Any Christians agree with Bart Ehrman?

[hedrick]

When the word "Christ" (i.e. Messiah) is embedded in the name of the religion, how does a person reconcile a belief that Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet with a profession of faith in Christianity?

The only solution I can imagine is adoptionism, because that allows Jesus to be transformed by God from the failed eschatological prophet to the promised Messiah.

If Jesus' major mission was to announce that the end was about to come, we've got a problem. But it wasn't. There's basically one vision, appearing twice in each of the synoptics, connected in all cases to what looks like the fall of Jerusalem.

I think it's most likely that he didn't say that the end was coming soon, that teachings about the end got mixed up with what was coming soon, which was the destruction of Jerusalem. Or the Little Apocalypse didn't go back to him at all. Mark 13 looks like a typical Synoptic discourse, combining things said at different times because of a common topic. The parts that aren't about Jerusalem don't look particularly immediate. Mark 13:7-8, in fact, looks like a warning that the end will be delayed. The most difficult part is about this generation not passing away. But that's 13:30. 28-30 look to me like a separate section that was combined with the rest of 13.

Could he have been wrong about this and still been the Messiah? Probably, but that gets beyond what I think we can talk about in CF. I'm just not convinced that he was. I think 13 is, like most long Synoptic passages, a combination of sayings from different times, and probably some editorial comment as well.

There's an argument for a more skeptical reading of Mark 13. Just who is the implied audience? Again, I'm sure Jesus was concerned about the fate of Jerusalem, and may well have expected the Romans to intervene. But the implied audience for much of 13, e.g. vs 9, is really the Church, not Jesus' disciples. That makes me suspect that a lot of it isn't original.

I think Ehrman is being selectively fundamentalist here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Specifically are there any Christians who share Ehrman's belief that Jesus expected an apocalyptic battle between the children of light and the children of darkness within his lifetime, etc. Sometimes I think that I am not that far from being a Christian except that I don't believe the traditional history of Christianity.


Bart Ehrman: Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

No, I can't say that I agree with him.

 

[Rachel20]

Hmmm, that is an interesting criticism, but I'm not up-to-speed on some of the concepts you referenced. I would like to understand if you have the energy and time to elaborate, but maybe that is not practical.

I was just pointing out that those who hold a postribulation view of the rapture would see all discussions on "the day of the Lord" as referring to the same thing. Whereas a pretribulation view separates events, removing the contradiction that Dr Ehrman sees. Missler used a good analogy - a higher-power telescope can separate stars so close they appear as one under a lower resolution. I also think 2 Thess had to be more complex than 1 Thess, because although Paul was addressing the same audience, he was correcting an error.

 

[FireDragon76]

My own solution would be to humanize the historical Jesus so that he can be honestly mistaken in his ideas about religion and eschatology yet still be pleasing to God such that he becomes the Son of Man after his death. That's a heresy of course ("adoptionism" I guess).

This is close to Albert Schweitzer's perspective. For Schweitzer, Christianity was a mystery religion, articulated by Paul, but that doesn't necessarily have a direct relationship with the historical Jesus.

 

[FireDragon76]

I’d like to point out that to consider Jesus a failed prophet, I think you have to accept Mark 13:5 ff and parallels as going back to Jesus, even though Jesus talks about the end coming like a thief in the night other places. (You also have to assume that Jesus expected to happen soon, which I think is unlikely.) It would seem odd to consider that this combination makes 2 Thes inauthentic but accept it in Mark.

Yes, that's a good point.

While Schweitzer (and many after him) basically accepted the Olivet Discourse as a failed prophecy, I think it's open to more interpretation.

 

[Starcomet]

I do!

 

[cloudyday2]

I do!

So what is your Christology? Do you disconnect the Christ you venerate or worship from the historical Jesus of Nazareth envisioned by Ehrman and others?

 

[Starcomet]

So what is your Christology? Do you disconnect the Christ you venerate or worship from the historical Jesus of Nazareth envisioned by Ehrman and others?

You may not recall, but I personally have a Christology similar to what Bart Ehrman and others argue that many early Christians had. Jesus was 100% human, the "messiah" in that he was anointed spiritually by God during his baptism, and only symbolically the "Son of God" and not literally (we must remember this title was used before by Jewish Kings like David for example. It was an honorific with a particular meaning).

 

[cloudyday2]

You may not recall, but I personally have a Christology similar to what Bart Ehrman and others argue that many early Christians had. Jesus was 100% human, the "messiah" in that he was anointed spiritually by God during his baptism, and only symbolically the "Son of God" and not literally (we must remember this title was used before by Jewish Kings like David for example. It was an honorific with a particular meaning).

What do make of the Jesus quote in Matthew 24:34 , Mark 13:30 , and Luke 21:32 ?
"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
What did Jesus mean when He said, "this generation will not pass"? | GotQuestions.org

Ehrman thinks Jesus meant that the great apocalyptic battle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness would occur within the lifespan of his listeners. I personally would not expect that kind of mistake from God's anointed Messiah even if he is only a chosen human.

 

[Zoness]

Bart Ehrman made a dull subject very interesting for me, I wish I had discovered him when I was still a Christian.

 

[usexpat97]

@Of the Kingdom and @solid_core , the problem I see in reconciling preterism with the view that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet is the presence of the Son of Man in the prophecies and the absence of the Son of Man in the Jewish revolts.

You can think of it as Pre-Trib Preterist. The Son of Man comes first. Then the Tribulation, then the Wrath. He's there--just not at the end, where you might expect. I mean He's at the END end, but....

 

[Starcomet]

What do make of the Jesus quote in Matthew 24:34 , Mark 13:30 , and Luke 21:32 ?
"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
What did Jesus mean when He said, "this generation will not pass"? | GotQuestions.org

Ehrman thinks Jesus meant that the great apocalyptic battle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness would occur within the lifespan of his listeners. I personally would not expect that kind of mistake from God's anointed Messiah even if he is only a chosen human.

I do not believe Jesus said those words and it is merely a statement of an oath or prophecy of the author. According to the scholars from the Jesus seminar: "This is a Judean oath to affirm the truth of the accompanying statements. The allusion in the previous verse to 'this generation passing into oblivion' is probably the reason the oath was included in this complex (the sayings were put together on the basis of word association). In addition, the oath functions as a dramatic conclusion to the whole cluster of sayings, which begins in [Mark] 13:5. Jesus does at times reinforce his statements with oaths (he does so in Mark 8:12 SV). If this affirmation had appeared in another context, it might well have attracted a higher designation. In its Markan context, however, it cannot be understood as something Jesus might have said with reference to the preceding statements. Further, its content is scarcely distinctive enough to warrant attributing it directly to Jesus rather than to a disciple of his who may have wanted to underscore the reliability of Jesus' teachings." The Five Gospels, Jesus Seminar, p.g 113-114.

Basically, this statement by Jesus is unordinary as it was a common Judean oath at the time.

 

[cloudyday2]

I do not believe Jesus said those words and it is merely a statement of an oath or prophecy of the author. According to the scholars from the Jesus seminar: This is a Judean oath to affirm the truth of the accompanying statements. The allusion in the previous verse to 'this generation passing into oblivion' is probably the reason the oath was included in this complex (the sayings were put together on the basis of word association). In addition, the oath functions as a dramatic conclusion to the whole cluster of sayings, which begins in [Mark] 13:5. Jesus does at times reinforce his statements with oaths (he does so in Mark 8:12 SV). If this affirmation had appeared in another context, it might well have attracted a higher designation. In its Markan context, however, it cannot be understood as something Jesus might have said with reference to the preceding statements. Further, its content is scarcely distinctive enough to warrant attributing it directly to Jesus rather than to a disciple of his who may have wanted to underscore the reliability of Jesus' teachings." The Five Gospels, Jesus Seminar, p.g 113-114.

Basically, this statement by Jesus is unordinary as it was a common Judean oath at the time.

Hmmm, that is interesting. Maybe I will read "The Five Gospels".

 

[cloudyday2]

Bart Ehrman made a dull subject very interesting for me, I wish I had discovered him when I was still a Christian.

Ehrman definitely has a lively style of writing with plenty of humor. I was a member of his blog for awhile and he seemed to be a very kind and decent person. He answered a few of my questions even though I'm sure they seemed pretty dumb to him LOL