Posted: Jul 21, 2017 11:11 pm
proudfootz wrote:More confirmation that it's more important to follow the evidence rather than follow the 'academic consensus':It’s simply downright embarrassing, but here is a video of a biblical scholar making as explicit as he can that his scholarly research directly serves the interests of what he considers to be correct theological beliefs. Michael Bird wrote a book arguing against the view that the earliest Christians (none of them) believed Jesus was a mere mortal who had been adopted by God as his son either at the resurrection or at his baptism. He was asked by the interviewer what relevance his work had for people today. His reply was, in effect, that it knocked on the head various contemporary ideas that Jesus was akin to the “American” myth of the “local boy made good”, that Jesus attained his status through good works and that we, likewise, can attain heavenly rewards or salvation through works.
Larry Hurtado, another scholar, happens to have written along similar lines that happily demonstrate that scholarly research proves the orthodox teachings of the church after all.
Bart Ehrman, on the other hand, cynical agnostic that he is, argues for a more “evolutionary” development of Christ-worship. He was recognised initially as a man but from there the story grew with the telling and singing of praises.<more at link>
http://vridar.org/2017/07/21/the-happy- ... nvictions/
There's an interesting comment there -
Mr Horse wrote:
I wonder if Bird’s ‘high Christology’ is, ironically, more support for initial belief in a celestial Christ who was later humanised as Jesus Christ. There is no information that supports Ehrman’s or anyone else’s assertion/s there had been an early first century man-Jesus who was a deity or later deified.