuitous explanation, then where is the meaning to anyone? For what if they were telling us a factual item, as Dr Witherington suggests, but then another person is telling us a fictional story.

His article in a long about way is verifying what Ehrman says in his book.  How do we know?  Or as my favorite line is "were you lying then or now?" What color was the chapel? Was it grey, pink granite, or yellow sandstone? Or was it a combination of all?  It amuses me that people will go to this type of an example to indicate that there is definitely a perspective issue, there could be other meanings depending on the viewpoint and the thoughts of a writer while yet stating that there is really only ONE VIEW that is correct.  HUHHHHHH? 

I for one have NOT EVER got the feeling that Ehrman was discrediting the bible.  He is bringing forth legitimate claims about the writings, when they there written, how the early church could easily held 4 different views of Jesus, and how the current theology came into place.  It is history, nothing more nothing less.  I find it a chance to enrich a faith with the conflicts and how it could be interpreted if the current canon was not around.

Dr Witherington brings forth the notation that there is a hot topic that the bible was written immediately from actual interviews with the disciples and apostles. "On the contrary, there is now a lively discussion about oral history that makes clear that the notion that there was likely a long gap between the events and their being written down, or between eyewitness testimony and their being written down is probably false. " Yet, Dr Ehrman has noted in his books that he would LOVE and DESIRES to find that original writing. After all the years that he has invested in studies and research by all of the theologian scholars, NO ONE has found anything that is I believe 40-45 years after the death of Jesus and passed on as an oral tradition to be eventually written down by unknown authors. 

That quest is what has driven Dr Ehrman to becoming an Agnostic. He feels that if God really wrote the bible or caused people to write God's thoughts that the original writings surely would have been preserved so that all of humankind could actually read what God wanted us to know.  His perspective on the bible has changed, or as Dr Witherington would say, ?In this painting Monet depicts the color of the front fa?ade of the cathedral as being gray, but in this picture he paints it as being a yellowish shade, and in this picture a pinkish shade.? Which is it? Surely one must be right and the other depictions wrong.? Of course the proper response to this silly discourse is that they are all right, because they attempt to depict the appearance of the building at different times of day from slightly different angles. And no art critic in their right mind would think of suggesting that one painting was in error compared to the other. To Dr Ehrman the bible is just being viewed in a different light.


The bible as we know it today did not exist until the Council of Nicene in  A.D. 325.  Before then, there were many gospels by other disciples, even Mary and Judas. Some churches in parts of the early first century may have only one gospel or many two. So it interests me how one could have a different point of view of Jesus and the teachings depending on which Gospel that you had.  Why would God not have fixed this problem immediately when these other stories were being circulated, why did it take 325 years to have MEN decide which books God wanted us to read. This is church history and I would like to be able to explore these aspects in an open forum. 

If you only had the Gospel of Mark - which is considered to be the Oldest Gospel - what would Christianity look like?

I don't think that was what Witherington was implying at all.He was pointing out that Ehrman's credentials are in question."I mean Bart Ehrman, so far as I can see, and I would be glad to be proved wrong about this fact, has never done the necessary laboring in the scholarly vineyard to be in a position to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted from a position of long study and knowledge of New Testament Studies. He has never written a scholarly monograph on NT theology or exegesis. He has never written a scholarly commentary on any New Testament book whatsoever!" I don't know about you but if I were reading a book about surgical techniques I would want the author to be a surgeon not an allergist.


Actually the message is simple. God is revealing Himself to mankind thru the Bible and His plan of redemption  and His longing to have a personal relationship with all of His creation.He has made it very simple so everyone can understand the most important message and we will be judged fairly and accordingly on the appointed judgement days.

I find that when apologists first argument is about the credentials of a fellow theologian, considering they both studied under the same professor and went to the same quality theological schools and have the same doctorate qualifications then I lose a lot of respect for the person.  That is just plain spite.  Discuss the lack of references, other  references that would embrace your view not the person. 

In Dr Witherington's qualified speakers on the bible, then the vast majority of pastors, priests, or religious persons in all the many churches are disqualified, yet these same people are the ones making church doctrine.  Of course Dr Barbara R Rossing with  Doctorate from Harvard and a Masters of Divinity of Yale  is also not qualified for while she has written a large amount of articles, a few books, teaches New Testament at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago and lectures across the county her writings would not meet the qualification of Dr Witherington for any sort of knowledge. Also we should not give any  consideration to the majority of Christian apologists for the same reasoning. Lee Stroebel is definitely no where near qualified and what about C. S. Lewis, obviously he knew nothing about interpreting the bible or even atheism for that fact.

I am also reading a book by Bruce Metzger who was Dr Witherington's professor, and he states that a lot of the bible is symbolic and not to be read verbatim.

But that is a side note, My thought on this thread is to dialog about how Christians were of different thoughts in the early church and what church doctrine was based on each gospel on it's own.  I believe that the doctrine of the church now is a master overview story of the gospels where the 4 are put together to make a 5 gospel.  But that was not the original doctrine.

I would like to discuss the history and the journey of the church and outcomes based on each gospel and how would that change or not change today.

Thanks for bringing up the Nicene council and that they did not give us the canon.  I did not do my research properly and used an old memory cell. 

According to F F  Bruce -The first ?canon? was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

Right time frame wrong council. My mistake. Thanks for the correction.


That is the current church doctrine. Yet, the gospels were not written as only part of the story. They were separate and complete doctrine by their authors. They stood alone from each other. The current doctrine tends to blend them all together into a more palatable  format that matches the current orthodoxy.

Separately,
Mark - Jesus was a human - no virgin birth is noted and Jesus died as a human on the cross. No resurrection story. The gospel stops with an empty cave.  Presumably Jesus was of such favor that God bestowed the gift of going to heaven as he did with favored leaders from the old testament.

Matthew - has the virgin birth but the genealogy is of Joseph to indicate that Jesus was the Messiah. Here the Holy Spirit may be the same as in Abraham where the Holy Spirit is the facilitator of the pregnancy but Joseph would have to be the 'father' to verify the messiah status. Genealogy stops coincidently with Abraham.  Jesus would have been created "special" on the baptism.

Luke - virgin birth with the Holy Spirit - but the genealogy is of Mary's family going back to Adam.  Here Jesus would have been created at birth and is announced as special on the baptism.

John - no virgin birth but this gospel is the only one that states that Jesus is Divine even back to the beginning with God.

Four different views of who and what Jesus was. Each version became a sect in it's own right.

The Son of God was conferred onto a religious leader who had a special relationship wherein God would designate His desires for Israel to be conferred by.  " In Judaism the term "son of God" was sometimes used of the expected Jewish mashiach figure. wikipedia.

Historically looking right now at Mark, there is no virgin birth, and it starts off with the the baptism of Jesus at which time the heavens opened and one could say that the voice was heard only by Jesus confirming that he was special.  It does not say that the crowd or John heard or saw the dove, only Jesus. 

For this part of the thread, let's look at how Mark's Jesus would have affected the world in his time, what were his strong points, weak points, who was Jesus- was he the Messiah, was this an apocalyptic story or where it leads us.

Since Mark is considered the oldest gospel known it has been recognized as influencing two other gospels. But it stood alone for a while. I would like to discuss this influence on early christians. It is the history of your religion. 

I would like to start with the gospel of Mark as it is accepted that it was the earliest written gospel.

Most secular scholars agree on the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e., those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). For the gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65 and no later than 75. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95. - wikipedia

Mark is also noted as The dominant view among non-theologian scholars is the Two-Source Hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the "Q Source" (Q is derived from Quelle, the German word for "source").

There is also a debate going on as to who the author of the gospel really were.  Noting the style of writing and the manner that the stories are told indicates that the true writer was a highly educated person who specialized in prose.  Being that the majority of the population in the first century was illiterate with a few who could read but not write, the thought is that the stories are a collection of the oral tradition passed on til they got to the author.

But let's look as wikipedia  has them: The Gospel of Matthew, traditionally ascribed to the Apostle Matthew, son of Alphaeus according to Papias, (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews) Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Eusebius.
The Gospel of Mark, traditionally ascribed to Mark the Evangelist, who wrote down the recollections of the Apostle Simon Peter according to Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Eusebius.
The Gospel of Luke, traditionally ascribed to Luke, a physician and companion of the Apostle Paul according to Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Canon Muratori.
The Gospel of John, traditionally ascribed to the Apostle John, son of Zebedee according to Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Canon Muratori, Codex Vaticanus Alexandrinus.

Mark starts off with the baptism of Jesus.  The reason for the baptizing of everyone is that they were sorry for their sins and had turned from them so they would be forgiven.  The people would tell what their sins were and then they were baptized by John.

John the Baptist is quoted as telling everyone that a person will be coming after him who is greater than he was. That this person would baptize with the Holy Spirit and not water.

Jesus is then baptized by John and upon coming up out of the water Jesus saw the heaven open up and the Holy Spirit came down on Him and said "You are My much-loved son. I am very happy with you."

So here we begin. No virgin birth, nothing special, Jesus is coming to be baptized (which indicates that he had sins to confess and repent from them so that he could be saved).  John does not recognize that Jesus is anything special and the verses indicate that only Jesus had the vision of the dove and heard God talking to him. 

It seems to indicate that at that moment Jesus was chosen by God to be someone special. But it was not to be publicly known at that moment.

So we have Jesus as a regular guy, with sins and all, who has a vision that causes him to choose his future path in life.

Different. 

Comments?

Reading the Gospel of Mark we find that Jesus is perceived as a prophet, a miracle worker and as he claims the Son of God - He believed by the sign that he had at his baptism that he was to be the Messiah - the go-between of man and God. He was an apocalyptic preacher and several times he states that the Kingdom of God and the Son of Man would be coming into power during the lifetime of his Apostles.

He states that he healed only because of the faith by the person being healed. In one case where Jesus returns home, his own family mocks him for his lifestyle and it is recorded that he could not do any miracles while there.  That only in his own home was he rejected as a miracle worker. He predicts and that he will rise in three days. In this gospel he is under great stress and agony in the garden of Gethsemane.  The last supper has no instructions to continue the tradition of the wine and bread. Only that the bread represented his body and the blood was the fulfillment of a covenant between God and His people. That the blood would be spilled for the good of many. Fulfillment of the debt for Israel not by tradition or the law of the Jews, but by what Jesus preached, the sacrifice of the Ambassador of God unselfishly given for the benefit of the many. He demonstrates his specialness with the feeding of the five thousand and the feeding of the four thousand later.  In the first instance Jesus used 5 baskets and ended up with 12 baskets. Symbolically, 5 = the Torah - the five books of Moses and the 12 reflects the 12 tribes that were set up by Moses.  The four thousand was 7 baskets - perfection = 7 days of creation and having only 7 baskets left - again the perfect number of God. Verifying that Jesus was indeed the Ambassador.

On the cross Jesus does not speak to anyone, the crowd and the other two prisoners mock him. He finally calls out "My God, My God why have you abandoned me" and then utters another noise which is not known and dies.  He is buried according the Gospel on Friday.  Here is where the Hebrew way of counting days becomes important to the prophecy.  In Judaism a day starts at SUNDOWN and ends on the following SUNDOWN. It does not go from Midnight to Midnight. Death is said to be around 3 pm on Friday. Jesus is taken down presumably before the Sabbath of Saturday which would have started around 3-4 hours after his death, whenever sundown was set for that day. Saturday Mary went to get spices for the body. Very early on Sunday morning, just at sunrise, Mary goes to the tomb, and finds an angel there. The angel tells Mary that Jesus had risen from the dead and was not there, that he was to go to Galilee as he said he would.  The Women left frightened and did not tell anyone. End of Gospel of Mark.

Two ways of looking at the death time sequence. If you want to go with a 24 hour day, then he rose within 48 hours of death.  3 pm Friday - 3pm Saturday = 24 hours, 3 pm to 3 pm on Sunday = 48 hours, 3 pm Sunday - 3 pm Monday would be 72 hours. In this case one could make a case that he did not return  as he prophesied after a 3 day time period.

If we look at it from the Judaic time frame - Days are counted as Sundown to Sundown.   Friday death was before sundown - first day. Saturday til sundown = second day.  Saturday sundown til Sunday sundown = third day.   

Which then corresponds with the verse: Mark 9: 31 He said to them, ?The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies. He will be killed, but three days later he will rise from the dead.? 

In Mark there is the comparison to Elijah and the Messiah, so it may be comprehended that the "rising from the dead" would be similar to Elijah, Moses and Abraham being brought alive from the dead and going directly to Heaven. While the rest of the world would lay in their graves til judgment day.

Jesus preaches in this Gospel that to give up everything for another is the requisite for entry into Heaven. We have the Rich man parable, the story of the children, how we live under the law of man and not God's. That the true intent of the person comes from the heart and not the what we put into it.  He has a few times denounced or reinterpreted the law to benefit doing good in lieu of upholding the law. The underlying theme of the story is about self-sacrificing for the good of the many over our own interests.  Replicated in the Woman with the alms, the rich man parable, in Mark 8: 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.? He tells his disciples that to be the leader of God's favor that person has to be the servant of everyone else.

Jesus and the writer both feel that Jesus is the Ambassador of God, who is trying to save the world before the end which would come before the apostles died, that his death was an atonement of the debt that Israel owed to God for being unfaithful, which is demonstrated by the tearing of the curtain only occurring after he dies.

In Mark 4:  21 Then Jesus asked them, ?Would anyone light a lamp and then put it under a basket or under a bed? Of course not! A lamp is placed on a stand, where its light will shine. 22 For everything that is hidden will eventually be brought into the open, and every secret will be brought to light. 23 Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.? It would seem that Jesus is asking for his listeners to question and search out the many different messages hidden in his teachings.

How does this Gospel sit in light of the current Church Doctrine?  A very human person with flaws, deeply religious, changes his life based on a epiphany he received from God, takes on the establishment and doctrine of his time and religion to change it for the betterment of others, not based on rules or laws which he felt were not in line with God's Love but in line with Man's need to control others. He dies for his belief that his death would change the lives of many for the better.  That he would be able to bring about the Kingdom of God within a generation. 

He does not put forth the idea of a resurrection being the reason for his teaching, nor does he take credit for any miracle, he gives the credit to the belief of the person asking, he doesn't tell people to pray in his name, but tells them to be willing to sacrifice everything for the betterment of others.

Thoughts?