Opportunist Bart. Scholarly books have a small clientele. Popular books that help people justify their sin has a much bigger audience. He sells his speculation as fact for 30 pieces of silver over and over again.
Nope, Ehrman's view is the scholarly consensus. Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024. "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate." Lüdemann, Gerd (October-November 2007). "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation". Free Inquiry. Retrieved 10 May 2024. "... the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus's exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities."
Gavin, I want to thank you specifically for your in-depth approach. As a Classics student taking early Christian literature, I really needed this video since our professor very likely holds to the view similar to Ehrman’s and I need to pass an oral exam with him😆 God is truly blessing me through your videos, they help build a firm foundation of faith. Please continue what you’re doing!
@@michaelbrickley2443 thanks! Idk at all if my prof knows Ehrman and I like to see that the influence is not as big as we Christians tend to think. I just get the impression that he doesn't mind big conclusions from the q source theory. But I really hope I am wrong and in fact he's our brother in Christ, I just need to get to know him
@@alisatoniian9718 pray for Bart Ehrman. He was mentored by Dr. Bruce Metzger. The way I understand it he was led astray after realizing that the translations could be off here or there. Once he started questioning….he fell away. Gavin Ortlund is a godly man and a great teacher. Well worth listening to his teaching. Shalom
Oh I hated oral exams so much! Good luck. Also, remember that you don't have to argue for Christianity. It'll probably be to your benefit, in terms of grades, not to try to.
What gets me about secular scholars of Christianity is their simultaneous distrust of the gospels* and use of the same texts to construct their arguments. Feels like an exercise in futility. *As reliable historical records of Christ's life and teachings
The entire idea of the Incarnation was Jesus as Man deferring to the Father and His will; going around claiming “I am God” is counterproductive to that, yet that doesn’t change His Identity (which cannot be denied): for He neither denied being God nor rejected worship as God, rather He left intimations of it.
Another overlooked feature of the Mark 2 scene is that the question "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" is not set up as real speech. It is actually the pharisees questioning in their heart (mind). But Jesus can read their hearts and thus respond to them accordingly. This is definitely going beyond what a mere human being would be able to do.
Not only that, but in Israel at that, only God can know what is in your heart, so Jesus reading their heart is a demonstration that he isn't a normal prophet
One of the problems with Ehrman's comments at the beginning of the video is that some of the evidence for Jesus' self-perception comes from his actions, not his words. And Matthew 4:12-16 makes a significant point in that context. All four gospels say or suggest that Jesus chose to live in Nazareth as an adult, then in Capernaum. That lines up with what Isaiah 9:1 says about how the figure in the opening verses of Isaiah 9 is associated with Zebulun (the region where Nazareth is) and Naphtali (the region where Capernaum is). Jesus chooses to live in those two locations and in the same order in which they're mentioned in Isaiah 9. And there's other evidence, in all four gospels, that Jesus saw himself as the king of Isaiah 9:1-7. The king is described as if he embodies the titles of verse 6 rather than merely being named after the God who does so (e.g., the king is named Prince of Peace and brings an everlasting kingdom of peace in verse 7). Furthermore, the background of Isaiah 9 is in the origins of the monarchy in 1 Samuel 8, where the kingship has wrongly been taken from God. An eschatological return of the kingship to God himself in Isaiah 9 makes the most sense of that 1 Samuel 8 background, and it explains the titles of Isaiah 9:6. The worsening of warfare and the building up of the implements of war in 1 Samuel 8 (verses 11-12, 20) is reversed in Isaiah 9 (verses 4-7). Isaiah 9 is a reversal of 1 Samuel 8. Both Jesus' activities and his words suggest he also viewed himself as the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah's Servant Songs (e.g., Luke 22:37). That figure is portrayed as God. The "high and lifted up and greatly exalted" language (Isaiah 52:13) is used to describe God elsewhere in Isaiah (6:1, 33:10, 57:15). If anybody is interested in more about Jesus' patterning his life after this material in Isaiah, you can search for a January 8, 2023 post at Triablogue titled "Isaiah 9 Resources" and a March 28, 2019 post there titled "Jesus' Fulfillment Of The Other Servant Songs". I've also written an article defending the historicity of the "I am" statements in John's gospel, a June 25, 2024 post titled "The Historicity Of The 'I Am' Statements Of Jesus". Gavin mentioned Richard Bauckham's material on the historicity of the fourth gospel. Another good, more recent resource is Lydia McGrew's The Eye Of The Beholder (Tampa, Florida: DeWard Publishing, 2021).
I think this is an excellent point that's not brought up enough: Jesus's mission lays out the clear reason why he didn't go around telling everyone he was God.
Jesus said several times he’s God, 7 times He Said ‘i am’, Philip said show us the father Jesus said you’re looking At Him, Matthew 26:63-66 three times he says he’s God.
This was my immediate thought as well. He’s quite literally making statements about the contents of material that doesn’t exist and using that as evidence.
@@benjaminwatt2436 Obviously they have sources. Would it have been more clear if I had said “of which there are no extant copies” rather than that they don’t exist? I’m not saying there never were sources. If we take them to be eyewitness accounts we have to believe there were at the very least notes written down, but the fact remains that we don’t have them. For all intents and purposes they don’t exist.
Ehrman hangs so much on a frankly simplistic understanding of oral traditions. Firstly, oral cultures can transmit stories over centuries as the First Australians prove and in the Classical Period even uneducated people would regularly be able to recite hundreds of lines from famous poems. Plus, if you witnessed something incredible. it is not a stretch to imagine it would stick in the memory more than mundane events. I still remember vividly scoring the winner in my Sunday league cup final 25 years ago.
definately, a lot of research has been done in Oral culture. it is well accepted the Odyssey existed in oral form for 100s of years before it was written and its 100s of pages long. most of what Ehrman says sounds like his western and modern culture is getting in the way. it fits perfectly that a 1st centery jew would communicate his Godship through jewish metaphor and teaching
It shouldn't be overlooked that Jesus throughout the gospels calls himself "the Son of Man". As he is using it, this is a divine title. It comes from Daniel 7:13-14 which states: "‘I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Honor, and a kingdom, So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.’" (At least) three things to note: 1. The Son of Man is said to come on the clouds of heaven. Only God does this in scripture (Psalm 104:3, Nahum 1:3, and Isaiah 19:1 for example). 2. All peoples of all languages serve him. This already sounds like divine worship, but an interlinear will tell you that the hebrew word for “serve” here is a verb only used to describe service to a god, so there’s no doubt. 3. His dominion is forever and his kingdom will not be destroyed. This is the same language used for God’s kingdom in the previous chapter of Daniel. (Daniel 6:26: “tremble and fear before the God of Daniel; For He is the living God and enduring forever, And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed, And His dominion will be forever”). It’s intentional that these words about God are still ringing in your ears as you read about the Son of Man. Still don’t believe me that “the Son of Man” figure is divine? How about we look at Jewish interpretations? Sanhedrin 38b:17 is interpreting Daniel 7:9 which states “‘I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat;’” The rabbis say “what is there to say concerning the verse: 'I beheld till thrones were placed'? The Gemara answers: One throne is for Him and one throne is for David, i.e., the messiah, as it is taught in a baraita: ‘One throne is for Him and one throne is for David’; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei said to him: ‘Akiva! Until when will you desacralize the Divine Presence by equating God with a person?’” Here we see one rabbi is scolded for thinking that a throne next to God himself was for a human, because sitting on such a throne would entail equality between the two (co-heirs of creation). Indeed, this would be a problem if it was a mere human. If, however, someone was both human and divine, this would make perfect sense. Mark 14:61-64 says “Again the high priest was questioning Him, and said to Him, 'Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' And Jesus said, 'I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.' Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, 'What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?' And they all condemned Him as deserving of death.” So, Jesus not only claims for himself attributes of God but also says he will sit at God’s right hand, which as we just saw would necessitate equality with God. It’s no surprise that everyone thinks he just committed blasphemy.
Ehrman has a “trump card” for any valid and conceivable arguments you’ve made… he calls it “the criterion of dissimilarity” in his book How Jesus Became God (p. 96). This basically says that, if anything in ANY of the gospels sounds like something a Christian would say about Jesus, then it can’t be historically accurate. 😂 I kinda stopped taking him seriously after I read that!
That goes back to the Jesus Seminar and even further. "If it sounded like something a Jew or a Christian would say, Jesus didn't say it." Um, he was Jewish and founded Christianity, so ....
I think this is also very common here in German theology which is being tought on universities: If Jesus says something which isn‘t typical for an average Jew in 1.th century, then the writers of the Gospels must have put this into his mouth… but if he says something which is typical for a 1th. century Jew, he is just an average guy and nothing else… You choose a certain hermeneutical filter before you take a look into the text…
As a historian, I'm pretty much attuned to the dangers of building an argument based on selective evidence and speculative hypotheses. Ehrman's approach is problematic when he narrows his focus to the Synoptic Gospels and dismisses the Gospel of John without fully addressing the theological nuances that might appear across all the Gospels, including John. But even focusing solely on the Synoptic Gospels, by ignoring key passages or reinterpreting established translations in speculative ways, and then using those speculations to build further theories, Ehrman's method seems to be less about a careful weighing of evidence and more about constructing a narrative that suits a preconceived conclusion. This is a common issue in some historical-critical approaches where scholars may introduce multiple layers of hypotheses, each dependent on the previous one, leading to conclusions that are more tenuous than solid. In historical analysis, it's very important to maintain a balance between a critical approach to sources and a responsible engagement with the available evidence. Ehrman’s method oversteps into the realm of conjecture, which weakens its credibility as a rigorous historical investigation.
What parts of Ehrman's method seem to be building on multiple speculative hypotheses (or perhaps better, building on hypotheses that don't represent the "best" explanation we have for the hypothesis' subject)?
Erhman is so fixated by what Jesus didn't say when in regards to whether Jesus considered Himself to be God, that Bart doesn't see that the gospel writers are in agreement in considering Jesus to be God. In Matthew, when Jesus was born, he referred Jesus as Emmanuel (God with us), Luke not only wrote his gospel, but the Acts of the Apostles, referring Jesus as God, Mark referenced from Peter, who has Epistles regarding Jesus as God, and John, whether in his gospel or his other writings, is outspoken in this, declaring Jesus is God
Yes 3 x in Matthew 26:63. “But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I [t]adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are [u]the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, [v]hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his [w]robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;” Philip said, show us, the father Jesus says if you seen me you seen the father !
So in all these instances it was claims of being the Son of God which makes him divine, and claims of being the king of the jews. As for the scripture in John regarding Phillip, read the following verses as Jesus explains why Phillip should see the father when he sees him.
@@dre5773 yes, he didn’t stop people from worshiping him like Thomas when he said, ‘my Lord and my God’ To Jesus John 20:28 & like the people in the triumphal entry Matthew 21 and only God deserves Worship! there’s some more verses for you to look up! When he told the Pharisees he came from God, the father ! God is plural in the first verse of the Bible and also 26th verse!
Ehrman is an upside down historian, he has his conclusions first, which are inherently unfalsifiable, and the makes all sorts of gymnastics to make them fit. Basically, the textual evidence that does exist is all contrary to his claims, so he is in a position of saying he knowns more of what a character in history said (Jesus) than the sources he is working with, and makes all sorts of contrived arguments to show how all sources could have been bent so much and so early. He is also very condescending, laughing most of his debaters off. Worst of all, he is unsophisticated, and has a very limited understanding of comparative religion, sociology and so on
It's such a twisting to say that Jesus's response that he has authority to forgive sins, including the Son of Man title, wouldn't plainly tell the Pharisees that he is claiming to be God
@@garyh987 not really. A god creating another god is nothing new. Jesus is God simply because he is God. His incarnation is simply a change of location/figure with no change in authority.
If you know anything about the Pharisees you would understand that what Christ did there was about as clear as He could be and not deceptive in the slightest. He was telling the leaders of the jewish faith, who were required to memorize the entirety of the old testament, that what they had been praying for for thousands of years was happening before their eyes. The Pharisees knew exactly what He meant, Jesus even directly told them two other times, both times they tried to stone Him. Trust me, they were not confused by what Jesus claimed, they crucified Him for it.
@@sethcarter4910 he could only have been clearer by saying the words. It was intentional to do it this way so he wouldn't be killed before the time was right.
Yeah. I like Gavin but I'm one of the few christians not convinced by the trinity doctrine. Well, if I take into account the people who just parrot the church creeds without really understanding what they are saying then we might actually be more 😆
@@Roescoe How is that? Well, If I am pushed into a corner I can accept Jesus as the trinitarians believe... that he was God incarnate. But I cannot accept the Holy spirit as part of that union. Not as trinitarians want me to accept it. The dual aspect is present everywhere. In scripture and creation. Old and New Testament, the double 7 years that Jacob had to work, male and female, light and dark, Leah and Rachel, the two money bags of Joseph's brothers, the doubling of talents, the extra measure of oil of the virgins. etc. God as revealed in the New Testament and God as revealed in the Old Testament. Makes perfect sense.
@@snaphaan5049 And there you go, You've got how it's done. Good for you. Now, much more important than trying to use our human understanding to come to more conclusions than God has revealed, let's get out there and focus on the good, beautiful, and true.
😂your "Baptist preacher" moments get to me a lot. As I've been growing in Christ I've found myself brought so easily to tears, by real suffering and I've been a therapist for a while (longer than I've been a Christian). Anyway, thank you Dr Gavin and may the Lord keep you and your family 🫂. Love from all the way here...
Erhman's comment about how not mentioning that he claimed to be God being "a pretty big thing to leave out" seems really compelling, until we remember your point that the whole plot of each of the synoptics is "Jesus gets executed for blasphemy." With that in mind, the rhetorical question flips and becomes "If those blasphemy charges were totally unfounded misunderstandings, wouldn't that be kind of a big point to leave out?
This was really good and very encouraging on probably an underaddressed topic. It is an objection I have wanted to research more but haven’t had the time. Relevant too since Bart Ehrman has a lot of cultural traction. Thank you for a good dose of Gospel Assurance!
@@tookie36 The Romans and Jews equally had part in the Crucifixion. 50% and 50%. The Roman half didn't care if He claimed to be God, they did it because He claimed to be King of the Jews. But they wouldn't have known that if the Jews hadn't told on Him. The Jews sure as hell didn't care if Jesus claimed he was their king. They hated Rome more than anything. And if the Jews didn't care, the Romans would not have been tipped off and done their 50% of the execution. Thus something must have tipped off the Jews initially that wasn't claiming He was their king. Something else. Something really important to Jews. I wonder what it could have been.
@@dre5773 that charge of "he was crucified because He claimed to be king" is, quite literally, discussed by Pilate and Jesus in His trial, to which Pilate states "I find no guilt in this man." and the Pharisees demanded He be killed anyways. He was killed because He accurately and truthfully told the Pharisees who He was. He did it directly twice, and both times the Pharisees tried to stone Him, they began conspiring to kill Him after He raised Lazarus because so many people were believing in Him.
That just not true. He said the Father and I are one as in one God. He identified himself as Yahweh in by saying "I am" just as God identified himself to Moses through burning bush. John 10:30 ESV I and the Father are one.” John 8:58 ESV Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
This is precisely what Ehrman means. He doesn't mean that the authors of the synoptics did not believe that he was God or that they did not *portray* Jesus as God but that Jesus himself did not equate himself with God based on his words im these gospels.
@@adedaporh How come Jews understood? Have you thought that the problem is YOU not understanding instead of others? Jews literally tried to stone him. John 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Thank you so much Dr Gavin! This video is a godsent. Just recently I’ve encountered Bart Ehrman’s teaching series and his spin on how the doctrine of Jesus as God developed early on in the Christian movement. Your response to him has provided Christians with a solid, sound response that engages with Dr Ehrman at his level… even higher😏 I also appreciate and love seeing the moments in your videos where your passion for Christ everything else flares up …seeing scholarly informed and researched church leaders not lose their passion for ministry and the Church in their speech is an encouraging thing for me to see! I hope and pray that I may join your ranks one day if/as the Lord wills. Christ bless and thank you so much Dr Ortlund!
Quickest way to figure out your religion is not true: The woman taken in adultery story in John was not written by John-- but it made its way into scripture, is this part of John's Gospel, INSPIRED by God? If not, why did God let it slip in. If God lets UNINSPIRED pieces in his Holy Word, what evidence do we have that any Gospel, or letter from James, Peter or Paul is INSPIRED by God. Listen carefully, I'm saying even if all parts of the Gospels are true even if Paul wrote every letter we have from him-- it doesn't mean God is behind them. And, would a God deny me eternal life because my logic says I should not trust the scriptures, or will a Good God damn me after creating me with a brain dumb enough to make a mistake?
I love the point about concealing his identity. I was also thinking, if Jesus wasn’t God, wouldn’t he make that apparent when the Jews were trying to kill him for blasphemy? Wouldn’t it be easier for him to say “Don’t worry guys, I’m just a prophet. I’m not claiming to be God” or something like that? A proponent of the view “Jesus never claimed to be God” would have to provide an alternative reason to why Jesus was killed or an alternative definition of what the Pharisees meant by blasphemy? What were they so upset about?
@@Grantcfo since the crucifixion was the plan of God why would he say that? I can provide that alternative reason. They thought Jesus was claiming prerogatives they thought only belonged to God so he was committing blasphemy for his claims. The point of the gospel is we are not supposed to agree with the Pharisees. They aren’t the good guys in the story. They were wrong.
@@jordandthornburg So you would propose, at most, that Jesus was either God or simply had powers like God-and at least, that he claimed to have those powers that were thought exclusive to God
Gotta love when Bart infers that later Christians just made stuff up that wasnt originally there, and then starts authoritatively citing phantom manuscripts like Q.
The idea behind Q makes perfect sense to me. The Synoptics have strong textual similarity to the word, so it makes sense if there was some text they were all drawing from. Why else would they word events exactly the same
@@graysonguinn1943 None of that proves that Q existed. There are no extent manuscripts of Q. It is a sound example of the absurdity of many textual scholars. Personally, I would like to see some actual proven examples of whatever faulty method led to the Q theory, which aren't circular, and not speculation based on circumstantial evidence.
@@graysonguinn19434 easy and obvious possibilities: 1) personal memory for the same events. 2) oral tradition; the same personal memories of others. 3) one borrowing from the other (Ii.e.Mark from Matthew or v.v.). 4)The guidance of the Holy Spirit (which is part of the claim of all inscriptured revelation).
@@johnnylollard7892 The Q source is just a hypothesis that some textual scholars think is likely right now to explain common material in Matthew and Luke, given that they don't think Matthew and Luke copied from each other. If an alternative hypothesis better explained the data, they'd just abandon that belief. Bart Ehrman is aware of, e.g. Mark Goodacre's arguments against Q and evidently doesn't find them convincing. But Bart is perfectly willing to change his mind on things in general (see his blog post entitled "Early Christology: How I Have Changed My Mind"). "Personally, I would like to see some actual proven examples of whatever faulty method led to the Q theory" If you are not familiar with what methods scholars used to give evidence for the Q theory, why are you so confident that it's a "sound example of the absurdity of many textual scholars"? In any case, you could pick up a copy of Metzger and Ehrman's textbook or Paul D. Wegner’s "A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible" to get an intro to some of the methods that textual critics try to use.
Matthew 9:6 says "When the crowd saw this they were filled with awe; and praised GOD, who had given such power to MAN"! Here..I think Erhman is correct.
There’s an argument to be made that it was the crowd’s interpretation of what was going on when they saw the works of Jesus in that chapter. Plus Ehrman agrees that mark is the first gospel written, not Matthew. The words of Jesus are being discussed here, not the interpretation of the crowds. Plus the Pharisees very likely knew the Torah better than a lot of the peasant crowds and even they knew only God has the capability to forgive sins, no priest or anyone else in a leadership role.
@@Kenny_Doyle that's not a primary source, no book of the Bible was written by one of Jesus' direct followers, the earliest sources we have for Jesus' sayings are Mark and Q, where he never claims to be God.
To be fair, Matthew 9:8 may be one textual reason to take Ehrman’s interpretation of the Mark 2 authority to forgive sins. On balance it seems better to me to understand the crowds as misunderstanding what Jesus meant by the “son of man” having authority on earth to forgive sins-fitting with Jesus’s intentional withholding of clarity. But at least it strengthens the Ehrman position some.
Jesus' uses of "I Am" as a personal title, are a direct claims to divinity. Also in Matthew 7:21-22 Jesus uses the title "Lord Lord" of Himself. This is a reference to the Torah where the term "Lord God" (Adoni Yahweh or Yahweh El) is used.
But Jesus *does* say that God the Father gave him authority. One key reference is in Matthew 28:18, where Jesus says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Additionally, in John 5:26-27, Jesus mentions that the Father has granted him authority to execute judgment. These passages highlight the idea of Jesus receiving authority from God the Father. Per the texts we have, I think Ehrman has the stronger argument.
Well that's another great passage for the divinity of Jesus " *All authority* in heaven and on earth" Not just some authority, *all* of it. Jesus gave various authority to the Apostles, but not the authority to create, for instance.
Correct, because God the Son (Christ Jesus) proceeds from God the Father. All three persons are equally divine, yet the Father has the most authority of all.
Great work Gavin! I've always thought that Mark 2 is one of the most essential texts to understanding who Jesus claimed to be. In Exodus 23, the Angel of the Lord is said to have the ability to forgive sins, and is identified with Yahweh elsewhere. In Mark, Jesus is being identified as the Angel of Yahweh, Yahweh himself.
Thanks for the video Dr. Ortlund! In my studies of Jesus' divinity, I also came to the Mark 2 passage. Adding onto your argument, I would also say that at that time, it was the general belief that if someone had a physical ailment it was because of his or his parents' sin. So by healing the man, it was in a way speaking to that narrative showing that He has the authority to forgive sins. Otherwise the paralytic wouldn't have been able to walk.
The synoptics early on identify John as the one preparing the way for YHWH. That's extremely high Christology and should inform what the rest of the book means when it talks about Jesus.
I think this is a very interesting video. As many scholars do, Ehrmann believes that the Gospel of Mark, as the earliest compiled Gospel, puts forth an adoptionistic theology. In other words, Mark was written before the “Jesus is God” cult really got going. Both Matthew and Luke include details of some sort of miraculous birth (though with somewhat different details), while Mark makes no such claim to this miraculous birth. Ehrmann therefore asserts that God “adopted” the perfectly normal man Jesus at his baptism in the Gospel of Mark. But by the time the other canonical Gospels were written (compiled), the “Jesus is God” cult was in full swing, with John being the latest and with the most-developed incarnational theology. I don’t agree with any of that stuff, for the record. I think that if you read the Gospel of Mark like a First Century person would, rather than as a 21st Century critical scholar, you would see that there are many claims to Jesus’ divinity. Verse 1 calls Jesus the “Son of God.” What would that mean to a First Century Jew? You have scriptures from Isaiah and Malachi fulfilled in the first few verses, specifically referring to preparing the way of the Lord. You have God calling Jesus His “beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” He’s doing battles with Satan and demons, and defeating them soundly. He’s healing all sorts of people. He’s forgiving sins. He’s preaching with authority that the religious leaders of His day cannot. He’s declaring that the Sabbath rules don’t apply to Him because He’s the Lord of the Sabbath. He’s controlling the winds and the sea. He’s delegating authority to His disciples to heal the sick and cast out demons. The list could go on and on. These are things that no prophet could ever do. There were a few healings in the OT, and a few people raised from the dead. But you don’t see God declaring them as His son. You don’t see them forgiving sins or claiming to be the Lord of the Sabbath. You don’t see them claiming to be the Son of Man (a claim that comes from Daniel 7). You don’t see them casting out demons or defeating the temptations of Satan. You don’t see them calming rough seas. You don’t see them doing the volume of miracles that Jesus is doing or making the same sorts of claims. What was a First Century Jew to make of all this? His claims to being the Son of Man and Lord of the Sabbath are claims to divinity. His claim to forgive sins was a claim of divinity. And He proved His claims through His authority to rebuke sin, sickness, demons, and weather. That’s really the point the Gospel of Mark is making to his original audience. These critical scholars are not reading the Gospel of Mark from the same perspective. And frankly, they see it as a piece of pro-Jesus propaganda for ignorant First Century people. But Ehrmann definitely has a narrative he’s pushing. He wants to convince evangelicals that their understanding of Jesus and the four canonical Gospels are wrong.
Great video! I do have one concern. The story of the paralytic doesn’t only appear in Mark. And for instance, in Matthew, the crowd directly takes Jesus’s sign as proof God gave such authority to men (Bart Ehrman’s perspective). The crowd could’ve been wrong or Matthew could’ve been falsely extrapolating from Mark, but at least some early people (whether Matthew or the crowd) understood Jesus’s declaration in Dr. Ehrman’s way. I’m curious if there is a reason this counter argument lacks weight.
I'd say the most important point of argument is about whether Jesus claimed to be God or not, regardless of if the crowds following him did. It would be hard to say that Jesus himself gave the crowds much credence or respect as a group. Moreover the "crowds" wildly changed their minds about Jesus throughout his life, going from amazement, to rejection via Pilate, and then repentance (that we may assume of some). I admit I'm conflating different "crowds" as a bigger abstract group, but regardless I think the point stands that the crowds are not credible.
@@henryholden3112 I appreciate your response and engagement with my concern. I think that doesn’t quite address my point though. Dr. Ortlund suggests the obvious interpretation of Jesus’s words and sign was a declaration that he’s God-“no where does it say he was bestowed the authority”. However, people actually there (or at least the author of Matthew) didn’t take Dr. Ortlund’s interpretation. They said men were bestowed the authority. This seems to strongly question how obvious Dr. Ortlund’s interpretation is. I say this as a biblical inerrantist who believes in Jesus’s divinity. My concern is about using this argument as an apologetic.
@@levifox2818 If I may take a crack at this (I’m no expert though so I could be totally off) - I think it’s a great question. So the Mark 2:1-12 story can be seen also in Matthew 9:2-8 (as you note) and in Luke 5:18-26. Luke ends very similar to Mark’s telling, Matthew is a little different with the “and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.” at the very end. But overall all three are quite similar. Now I think we need to stop however and consider what Ehrman’s argument is (at least as Gavin presents it in this video). TL;DR, I don’t think comparing Mark with Matthew OR Luke makes Gavin’s argument better or worse. Erhman is trying to argue that the earliest texts that we have (see the first 0:00-1:40) do not present evidence of Jesus claiming he is divine/God. Now immediately we need to get into Erhman’s shoes. You need to disregard any sort of one-to-one comparisons between Mark and Matthew (that’s what a biblical innerantist would do, who thinks that Matthew and Mark as a whole are on some sort of equal textual/historical playing field, but that’s not how critical scholars like Erhman see things). Regardless, all we have to do to disprove Ehrman is to show one or more “early” texts do show Jesus claiming some type of divinity. In this video I think Gavin rightly argues that Mark 2 is one such example. Now to compare this with Matthew 5 is unnecessary. If Gavin is right about Mark 2, then at the very least, Ehrman’s whole argument is toast. Because it means there were very early writers who noted Jesus’s self-claimed divinity. Whether or not later authors (or even contemporaries of Mark) left it vague (Matthew or Luke) or downplayed it is a fair question, but has nothing to do with Erhman’s central premise, which hangs on this “early text” idea. Ehrman would have to signifiicantly soften his argument to something like "some of the early synoptics stories frame Jesus as divine and some do not" But that would be less catchy and a total shift for him 😜 My suspicion (and this is where I’m very unknowledgeable) is that there’s a reason why Ehrman uses Mark 2 as the example and not Matthew 5 - it’s because he has to! Contemporary critical scholarship likely dates Mark 2 as earlier/original (and Matthew 5 as a later usage). This makes Gavin’s argument even more damning, as it means some of the truly earliest texts have stronger divinity claims. All that to say that I think for refuting Ehrman (showing holes in his argument) Mark 2 is one of many great texts.
@@Xespohn I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I largely agree with what you’re saying. Dr. Ortlund does put a larger burden of proof back onto Dr. Ehrman. My concern is that I’m not sure Dr. Ortlund is meeting his burden of proof sufficiently. Dr. Ortlund has to show that Dr. Ehrman’s interpretation (that Jesus was claiming bestowed authority) is very much a stretch. Basically, there are two possible interpretations: 1. Jesus is saying, “You’re right, only God has authority to forgive sins, and I am God so I have that authority.” 2. Or Jesus is saying, “You’re wrong, God has bestowed this authority on men as well so I have the authority as well.” The reading in Matthew seems to strengthen the plausibility of interpretation 2, given it’s at least one interpretation from the 1st century (whether condoned by Matthew of not). It makes it hard to show the interpretation is so much a stretch.
@@Xespohn I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I largely agree with what you’re saying. Dr. Ortlund does place a larger burden of proof back onto Dr. Ehrman. My concern is that Dr. Ortlund may not be meeting his burden of proof. He has to not only show his interpretation is likely, but that Dr. Ehrman’s is very much a stretch. Basically, there are two interpretations: 1. Jesus is saying, “You’re right, only God has authority to forgive sins, and I am God so I have that authority.” 2. Or he is saying, “You’re wrong, God has bestowed that authority on me so I have that authority as well.” The reading in Matthew shows that interpretation 2 was at least one interpretation in the first century (whether Matthew condoned the interpretation or not). That seems to make it hard to say that it’s such a stretch.
One doesn’t prove you are God by just saying so. You prove it by doing things that only God can do. Much of the gospel stories can’t really be explained unless Jesus is God. For example, who else miraculously feeds lots of people in a desert? Who else is said to walk over the sea? Who else controls the weather? Who else other than God.
“When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man” Matthew 9:8. It is clear in the text that the authority to forgive sins has been given by God. Jesus is repeatedly 100% clear that all his authority has been given to him by God
Yeah, I think it can be true at the same time that the authority is given by God and that it's a unique authority given to Jesus that usually would only be possessed by God. So he seems to have been claiming, though in a veiled way (is he *the* "son of man" from Daniel 7 or just *a* "son of man" like Ezekiel?) that was misinterpreted by some in the crowd, to have been given a divine prerogative. These kinds of claims ultimately led to his crucifixion for alleged blasphemy--and to his early followers believing that he was the incarnation of the Word of God.
Jesus in the Synoptics identified himself with the Son of Man figure mentioned in Daniel 7. How we identify and define the Son of Man and his hierarchical and ontological relationship to YHWH is a debated topic within 2nd Temple apocalyptic Judaism.
This is a common talking point with Muslims as well. TBH I think it's usually coupled with a very specific idea of what "claiming to be God" should entail, such that they think that Jesus should have said something like "I am God, the Son, the second person of the trinity, of the same substance as the Father."
Great stuff. Clear. Considering the earlier Gospels had a lot of interaction with a Jewish audience, a slower “reveal” would make more sense than in John for instance.
In Ehrman's own argument the "Son of Man". - Daniel 7:13-14 - “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." - The Jews knew exactly what Christ was claiming, and their behavior shows it. Yeah, I wrote this before listing to the whole thing. I'm not sure this helps your cause, but your explanation is excellent. Thank you !
I just studied this passage this week while studying the book of Mark. That’s exactly what I was thinking. They knew exactly who Jesus was claiming to be by calling himself Son of Man.
Ehrman’s arrogant laugh when he thinks he’s found a “gotcha“ is very off-putting. It’s evidence of his underlying motive to discredit. Not engage in honest scholarship. The more you watch him, the more you’ll pick up on his anger and anti-faith bias. The Biblical Scholarship scene is a weird place. Full of academics trying their hardest to discredit a belief system with incessant cup-half-empty interpretations of literally everything.
Quickest way to figure out your religion is not true: The woman taken in adultery story in John was not written by John-- but it made its way into scripture, is this part of John's Gospel, INSPIRED by God? If not, why did God let it slip in. If God lets UNINSPIRED pieces in his Holy Word, what evidence do we have that any Gospel, or letter from James, Peter or Paul is INSPIRED by God. Listen carefully, I'm saying even if all parts of the Gospels are true even if Paul wrote every letter we have from him-- it doesn't mean God is behind them. And, would a God deny me eternal life because my logic says I should not trust the scriptures, or will a Good God damn me after creating me with a brain dumb enough to make a mistake?
If all unbelievers secretly believe, and are being resistant knowing the consequences, why would God create some humans that prefer freedom on Earth and then Hell forever. For those humans, Hell is NOT a punishment since they secretly believe and rather take Hell then heaven. So, God has MADE them in a way that they do not fear Hell, weird.
“He knows the truth” kind of statements come from the mindset that no one can genuinely think differently than you. They must be insane, liars, or deluding themselves
@@graysonguinn1943 He affirmed it before and then rejected it due to a personal issue. Do you think you know the truth and would the same character attack apply to you?
"It's certainly true that a human agent can be appointed to declare forgiveness of sins, like a priest..." - Gavin Ortlund. You heard it here first folks. Seriously though, I don't know how anyone could argue that Jesus wasn't claiming to be God. If he was just a guy, possibly a prophet, and then he died, came back, said a couple more things, then went to Heaven, what's the point? Maybe the miracles, including the resurrection, prove that he had some authority while he was here, but then why were his followers being martyred, including his own apostles? When I was an atheist, I really liked Bart, and I thought Misquoting Jesus was a slam dunk against the bible. Now I just don't get why he's still out there pushing this stuff.
Brother, I have a question regarding the authority Jesus has. The parallel passage in Matthew 9 (specifically verse 8) seems to indicate that God the Father gave "such authority to man." Is this talking about Jesus' forgiving the man's sins or His healing the man or both or...? I agree with your general argument *from Mark 2,* but as I look at the parallel passage in Matthew, I'm perplexed, wondering if Ehrman's argument [about where Jesus' authority to forgive comes from] has some credence? To be clear about my motives, I am a Christian who wants to love and trust God and His Word more, and I want to grow in understanding and intellectual integrity. Thank you in advance for taking the time to look at this and think through this.
I think one way to help understand is looking at Philippians 2:6-11 which describes Jesus being in the form of a servant though still being in very nature God. Jesus was the perfect example of being in the servant of a man while still bearing his deity. His examples of being dependent on the father were meant to be showed to his disciples and us on how to be dependent on him as well. Hope this makes sense. Or another theory is that the people thought he was just another man who was given authority but not realizing his true identity in that moment. God bless from a brother in Christ.
I think for whatever reason, Ehrman also neglects Jesus' identification with the Son of Man. This is a very specific title, derived from Daniel, where the "one like a Son of Man" is seen in the heavenly court, presented before the Throne of God, and given all His authority and the right to receive worship " He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him." That is the obviously Divine figure Who is given things only God can and should receive. Bart is not wrong about Jesus' authority being ultimately derivative of that of the Father - but it is His in a unique, singular and Divine context, making it completely correct to understand Jesus as Yahweh, as much as the Father is Yahweh, and the Spirit is Yahweh.
8:20 Matthew 9:8 "But when the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified the God who had given such authority to men." John 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” Men can be given the authority to forgive sins on behalf of God.
the shocking thing to me is that anyone takes bart ehrman seriously. reccomended: " misquoting truth" a guide to the fallacies of bart ehrman's misquoting jesus. by timothy paul jones.
Your point about how the claims to deity are indirect even in John is helpful. The whole tenor of His ministry is mysterious, conveying profound and revolutionary teaching but implicitly, veiled in parables and allusions and requiring thoughtful reflection by those who want to understand him. Imagine if He had been direct and came right out with "I'm God, worship me." He would have been crucified for blasphemy immediately - no opportunity to spread His teaching, train His disciples, etc. Even being as indirect and cagey as He was, He could only keep them at bay for three years.
The biggest problem with this theory is John is an eye-witness. so even if it were true that Luke, Mark and Matthew didn't include a clear declaration, you still have an eye-witness saying Jesus did say he was God
@@calmingwavesjulian why don't you present your argument or their argument of why John didn't write the Gospel of John. How about that? Maybe he just did :). What research have you done that is not Atheists who desperately want Christianity to be false on the writer of the Gospel of John? Heck, forget that. Give me the arguments of these atheist scholars of why John didn't write the Gospel of John.
Interesting tidbit for the Mark 2 passage as well is the connection of the title Son of Man with Daniel 7:13-14 where we see the Son of Man (Jesus) having service directed to him (latreuo in Septuagint) and this form of service is only ever rendered unto God. The original Aramaic word there as well also represents the type of service that is only properly given to God.
I have an unrelated request, but you mentioned anxiety in the intro to the video and it made me think of this. Can you make a video covering Christian struggling with ongoing sin and the state of their salvation, particularly in reference to Paul’s vice list passages (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians), the Hebrew passage about willful sin, and Romans 7? I know this is applicable to a lot of people (including myself) and the there doesn’t seem to be any resource covering the Issue from a rigorous theological and pastoral perspective.
Question: Gavin, why in your interpretation is Jesus openly sharing He is a Divine Being in Mark chaper 2 but in the whole rest of the book of Mark, Jesus is trying to hide his identity?
I also think it is important to note that 1st century Jews linked illness with sin. So when Jesus heals the paralytic he really is providing evidence that the man's sins are, in fact, forgiven
I wish I could have have thought of this sooner, but I would love to see you do a dialogue with Robert Rowe of Sentinel Apologetics. He’s written a commentary on Mark using a lot of scholarly sources, and is really big into Second Temple material, and where it connects with the divinity of Christ.
It is a fact that the church is loosing members in the U. S. The trend has continued for some time as social and economic progress has reduced human suffering. I see the remaining churches as funeral societies or clubs where people are able to give each other practical assistance. Some church organizations survive with no purpose other than to maintain a historical building. The theological discourses found in social media solve nothing. We might as well be arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. At some point, humans need to take responsibility for their actions and stop relying on a supernatural deity to direct them through life.
So you’re saying we should embrace secular worldview where morality is relative, no justice for people killed whose murderers will never get caught and see justice, evil wins, and nihilism is the most logical solution for life and despair is honest atheism? (read works of Neitchze, Camus, and Sartre). Yeah great worldview pal. And what about all the damage and wars that the secular worldview has caused? Here’s a fact for you. Most wars and genocides have been caused and committed through secular based societies and have had campaigns against religions who tried to keep the peace. People have killed in the name of atheism more than religion. Even Tim o Neil an atheist admits this on his website history for atheists. No wonder why atheist Simon Crichly a philosopher in his book Faith of the faithless said “I’m not happy to say this but I don’t see how we do justice without some belief in a transcendent divine order.”
Oh an the Catholic Church is still one of the worlds largest non government charities that is fighting against hunger worldwide. So we have a lot to thank the church for helping end human suffering in a lot of places.
Thank you for your responses. You have done a good job laying out your arguments. My statements were only made from my personal observations. Churches are failing. The Church of England is on track to cease existence by 2062 at its current rate of decline. Others are not far behind. I do not necessarily like this trend. Church leaders are not taking responsibility for the exit of members. Church fellowships are struggling to keep their building maintained and pastors paid. Professional church staff like Dr. Outland may have to find other revenue streams eventually. My practical solution in light of this current situation is to do what we should have been doing all along. Think for ourselves and stop expecting to be rescued from our poor choices and bad behavior.
@@bryanmeyers5476 thank you for your kind reply. If I came across too aggressive in my comments I apologize. I can’t tell exactly why we see numbers in churches declining but Jesus has warned us this would happen so this shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. I agree leaders in the church do need to step up and help those who are doubting and are being looked down on other so called church members. I also stand by my points that secularism is not the solution to the problem. Rather we need to fix the problem from within with the help of our lord and take responsibility for our actions at times. I hope you understand where I come from. Thanks for your kind reply again. God bless you sir.
Something else to consider. The Pharisees likely weren't Unitarian as the Jews of today. They didn't have a problem with there being a Godhead, just that Jesus claimed to be one of the members
When Jesus said to the parasitic man, your sins are forgiven you, and they said, or thought, this is blasphemy, needles to say this was a man saying this, namely Jesus. When Jesus cured the man, that did not change who he was, still a man, so the understanding was that God had given such power to man for him to have done this, not that he was God. I disagree with Bart in saying that Jesus claimed deity in the gospel of John, he did not. He claim union with God, that is true, but even John the apostle, assuming he wrote that gospel, in his summary verses 20:30-31, does not say anything concerning Jesus being God or deity but concerning Jesus being the christ, the son of the living God. So the claim that the gospel of John is somehow written to promote Jesus’s deity is incorrect.
I get why people would believe Jesus could cast out demons, but why would demons *obey* Jesus’ commands? One would assume they’re irredeemably damned already. It doesn’t make sense.
Aren't those two ways of saying the same thing? Is casting them out not also a command? In fact, Jesus sometimes tells them "Come out!" The power of the Holy Spirit may be forcing them to against their will. But that would then also apply to any other commands.
A clear, unequivocal instance of Jesus calling himself God in the synoptics is in Mark 2 when Jesus calls himself the "bridegroom". Any Jewish hearer would have known what that meant, as YHWH declares himself to be the husband of Israel throughout the Hebrew scriptures time and again. It is why the reception of the Law at Mount Sinai is described as a marriage ceremony (Exodus 19 & 20). It is why God consistently equates idolatry with adultery. And it is why God uses marital imagery to depict his relationship with Israel over and over again. So when Jesus calls himself the Bridegroom, that is as straightforward a statement saying he is YHWH as one could ask for.
The Son of Man has (on Earth) authority to forgive sins. Please note that the authority is in their (the pharisees) witness in the present moment not simply in the removed realm of heaven. The Revelation of Jesus' divinity in the current moment of his life on Earth.
Why is Alex Clark (Genetically Modified Skeptic) hosting a conversation that presumes Jesus was a real person and did miracles? Isn't Alex a philosophical materialist? "It looks like any stick is good enough to beat Christianity with." -- G.K. Chesterton.
Alex O'Connor isn't the Genetically Modified Skeptic. Jesus was a real person just like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Vespasian doesn't mean any of the supernatural claims are true
8:42 what if the only person who can forgive sins is the person against whom the sin is committed? Edit: 10:25 Alex and Bart argue this point as well. And it’s a point my friend Sam Tideman would make. You should talk to him. His availability and interlocutor quality is much better than Ehrman’s imo.
There are a lot of things that could be said about this, but it seems shocking to me that the conclusion of the parallel account in Matthew 9 wasn't factored in! Unless I just missed it (in which case, I apologize). Ehrman is saying Jesus has been granted authority by God and that God is really the one forgiving; Ortlund is disagreeing. But, the report in Matthew tells us the conclusion drawn at the time: "they glorified God, who _gave such authority to _*_men_* "
@@bethl Here's God's good loving judgement from a different perspective, in 1940's Germany imagine one 20 year-old female Jewish college student. She's a big liar, and she does not believe in Jesus's resurrection even after hearing a street preacher tell her. She ends up in a concentration camp she is s3xually assaulted, starved, beaten and finally gassed to death--is she going to wake up in God's concentration camp called Hell for eternity? Is this your God's good justice. Don't forget there are plenty of Jewish, Muslim and Hindus who will apparently be in Jesus 's concentration camp, tortured worst than any human dictator can inflict, by the God of justice. If you actually care about truth, learn from those that disagree with you, I recommend here on TH-cam: Paulogia and TMM.
The mistake in thinking we make on this issue, the same mistake we make these days on so many issues, is polar thinking, forcing ourselves not to ponder the question at hand in all of its ambiguities and complexities, but rather to choose between two extreme, oversimplified, diametrically opposed, positions. So is Jesus God or isn't he; did he claim to be God or didn't he? Such is the superficial, simplistic polar framing of an issue about as subtle and nuanced as issues can get. Those who would prefer to grapple with the ambiguities and complexities of Jesus' self-concept, as alluded to in his reported words, should pick up Dale Allison's "The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus"--especially the section about Christology, too high or too low. Or for a faster dive into deep, deep water, search for Albert Schweitzer's famous passage that begins "He comes to us as One unknown...."
Lord give me strength to overcome every battle I face as a single mom raising two sons with special needs because Lord I’m struggling to support them financially please Lord give me courage and faith as I struggle to provide for my children please give me a sound mind to keep faith and believe and trust in you.
Alot of these biblical critics have the same bait and switch of introducing a presupposition of the scriptures communication of an idea that is their own opinion or more likely introducing one that supports their criticism.
Question: Whats the definition of "blasphemy" used in Mark chapter 2? Blasphemy has multiple meanings depending on context. For example, being a false prophet, i.e. saying "The LORD says..." followed by a bunch of made up stuff is considered blaspheming the Holy Spirit, correct?
None of the Jewish authorities ever said or implied Jesus was a priest or priest like. Almost all of us today think Jesus is speaking to us. His audience was very narrow. He is speaking directly with Jews and Jewish authorities. It is very difficult to put ourselves in Jewish shoes from two thousand years ago. The Jewish authorities accuse Jesus of blasphemy five times in the gospels. They heard him claim to be God, but we do not. My prayer is that we would read the scriptures together with the Holy Spirit. They were written together with the Holy Spirit.
I AM I AM WHO AM I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. If you have seen me, you have seen the Father ( In the Trinity, the Son is wholly in the Father, and the Father is wholly in the Son) Christ gave his apostles and their successors the authority to forgive sins in his name. This authority has been handed down to the Priest's of to day by virtue of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The Priest is not the one who actually forgives and absolves the penitent from Sin. It is still done by Christ through the Priest. This is why confession to a priest is the best way of reconciling back to God. You obtain the fruits of the Sacrament and are more closely united to the Church and the members. Christ did not cling to his divinity when he assumed a human nature. He emptied it before coming man.
Another example of “popular Bart” vs. “scholarly Bart”
Great work on this one- I am always moved by your Baptist preacher moments 😂
Opportunist Bart. Scholarly books have a small clientele. Popular books that help people justify their sin has a much bigger audience. He sells his speculation as fact for 30 pieces of silver over and over again.
@@chrisazure1624 That attitude is why so many leave Christianity. There's nothing in Ehrman's works where he argues for sinning, ie hurting people.
@@joeoleary9010 You didn't understand what I said at all and are projecting your understanding upon what I said.
Nope, Ehrman's view is the scholarly consensus.
Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024. "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."
Lüdemann, Gerd (October-November 2007). "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation". Free Inquiry. Retrieved 10 May 2024. "... the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus's exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities."
@tomasrocha6139 Two is not a concensus. It is an appeal to authority tactic.
You should ask the question “did Jesus ever deny being God?” It’s illuminating to reverse the frame.
Jesus said he was *sent* by God at least 8 times in the Bible. Nowhere does Jesus say he sent himself.
Excellent point - all other miracle workers in the Bible either expressly refused worship or was obviously demonic.
@@joeoleary9010because the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit but all are God. This is basic Christian theology.
That could very well turn back on the question itself… did the prophets deny being God?
@@williamnathanael412 As did Jesus in Mark 10:18. "Why do you say I'm good? There's none good but God."
Gavin, I want to thank you specifically for your in-depth approach. As a Classics student taking early Christian literature, I really needed this video since our professor very likely holds to the view similar to Ehrman’s and I need to pass an oral exam with him😆 God is truly blessing me through your videos, they help build a firm foundation of faith. Please continue what you’re doing!
Good luck with the exam. Sad the influence Bart Ehrman has had.
@@michaelbrickley2443 thanks! Idk at all if my prof knows Ehrman and I like to see that the influence is not as big as we Christians tend to think. I just get the impression that he doesn't mind big conclusions from the q source theory. But I really hope I am wrong and in fact he's our brother in Christ, I just need to get to know him
@@alisatoniian9718 pray for Bart Ehrman. He was mentored by Dr. Bruce Metzger. The way I understand it he was led astray after realizing that the translations could be off here or there. Once he started questioning….he fell away. Gavin Ortlund is a godly man and a great teacher. Well worth listening to his teaching. Shalom
Oh I hated oral exams so much! Good luck.
Also, remember that you don't have to argue for Christianity. It'll probably be to your benefit, in terms of grades, not to try to.
@@merg-vh5sx Oh yes, I understand that! I think if I'm just able to present all interpretations - Church and critical - I'll be fine
What gets me about secular scholars of Christianity is their simultaneous distrust of the gospels* and use of the same texts to construct their arguments.
Feels like an exercise in futility.
*As reliable historical records of Christ's life and teachings
The entire idea of the Incarnation was Jesus as Man deferring to the Father and His will; going around claiming “I am God” is counterproductive to that, yet that doesn’t change His Identity (which cannot be denied): for He neither denied being God nor rejected worship as God, rather He left intimations of it.
Another overlooked feature of the Mark 2 scene is that the question "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" is not set up as real speech. It is actually the pharisees questioning in their heart (mind). But Jesus can read their hearts and thus respond to them accordingly. This is definitely going beyond what a mere human being would be able to do.
human beings are sometimes able figure out what other people are thinking.
Not only that, but in Israel at that, only God can know what is in your heart, so Jesus reading their heart is a demonstration that he isn't a normal prophet
@@TennisFreakHD Dr. Gavin actually mentioned this feature in this video post.
Who ever argued Jesus is a mere human being?
@@jordandthornburg many unitarians describe him as a human being with no preexistence.
One of the problems with Ehrman's comments at the beginning of the video is that some of the evidence for Jesus' self-perception comes from his actions, not his words. And Matthew 4:12-16 makes a significant point in that context. All four gospels say or suggest that Jesus chose to live in Nazareth as an adult, then in Capernaum. That lines up with what Isaiah 9:1 says about how the figure in the opening verses of Isaiah 9 is associated with Zebulun (the region where Nazareth is) and Naphtali (the region where Capernaum is). Jesus chooses to live in those two locations and in the same order in which they're mentioned in Isaiah 9. And there's other evidence, in all four gospels, that Jesus saw himself as the king of Isaiah 9:1-7. The king is described as if he embodies the titles of verse 6 rather than merely being named after the God who does so (e.g., the king is named Prince of Peace and brings an everlasting kingdom of peace in verse 7). Furthermore, the background of Isaiah 9 is in the origins of the monarchy in 1 Samuel 8, where the kingship has wrongly been taken from God. An eschatological return of the kingship to God himself in Isaiah 9 makes the most sense of that 1 Samuel 8 background, and it explains the titles of Isaiah 9:6. The worsening of warfare and the building up of the implements of war in 1 Samuel 8 (verses 11-12, 20) is reversed in Isaiah 9 (verses 4-7). Isaiah 9 is a reversal of 1 Samuel 8.
Both Jesus' activities and his words suggest he also viewed himself as the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah's Servant Songs (e.g., Luke 22:37). That figure is portrayed as God. The "high and lifted up and greatly exalted" language (Isaiah 52:13) is used to describe God elsewhere in Isaiah (6:1, 33:10, 57:15).
If anybody is interested in more about Jesus' patterning his life after this material in Isaiah, you can search for a January 8, 2023 post at Triablogue titled "Isaiah 9 Resources" and a March 28, 2019 post there titled "Jesus' Fulfillment Of The Other Servant Songs". I've also written an article defending the historicity of the "I am" statements in John's gospel, a June 25, 2024 post titled "The Historicity Of The 'I Am' Statements Of Jesus".
Gavin mentioned Richard Bauckham's material on the historicity of the fourth gospel. Another good, more recent resource is Lydia McGrew's The Eye Of The Beholder (Tampa, Florida: DeWard Publishing, 2021).
Great comment
Outstanding! Thank you.
Triablogue needs a Search Feature and better indexes!!
Jesus did not count equality with God as a thing to be grasped but made himself a servant to all.
I think this is an excellent point that's not brought up enough: Jesus's mission lays out the clear reason why he didn't go around telling everyone he was God.
"If we look at Q, M, and L"--oh you mean those sources we *project* from the Gospels and don't have?
Jesus said several times he’s God, 7 times He Said ‘i am’, Philip said show us the father Jesus said you’re looking At Him, Matthew 26:63-66 three times he says he’s God.
This was my immediate thought as well. He’s quite literally making statements about the contents of material that doesn’t exist and using that as evidence.
@@ZachHenke You don't think the gospels have sources? where do you think the gospels came from if there are no sources?
@@benjaminwatt2436 Obviously they have sources. Would it have been more clear if I had said “of which there are no extant copies” rather than that they don’t exist? I’m not saying there never were sources. If we take them to be eyewitness accounts we have to believe there were at the very least notes written down, but the fact remains that we don’t have them. For all intents and purposes they don’t exist.
@@ZachHenke is there a problem with not having the originals?
Ehrman hangs so much on a frankly simplistic understanding of oral traditions. Firstly, oral cultures can transmit stories over centuries as the First Australians prove and in the Classical Period even uneducated people would regularly be able to recite hundreds of lines from famous poems. Plus, if you witnessed something incredible. it is not a stretch to imagine it would stick in the memory more than mundane events. I still remember vividly scoring the winner in my Sunday league cup final 25 years ago.
definately, a lot of research has been done in Oral culture. it is well accepted the Odyssey existed in oral form for 100s of years before it was written and its 100s of pages long. most of what Ehrman says sounds like his western and modern culture is getting in the way. it fits perfectly that a 1st centery jew would communicate his Godship through jewish metaphor and teaching
It shouldn't be overlooked that Jesus throughout the gospels calls himself "the Son of Man". As he is using it, this is a divine title.
It comes from Daniel 7:13-14 which states: "‘I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Honor, and a kingdom, So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.’"
(At least) three things to note: 1. The Son of Man is said to come on the clouds of heaven. Only God does this in scripture (Psalm 104:3, Nahum 1:3, and Isaiah 19:1 for example). 2. All peoples of all languages serve him. This already sounds like divine worship, but an interlinear will tell you that the hebrew word for “serve” here is a verb only used to describe service to a god, so there’s no doubt. 3. His dominion is forever and his kingdom will not be destroyed. This is the same language used for God’s kingdom in the previous chapter of Daniel. (Daniel 6:26: “tremble and fear before the God of Daniel; For He is the living God and enduring forever, And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed, And His dominion will be forever”). It’s intentional that these words about God are still ringing in your ears as you read about the Son of Man.
Still don’t believe me that “the Son of Man” figure is divine? How about we look at Jewish interpretations?
Sanhedrin 38b:17 is interpreting Daniel 7:9 which states “‘I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat;’” The rabbis say “what is there to say concerning the verse: 'I beheld till thrones were placed'? The Gemara answers: One throne is for Him and one throne is for David, i.e., the messiah, as it is taught in a baraita: ‘One throne is for Him and one throne is for David’; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei said to him: ‘Akiva! Until when will you desacralize the Divine Presence by equating God with a person?’”
Here we see one rabbi is scolded for thinking that a throne next to God himself was for a human, because sitting on such a throne would entail equality between the two (co-heirs of creation). Indeed, this would be a problem if it was a mere human. If, however, someone was both human and divine, this would make perfect sense.
Mark 14:61-64 says “Again the high priest was questioning Him, and said to Him, 'Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' And Jesus said, 'I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.' Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, 'What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?' And they all condemned Him as deserving of death.”
So, Jesus not only claims for himself attributes of God but also says he will sit at God’s right hand, which as we just saw would necessitate equality with God. It’s no surprise that everyone thinks he just committed blasphemy.
Babe wake up new Gavin Ortlund video dropped
Stop it
@@cat_puncher8539 🎶 don’t stop till you get enough! 🎶
Wake the kids up too lol
Ehrman has a “trump card” for any valid and conceivable arguments you’ve made… he calls it “the criterion of dissimilarity” in his book How Jesus Became God (p. 96). This basically says that, if anything in ANY of the gospels sounds like something a Christian would say about Jesus, then it can’t be historically accurate. 😂 I kinda stopped taking him seriously after I read that!
Uh oh. You don't wanna do that kinda of logic, where one of your axioms is the very point you're trying to prove.
That goes back to the Jesus Seminar and even further. "If it sounded like something a Jew or a Christian would say, Jesus didn't say it." Um, he was Jewish and founded Christianity, so ....
Ridiculous strawman and Ehrman did not create the criterion of dissimilarity
@@tomasrocha6139 OP didn't say Ehrman made the criterion. Just that he has it, ie uses it.
I think this is also very common here in German theology which is being tought on universities:
If Jesus says something which isn‘t typical for an average Jew in 1.th century, then the writers of the Gospels must have put this into his mouth…
but if he says something which is typical for a 1th. century Jew, he is just an average guy and nothing else…
You choose a certain hermeneutical filter before you take a look into the text…
So glad you shared the John Duncan quote! I came across it in "Just a Talker", and I was like whoa, he said it before Lewis!
Great video, Dr. Ortlund!
Amen, we love your Baptist preacher mode 😂
More videos on critical scholars, please. This was really good
As a historian, I'm pretty much attuned to the dangers of building an argument based on selective evidence and speculative hypotheses. Ehrman's approach is problematic when he narrows his focus to the Synoptic Gospels and dismisses the Gospel of John without fully addressing the theological nuances that might appear across all the Gospels, including John.
But even focusing solely on the Synoptic Gospels, by ignoring key passages or reinterpreting established translations in speculative ways, and then using those speculations to build further theories, Ehrman's method seems to be less about a careful weighing of evidence and more about constructing a narrative that suits a preconceived conclusion. This is a common issue in some historical-critical approaches where scholars may introduce multiple layers of hypotheses, each dependent on the previous one, leading to conclusions that are more tenuous than solid.
In historical analysis, it's very important to maintain a balance between a critical approach to sources and a responsible engagement with the available evidence. Ehrman’s method oversteps into the realm of conjecture, which weakens its credibility as a rigorous historical investigation.
What parts of Ehrman's method seem to be building on multiple speculative hypotheses (or perhaps better, building on hypotheses that don't represent the "best" explanation we have for the hypothesis' subject)?
Erhman is so fixated by what Jesus didn't say when in regards to whether Jesus considered Himself to be God, that Bart doesn't see that the gospel writers are in agreement in considering Jesus to be God. In Matthew, when Jesus was born, he referred Jesus as Emmanuel (God with us), Luke not only wrote his gospel, but the Acts of the Apostles, referring Jesus as God, Mark referenced from Peter, who has Epistles regarding Jesus as God, and John, whether in his gospel or his other writings, is outspoken in this, declaring Jesus is God
@@fernandoformeloza4107 Mark didn't write Mark, and Peter didn't write the letters of Peter.
@@avantredguard565 prove it
@@fernandoformeloza4107 Peter didn't speak Greek.
@@avantredguard565 that isn't proof. Just like saying Peter had no dealings with Greek christians
John 12:20-22, Acts 11:20
Really excellent video. I just taught an RCIA class on this. You’ve given me some more content to include, thanks Gavin!
Thanks!
Yes 3 x in Matthew 26:63. “But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I [t]adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are [u]the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, [v]hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his [w]robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;”
Philip said, show us, the father Jesus says if you seen me you seen the father !
So in all these instances it was claims of being the Son of God which makes him divine, and claims of being the king of the jews.
As for the scripture in John regarding Phillip, read the following verses as Jesus explains why Phillip should see the father when he sees him.
@@dre5773 yes, he didn’t stop people from worshiping him like Thomas when he said, ‘my Lord and my God’ To Jesus John 20:28 & like the people in the triumphal entry Matthew 21 and only God deserves Worship! there’s some more verses for you to look up!
When he told the Pharisees he came from God, the father !
God is plural in the first verse of the Bible and also 26th verse!
Ehrman is an upside down historian, he has his conclusions first, which are inherently unfalsifiable, and the makes all sorts of gymnastics to make them fit. Basically, the textual evidence that does exist is all contrary to his claims, so he is in a position of saying he knowns more of what a character in history said (Jesus) than the sources he is working with, and makes all sorts of contrived arguments to show how all sources could have been bent so much and so early. He is also very condescending, laughing most of his debaters off. Worst of all, he is unsophisticated, and has a very limited understanding of comparative religion, sociology and so on
He assumes the truthfulness of the synoptics in order to discount the truthfulness of John, and then ditches the reliability of the synoptics 💀
Ehrman is a brilliant man. The only people who deny this are clouded by their worship of two thousand year old error-riddled fanfictions.
@@avantredguard565 What evidence do you have to support that assertion?
@@DrakonPhD Exactly the same evidence as Dr Ehrman. Mark, Q, and Paul never refer to Jesus as God.
@@avantredguard565 nothingburger statement
It's such a twisting to say that Jesus's response that he has authority to forgive sins, including the Son of Man title, wouldn't plainly tell the Pharisees that he is claiming to be God
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Would that not make him God ?
@@garyh987 not really. A god creating another god is nothing new. Jesus is God simply because he is God. His incarnation is simply a change of location/figure with no change in authority.
If you know anything about the Pharisees you would understand that what Christ did there was about as clear as He could be and not deceptive in the slightest. He was telling the leaders of the jewish faith, who were required to memorize the entirety of the old testament, that what they had been praying for for thousands of years was happening before their eyes. The Pharisees knew exactly what He meant, Jesus even directly told them two other times, both times they tried to stone Him. Trust me, they were not confused by what Jesus claimed, they crucified Him for it.
@@sethcarter4910 he could only have been clearer by saying the words. It was intentional to do it this way so he wouldn't be killed before the time was right.
But Jesus outright says that the Pharisees' concern is wrong
Great video, thank you! I’d love it if you’d do more videos refuting Bart Ehrman. Also, thanks for the book recommendation.
Would love to see Ehrman and Gavin discuss this together
Yeah. I like Gavin but I'm one of the few christians not convinced by the trinity doctrine. Well, if I take into account the people who just parrot the church creeds without really understanding what they are saying then we might actually be more 😆
@@snaphaan5049 You don't have to hold to the trinity to accept Jesus' divinity.
@@snaphaan5049 I agree it isn’t easy but please check out Fr. Thomas Joseph White’s material (videos or books) on the trinity.
@@Roescoe How is that?
Well, If I am pushed into a corner I can accept Jesus as the trinitarians believe... that he was God incarnate. But I cannot accept the Holy spirit as part of that union. Not as trinitarians want me to accept it.
The dual aspect is present everywhere. In scripture and creation. Old and New Testament, the double 7 years that Jacob had to work, male and female, light and dark, Leah and Rachel, the two money bags of Joseph's brothers, the doubling of talents, the extra measure of oil of the virgins. etc. God as revealed in the New Testament and God as revealed in the Old Testament. Makes perfect sense.
@@snaphaan5049 And there you go, You've got how it's done. Good for you. Now, much more important than trying to use our human understanding to come to more conclusions than God has revealed, let's get out there and focus on the good, beautiful, and true.
the last 15 minutes so splendidly done bravo bravo
😂your "Baptist preacher" moments get to me a lot. As I've been growing in Christ I've found myself brought so easily to tears, by real suffering and I've been a therapist for a while (longer than I've been a Christian). Anyway, thank you Dr Gavin and may the Lord keep you and your family 🫂.
Love from all the way here...
It would be good to see you debate Bart Ehrman on this topic! Thank you for this edifying post🔥
Erhman's comment about how not mentioning that he claimed to be God being "a pretty big thing to leave out" seems really compelling, until we remember your point that the whole plot of each of the synoptics is "Jesus gets executed for blasphemy." With that in mind, the rhetorical question flips and becomes "If those blasphemy charges were totally unfounded misunderstandings, wouldn't that be kind of a big point to leave out?
This was really good and very encouraging on probably an underaddressed topic. It is an objection I have wanted to research more but haven’t had the time. Relevant too since Bart Ehrman has a lot of cultural traction. Thank you for a good dose of Gospel Assurance!
The fact he was crucified for claiming He was God is a big deal… lol
He was crucified bc they were claiming he was king
He was crucified for the claim of king of jews. They want to stone him based on the blasphemy law because he claimed to be the Son of God.
@@tookie36 The Romans and Jews equally had part in the Crucifixion. 50% and 50%. The Roman half didn't care if He claimed to be God, they did it because He claimed to be King of the Jews. But they wouldn't have known that if the Jews hadn't told on Him. The Jews sure as hell didn't care if Jesus claimed he was their king. They hated Rome more than anything. And if the Jews didn't care, the Romans would not have been tipped off and done their 50% of the execution. Thus something must have tipped off the Jews initially that wasn't claiming He was their king. Something else. Something really important to Jews. I wonder what it could have been.
@@dre5773 See my above comment.
@@dre5773 that charge of "he was crucified because He claimed to be king" is, quite literally, discussed by Pilate and Jesus in His trial, to which Pilate states "I find no guilt in this man." and the Pharisees demanded He be killed anyways. He was killed because He accurately and truthfully told the Pharisees who He was. He did it directly twice, and both times the Pharisees tried to stone Him, they began conspiring to kill Him after He raised Lazarus because so many people were believing in Him.
Jesus never claimed to be God. Instead he identified himself with all the attributes that only God has.
That just not true. He said the Father and I are one as in one God. He identified himself as Yahweh in by saying "I am" just as God identified himself to Moses through burning bush.
John 10:30 ESV
I and the Father are one.”
John 8:58 ESV
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
@@thomasc9036 Brother, I hear you but you are making my point
This is precisely what Ehrman means. He doesn't mean that the authors of the synoptics did not believe that he was God or that they did not *portray* Jesus as God but that Jesus himself did not equate himself with God based on his words im these gospels.
@@adedaporh How come Jews understood? Have you thought that the problem is YOU not understanding instead of others? Jews literally tried to stone him.
John 10:33
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
@@David.1517 Not so, David, the Watchtower doesn't think Jesus claimed the attributes unique to God.
Brant Pitre recently released a (more academic) book on just this: Jesus and Divine Christology. Thanks for the video Gavin!
Thank you so much Dr Gavin!
This video is a godsent. Just recently I’ve encountered Bart Ehrman’s teaching series and his spin on how the doctrine of Jesus as God developed early on in the Christian movement. Your response to him has provided Christians with a solid, sound response that engages with Dr Ehrman at his level… even higher😏
I also appreciate and love seeing the moments in your videos where your passion for Christ everything else flares up …seeing scholarly informed and researched church leaders not lose their passion for ministry and the Church in their speech is an encouraging thing for me to see! I hope and pray that I may join your ranks one day if/as the Lord wills.
Christ bless and thank you so much Dr Ortlund!
Quickest way to figure out your religion is not true: The woman taken in adultery story in John was not written by John-- but it made its way into scripture, is this part of John's Gospel, INSPIRED by God? If not, why did God let it slip in. If God lets UNINSPIRED pieces in his Holy Word, what evidence do we have that any Gospel, or letter from James, Peter or Paul is INSPIRED by God. Listen carefully, I'm saying even if all parts of the Gospels are true even if Paul wrote every letter we have from him-- it doesn't mean God is behind them. And, would a God deny me eternal life because my logic says I should not trust the scriptures, or will a Good God damn me after creating me with a brain dumb enough to make a mistake?
You are always so charitable. I really admire that
I love the point about concealing his identity. I was also thinking, if Jesus wasn’t God, wouldn’t he make that apparent when the Jews were trying to kill him for blasphemy? Wouldn’t it be easier for him to say “Don’t worry guys, I’m just a prophet. I’m not claiming to be God” or something like that?
A proponent of the view “Jesus never claimed to be God” would have to provide an alternative reason to why Jesus was killed or an alternative definition of what the Pharisees meant by blasphemy? What were they so upset about?
@@Grantcfo since the crucifixion was the plan of God why would he say that?
I can provide that alternative reason. They thought Jesus was claiming prerogatives they thought only belonged to God so he was committing blasphemy for his claims. The point of the gospel is we are not supposed to agree with the Pharisees. They aren’t the good guys in the story. They were wrong.
@@jordandthornburg So you would propose, at most, that Jesus was either God or simply had powers like God-and at least, that he claimed to have those powers that were thought exclusive to God
@@Grantcfo I would say prerogatives and authority but yes.
Gotta love when Bart infers that later Christians just made stuff up that wasnt originally there, and then starts authoritatively citing phantom manuscripts like Q.
Lol. Yeah, I'm not like a PhD or anything, but my ignorant brain sees interprets that as inconsistent. 😉
The idea behind Q makes perfect sense to me. The Synoptics have strong textual similarity to the word, so it makes sense if there was some text they were all drawing from. Why else would they word events exactly the same
@@graysonguinn1943 None of that proves that Q existed. There are no extent manuscripts of Q. It is a sound example of the absurdity of many textual scholars.
Personally, I would like to see some actual proven examples of whatever faulty method led to the Q theory, which aren't circular, and not speculation based on circumstantial evidence.
@@graysonguinn19434 easy and obvious possibilities: 1) personal memory for the same events. 2) oral tradition; the same personal memories of others. 3) one borrowing from the other (Ii.e.Mark from Matthew or v.v.). 4)The guidance of the Holy Spirit (which is part of the claim of all inscriptured revelation).
@@johnnylollard7892
The Q source is just a hypothesis that some textual scholars think is likely right now to explain common material in Matthew and Luke, given that they don't think Matthew and Luke copied from each other. If an alternative hypothesis better explained the data, they'd just abandon that belief. Bart Ehrman is aware of, e.g. Mark Goodacre's arguments against Q and evidently doesn't find them convincing. But Bart is perfectly willing to change his mind on things in general (see his blog post entitled "Early Christology: How I Have Changed My Mind").
"Personally, I would like to see some actual proven examples of whatever faulty method led to the Q theory"
If you are not familiar with what methods scholars used to give evidence for the Q theory, why are you so confident that it's a "sound example of the absurdity of many textual scholars"?
In any case, you could pick up a copy of Metzger and Ehrman's textbook or Paul D. Wegner’s "A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible" to get an intro to some of the methods that textual critics try to use.
Matthew 9:6 says "When the crowd saw this they were filled with awe; and praised GOD, who had given such power to MAN"!
Here..I think Erhman is correct.
There’s an argument to be made that it was the crowd’s interpretation of what was going on when they saw the works of Jesus in that chapter. Plus Ehrman agrees that mark is the first gospel written, not Matthew. The words of Jesus are being discussed here, not the interpretation of the crowds. Plus the Pharisees very likely knew the Torah better than a lot of the peasant crowds and even they knew only God has the capability to forgive sins, no priest or anyone else in a leadership role.
@@connerdozier6689 but Jesus says the Pharisees are wrong for thinking that
If, hypothetically, Jesus *didn’t* think he was God, then he would have been the worst communicator in all of history lol
😂😂 true
@@BradchachaWhat primary source do you have for Jesus' sayings?
@@avantredguard565The Bible bro
@@Kenny_Doyle that's not a primary source, no book of the Bible was written by one of Jesus' direct followers, the earliest sources we have for Jesus' sayings are Mark and Q, where he never claims to be God.
Jesus says he was *sent* by God at least 8 times in the New Testament. lol
Really appreciate your ministry Gavin!
To be fair, Matthew 9:8 may be one textual reason to take Ehrman’s interpretation of the Mark 2 authority to forgive sins. On balance it seems better to me to understand the crowds as misunderstanding what Jesus meant by the “son of man” having authority on earth to forgive sins-fitting with Jesus’s intentional withholding of clarity. But at least it strengthens the Ehrman position some.
Jesus' uses of "I Am" as a personal title, are a direct claims to divinity.
Also in Matthew 7:21-22 Jesus uses the title "Lord Lord" of Himself. This is a reference to the Torah where the term "Lord God" (Adoni Yahweh or Yahweh El) is used.
But Jesus *does* say that God the Father gave him authority. One key reference is in Matthew 28:18, where Jesus says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
Additionally, in John 5:26-27, Jesus mentions that the Father has granted him authority to execute judgment. These passages highlight the idea of Jesus receiving authority from God the Father. Per the texts we have, I think Ehrman has the stronger argument.
Well that's another great passage for the divinity of Jesus " *All authority* in heaven and on earth" Not just some authority, *all* of it. Jesus gave various authority to the Apostles, but not the authority to create, for instance.
Correct, because God the Son (Christ Jesus) proceeds from God the Father. All three persons are equally divine, yet the Father has the most authority of all.
@@jeremias-serus they can't be equal, if one has all the power and the perogative to give it to others
Great video Dr. O
0:24 “You see, if you add the Synoptics and these other three texts we made up, six sources don’t call Jesus God!”
Great work Gavin! I've always thought that Mark 2 is one of the most essential texts to understanding who Jesus claimed to be. In Exodus 23, the Angel of the Lord is said to have the ability to forgive sins, and is identified with Yahweh elsewhere. In Mark, Jesus is being identified as the Angel of Yahweh, Yahweh himself.
Great video! Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the video Dr. Ortlund! In my studies of Jesus' divinity, I also came to the Mark 2 passage. Adding onto your argument, I would also say that at that time, it was the general belief that if someone had a physical ailment it was because of his or his parents' sin. So by healing the man, it was in a way speaking to that narrative showing that He has the authority to forgive sins. Otherwise the paralytic wouldn't have been able to walk.
Great video, enjoyed the presentation of the arguments
The synoptics early on identify John as the one preparing the way for YHWH. That's extremely high Christology and should inform what the rest of the book means when it talks about Jesus.
Good point.
I think this is a very interesting video. As many scholars do, Ehrmann believes that the Gospel of Mark, as the earliest compiled Gospel, puts forth an adoptionistic theology. In other words, Mark was written before the “Jesus is God” cult really got going. Both Matthew and Luke include details of some sort of miraculous birth (though with somewhat different details), while Mark makes no such claim to this miraculous birth. Ehrmann therefore asserts that God “adopted” the perfectly normal man Jesus at his baptism in the Gospel of Mark. But by the time the other canonical Gospels were written (compiled), the “Jesus is God” cult was in full swing, with John being the latest and with the most-developed incarnational theology. I don’t agree with any of that stuff, for the record.
I think that if you read the Gospel of Mark like a First Century person would, rather than as a 21st Century critical scholar, you would see that there are many claims to Jesus’ divinity. Verse 1 calls Jesus the “Son of God.” What would that mean to a First Century Jew? You have scriptures from Isaiah and Malachi fulfilled in the first few verses, specifically referring to preparing the way of the Lord. You have God calling Jesus His “beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” He’s doing battles with Satan and demons, and defeating them soundly. He’s healing all sorts of people. He’s forgiving sins. He’s preaching with authority that the religious leaders of His day cannot. He’s declaring that the Sabbath rules don’t apply to Him because He’s the Lord of the Sabbath. He’s controlling the winds and the sea. He’s delegating authority to His disciples to heal the sick and cast out demons. The list could go on and on. These are things that no prophet could ever do. There were a few healings in the OT, and a few people raised from the dead. But you don’t see God declaring them as His son. You don’t see them forgiving sins or claiming to be the Lord of the Sabbath. You don’t see them claiming to be the Son of Man (a claim that comes from Daniel 7). You don’t see them casting out demons or defeating the temptations of Satan. You don’t see them calming rough seas. You don’t see them doing the volume of miracles that Jesus is doing or making the same sorts of claims.
What was a First Century Jew to make of all this? His claims to being the Son of Man and Lord of the Sabbath are claims to divinity. His claim to forgive sins was a claim of divinity. And He proved His claims through His authority to rebuke sin, sickness, demons, and weather. That’s really the point the Gospel of Mark is making to his original audience. These critical scholars are not reading the Gospel of Mark from the same perspective. And frankly, they see it as a piece of pro-Jesus propaganda for ignorant First Century people. But Ehrmann definitely has a narrative he’s pushing. He wants to convince evangelicals that their understanding of Jesus and the four canonical Gospels are wrong.
love the video Gavin, thank you!
I appreciated your respect for and treatment of Holy Scripture.
Great video! I do have one concern. The story of the paralytic doesn’t only appear in Mark. And for instance, in Matthew, the crowd directly takes Jesus’s sign as proof God gave such authority to men (Bart Ehrman’s perspective). The crowd could’ve been wrong or Matthew could’ve been falsely extrapolating from Mark, but at least some early people (whether Matthew or the crowd) understood Jesus’s declaration in Dr. Ehrman’s way.
I’m curious if there is a reason this counter argument lacks weight.
I'd say the most important point of argument is about whether Jesus claimed to be God or not, regardless of if the crowds following him did. It would be hard to say that Jesus himself gave the crowds much credence or respect as a group. Moreover the "crowds" wildly changed their minds about Jesus throughout his life, going from amazement, to rejection via Pilate, and then repentance (that we may assume of some). I admit I'm conflating different "crowds" as a bigger abstract group, but regardless I think the point stands that the crowds are not credible.
@@henryholden3112
I appreciate your response and engagement with my concern.
I think that doesn’t quite address my point though. Dr. Ortlund suggests the obvious interpretation of Jesus’s words and sign was a declaration that he’s God-“no where does it say he was bestowed the authority”. However, people actually there (or at least the author of Matthew) didn’t take Dr. Ortlund’s interpretation. They said men were bestowed the authority. This seems to strongly question how obvious Dr. Ortlund’s interpretation is.
I say this as a biblical inerrantist who believes in Jesus’s divinity. My concern is about using this argument as an apologetic.
@@levifox2818 If I may take a crack at this (I’m no expert though so I could be totally off) - I think it’s a great question.
So the Mark 2:1-12 story can be seen also in Matthew 9:2-8 (as you note) and in Luke 5:18-26. Luke ends very similar to Mark’s telling, Matthew is a little different with the “and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.” at the very end. But overall all three are quite similar.
Now I think we need to stop however and consider what Ehrman’s argument is (at least as Gavin presents it in this video). TL;DR, I don’t think comparing Mark with Matthew OR Luke makes Gavin’s argument better or worse.
Erhman is trying to argue that the earliest texts that we have (see the first 0:00-1:40) do not present evidence of Jesus claiming he is divine/God. Now immediately we need to get into Erhman’s shoes. You need to disregard any sort of one-to-one comparisons between Mark and Matthew (that’s what a biblical innerantist would do, who thinks that Matthew and Mark as a whole are on some sort of equal textual/historical playing field, but that’s not how critical scholars like Erhman see things).
Regardless, all we have to do to disprove Ehrman is to show one or more “early” texts do show Jesus claiming some type of divinity. In this video I think Gavin rightly argues that Mark 2 is one such example.
Now to compare this with Matthew 5 is unnecessary. If Gavin is right about Mark 2, then at the very least, Ehrman’s whole argument is toast. Because it means there were very early writers who noted Jesus’s self-claimed divinity. Whether or not later authors (or even contemporaries of Mark) left it vague (Matthew or Luke) or downplayed it is a fair question, but has nothing to do with Erhman’s central premise, which hangs on this “early text” idea. Ehrman would have to signifiicantly soften his argument to something like "some of the early synoptics stories frame Jesus as divine and some do not" But that would be less catchy and a total shift for him 😜
My suspicion (and this is where I’m very unknowledgeable) is that there’s a reason why Ehrman uses Mark 2 as the example and not Matthew 5 - it’s because he has to! Contemporary critical scholarship likely dates Mark 2 as earlier/original (and Matthew 5 as a later usage). This makes Gavin’s argument even more damning, as it means some of the truly earliest texts have stronger divinity claims.
All that to say that I think for refuting Ehrman (showing holes in his argument) Mark 2 is one of many great texts.
@@Xespohn
I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I largely agree with what you’re saying. Dr. Ortlund does put a larger burden of proof back onto Dr. Ehrman.
My concern is that I’m not sure Dr. Ortlund is meeting his burden of proof sufficiently. Dr. Ortlund has to show that Dr. Ehrman’s interpretation (that Jesus was claiming bestowed authority) is very much a stretch.
Basically, there are two possible interpretations:
1. Jesus is saying, “You’re right, only God has authority to forgive sins, and I am God so I have that authority.”
2. Or Jesus is saying, “You’re wrong, God has bestowed this authority on men as well so I have the authority as well.”
The reading in Matthew seems to strengthen the plausibility of interpretation 2, given it’s at least one interpretation from the 1st century (whether condoned by Matthew of not). It makes it hard to show the interpretation is so much a stretch.
@@Xespohn
I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I largely agree with what you’re saying. Dr. Ortlund does place a larger burden of proof back onto Dr. Ehrman.
My concern is that Dr. Ortlund may not be meeting his burden of proof. He has to not only show his interpretation is likely, but that Dr. Ehrman’s is very much a stretch.
Basically, there are two interpretations:
1. Jesus is saying, “You’re right, only God has authority to forgive sins, and I am God so I have that authority.”
2. Or he is saying, “You’re wrong, God has bestowed that authority on me so I have that authority as well.”
The reading in Matthew shows that interpretation 2 was at least one interpretation in the first century (whether Matthew condoned the interpretation or not). That seems to make it hard to say that it’s such a stretch.
One doesn’t prove you are God by just saying so. You prove it by doing things that only God can do.
Much of the gospel stories can’t really be explained unless Jesus is God.
For example, who else miraculously feeds lots of people in a desert? Who else is said to walk over the sea? Who else controls the weather? Who else other than God.
“When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man” Matthew 9:8. It is clear in the text that the authority to forgive sins has been given by God. Jesus is repeatedly 100% clear that all his authority has been given to him by God
Nice catch!~ Bart Ehrman is right and Gavin Ortlund is wrong on this point.
Yeah, I think it can be true at the same time that the authority is given by God and that it's a unique authority given to Jesus that usually would only be possessed by God. So he seems to have been claiming, though in a veiled way (is he *the* "son of man" from Daniel 7 or just *a* "son of man" like Ezekiel?) that was misinterpreted by some in the crowd, to have been given a divine prerogative. These kinds of claims ultimately led to his crucifixion for alleged blasphemy--and to his early followers believing that he was the incarnation of the Word of God.
Jesus in the Synoptics identified himself with the Son of Man figure mentioned in Daniel 7. How we identify and define the Son of Man and his hierarchical and ontological relationship to YHWH is a debated topic within 2nd Temple apocalyptic Judaism.
Great video! Thank you
This is a common talking point with Muslims as well. TBH I think it's usually coupled with a very specific idea of what "claiming to be God" should entail, such that they think that Jesus should have said something like "I am God, the Son, the second person of the trinity, of the same substance as the Father."
Great stuff. Clear.
Considering the earlier Gospels had a lot of interaction with a Jewish audience, a slower “reveal” would make more sense than in John for instance.
In Ehrman's own argument the "Son of Man". - Daniel 7:13-14 - “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." - The Jews knew exactly what Christ was claiming, and their behavior shows it. Yeah, I wrote this before listing to the whole thing. I'm not sure this helps your cause, but your explanation is excellent. Thank you !
I just studied this passage this week while studying the book of Mark. That’s exactly what I was thinking. They knew exactly who Jesus was claiming to be by calling himself Son of Man.
Everyone should check out Mark series by Mike Winger. This gospel is full of high Christology
Ehrman’s arrogant laugh when he thinks he’s found a “gotcha“ is very off-putting. It’s evidence of his underlying motive to discredit. Not engage in honest scholarship. The more you watch him, the more you’ll pick up on his anger and anti-faith bias. The Biblical Scholarship scene is a weird place. Full of academics trying their hardest to discredit a belief system with incessant cup-half-empty interpretations of literally everything.
Quickest way to figure out your religion is not true: The woman taken in adultery story in John was not written by John-- but it made its way into scripture, is this part of John's Gospel, INSPIRED by God? If not, why did God let it slip in. If God lets UNINSPIRED pieces in his Holy Word, what evidence do we have that any Gospel, or letter from James, Peter or Paul is INSPIRED by God. Listen carefully, I'm saying even if all parts of the Gospels are true even if Paul wrote every letter we have from him-- it doesn't mean God is behind them. And, would a God deny me eternal life because my logic says I should not trust the scriptures, or will a Good God damn me after creating me with a brain dumb enough to make a mistake?
Ehrman is desperate to convince himself. He knows the truth, but needs to continue to support his decision. And sell books.
If all unbelievers secretly believe, and are being resistant knowing the consequences, why would God create some humans that prefer freedom on Earth and then Hell forever. For those humans, Hell is NOT a punishment since they secretly believe and rather take Hell then heaven. So, God has MADE them in a way that they do not fear Hell, weird.
@@calmingwavesjulian Because the hardness of their heart.
Why do you presume it is God's fault creating them a certain way?
“He knows the truth” kind of statements come from the mindset that no one can genuinely think differently than you. They must be insane, liars, or deluding themselves
@@graysonguinn1943 I'm not sure this is a "knows the truth," but instead it's a case of "has to answer this question," and comes with his biases.
@@graysonguinn1943 He affirmed it before and then rejected it due to a personal issue.
Do you think you know the truth and would the same character attack apply to you?
Great video response. This argument against Jesus' divinity seems particularly damaging if not addressed.
"It's certainly true that a human agent can be appointed to declare forgiveness of sins, like a priest..." - Gavin Ortlund. You heard it here first folks.
Seriously though, I don't know how anyone could argue that Jesus wasn't claiming to be God. If he was just a guy, possibly a prophet, and then he died, came back, said a couple more things, then went to Heaven, what's the point? Maybe the miracles, including the resurrection, prove that he had some authority while he was here, but then why were his followers being martyred, including his own apostles? When I was an atheist, I really liked Bart, and I thought Misquoting Jesus was a slam dunk against the bible. Now I just don't get why he's still out there pushing this stuff.
Brother, I have a question regarding the authority Jesus has. The parallel passage in Matthew 9 (specifically verse 8) seems to indicate that God the Father gave "such authority to man." Is this talking about Jesus' forgiving the man's sins or His healing the man or both or...? I agree with your general argument *from Mark 2,* but as I look at the parallel passage in Matthew, I'm perplexed, wondering if Ehrman's argument [about where Jesus' authority to forgive comes from] has some credence?
To be clear about my motives, I am a Christian who wants to love and trust God and His Word more, and I want to grow in understanding and intellectual integrity. Thank you in advance for taking the time to look at this and think through this.
I think one way to help understand is looking at Philippians 2:6-11 which describes Jesus being in the form of a servant though still being in very nature God. Jesus was the perfect example of being in the servant of a man while still bearing his deity. His examples of being dependent on the father were meant to be showed to his disciples and us on how to be dependent on him as well. Hope this makes sense. Or another theory is that the people thought he was just another man who was given authority but not realizing his true identity in that moment. God bless from a brother in Christ.
I think for whatever reason, Ehrman also neglects Jesus' identification with the Son of Man. This is a very specific title, derived from Daniel, where the "one like a Son of Man" is seen in the heavenly court, presented before the Throne of God, and given all His authority and the right to receive worship " He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him." That is the obviously Divine figure Who is given things only God can and should receive. Bart is not wrong about Jesus' authority being ultimately derivative of that of the Father - but it is His in a unique, singular and Divine context, making it completely correct to understand Jesus as Yahweh, as much as the Father is Yahweh, and the Spirit is Yahweh.
8:20 Matthew 9:8 "But when the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified the God who had given such authority to men." John 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” Men can be given the authority to forgive sins on behalf of God.
Great points.
the shocking thing to me is that anyone takes bart ehrman seriously. reccomended: " misquoting truth" a guide to the fallacies of bart ehrman's misquoting jesus. by timothy paul jones.
Your point about how the claims to deity are indirect even in John is helpful. The whole tenor of His ministry is mysterious, conveying profound and revolutionary teaching but implicitly, veiled in parables and allusions and requiring thoughtful reflection by those who want to understand him.
Imagine if He had been direct and came right out with "I'm God, worship me." He would have been crucified for blasphemy immediately - no opportunity to spread His teaching, train His disciples, etc. Even being as indirect and cagey as He was, He could only keep them at bay for three years.
The biggest problem with this theory is John is an eye-witness. so even if it were true that Luke, Mark and Matthew didn't include a clear declaration, you still have an eye-witness saying Jesus did say he was God
You think Ehrman and majority of the critical scholars think John even WROTE the fourth Gospel WE call "John". You have So much to discover.
@@calmingwavesjulian why don't you present your argument or their argument of why John didn't write the Gospel of John. How about that? Maybe he just did :). What research have you done that is not Atheists who desperately want Christianity to be false on the writer of the Gospel of John? Heck, forget that. Give me the arguments of these atheist scholars of why John didn't write the Gospel of John.
Love your metaphors
Interesting tidbit for the Mark 2 passage as well is the connection of the title Son of Man with Daniel 7:13-14 where we see the Son of Man (Jesus) having service directed to him (latreuo in Septuagint) and this form of service is only ever rendered unto God. The original Aramaic word there as well also represents the type of service that is only properly given to God.
I have an unrelated request, but you mentioned anxiety in the intro to the video and it made me think of this. Can you make a video covering Christian struggling with ongoing sin and the state of their salvation, particularly in reference to Paul’s vice list passages (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians), the Hebrew passage about willful sin, and Romans 7? I know this is applicable to a lot of people (including myself) and the there doesn’t seem to be any resource covering the Issue from a rigorous theological and pastoral perspective.
Question: Gavin, why in your interpretation is Jesus openly sharing He is a Divine Being in Mark chaper 2 but in the whole rest of the book of Mark, Jesus is trying to hide his identity?
What's the actual name of the video you mention in 24:29? I'm unable to find it.
EDIT: Found it. It's "What we miss about Easter".
I also think it is important to note that 1st century Jews linked illness with sin. So when Jesus heals the paralytic he really is providing evidence that the man's sins are, in fact, forgiven
I wish I could have have thought of this sooner, but I would love to see you do a dialogue with Robert Rowe of Sentinel Apologetics. He’s written a commentary on Mark using a lot of scholarly sources, and is really big into Second Temple material, and where it connects with the divinity of Christ.
It is a fact that the church is loosing members in the U. S. The trend has continued for some time as social and economic progress has reduced human suffering. I see the remaining churches as funeral societies or clubs where people are able to give each other practical assistance. Some church organizations survive with no purpose other than to maintain a historical building. The theological discourses found in social media solve nothing. We might as well be arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. At some point, humans need to take responsibility for their actions and stop relying on a supernatural deity to direct them through life.
So you’re saying we should embrace secular worldview where morality is relative, no justice for people killed whose murderers will never get caught and see justice, evil wins, and nihilism is the most logical solution for life and despair is honest atheism? (read works of Neitchze, Camus, and Sartre). Yeah great worldview pal. And what about all the damage and wars that the secular worldview has caused? Here’s a fact for you. Most wars and genocides have been caused and committed through secular based societies and have had campaigns against religions who tried to keep the peace. People have killed in the name of atheism more than religion. Even Tim o Neil an atheist admits this on his website history for atheists. No wonder why atheist Simon Crichly a philosopher in his book Faith of the faithless said “I’m not happy to say this but I don’t see how we do justice without some belief in a transcendent divine order.”
Oh an the Catholic Church is still one of the worlds largest non government charities that is fighting against hunger worldwide. So we have a lot to thank the church for helping end human suffering in a lot of places.
Thank you for your responses. You have done a good job laying out your arguments. My statements were only made from my personal observations. Churches are failing. The Church of England is on track to cease existence by 2062 at its current rate of decline. Others are not far behind. I do not necessarily like this trend. Church leaders are not taking responsibility for the exit of members. Church fellowships are struggling to keep their building maintained and pastors paid. Professional church staff like Dr. Outland may have to find other revenue streams eventually. My practical solution in light of this current situation is to do what we should have been doing all along. Think for ourselves and stop expecting to be rescued from our poor choices and bad behavior.
@@bryanmeyers5476 thank you for your kind reply. If I came across too aggressive in my comments I apologize. I can’t tell exactly why we see numbers in churches declining but Jesus has warned us this would happen so this shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. I agree leaders in the church do need to step up and help those who are doubting and are being looked down on other so called church members. I also stand by my points that secularism is not the solution to the problem. Rather we need to fix the problem from within with the help of our lord and take responsibility for our actions at times. I hope you understand where I come from. Thanks for your kind reply again. God bless you sir.
Where can I get the book? In Kenya getting these books is quite problematic. Unless I'm the one who's not looking well enough
"Therefore the Son of Man is Lord ALSO/EVEN of the sabbath." (Mark 2:28). Who sanctifies, rules, and is above the sabbath? God.
Something else to consider. The Pharisees likely weren't Unitarian as the Jews of today. They didn't have a problem with there being a Godhead, just that Jesus claimed to be one of the members
When Jesus said to the parasitic man, your sins are forgiven you, and they said, or thought, this is blasphemy, needles to say this was a man saying this, namely Jesus. When Jesus cured the man, that did not change who he was, still a man, so the understanding was that God had given such power to man for him to have done this, not that he was God. I disagree with Bart in saying that Jesus claimed deity in the gospel of John, he did not. He claim union with God, that is true, but even John the apostle, assuming he wrote that gospel, in his summary verses 20:30-31, does not say anything concerning Jesus being God or deity but concerning Jesus being the christ, the son of the living God. So the claim that the gospel of John is somehow written to promote Jesus’s deity is incorrect.
God bless.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
I get why people would believe Jesus could cast out demons, but why would demons *obey* Jesus’ commands? One would assume they’re irredeemably damned already. It doesn’t make sense.
Aren't those two ways of saying the same thing? Is casting them out not also a command? In fact, Jesus sometimes tells them "Come out!" The power of the Holy Spirit may be forcing them to against their will. But that would then also apply to any other commands.
@@jsharp3165I just don’t understand why a demon would obey a command to “come out”. What have they got to lose?
@@BackstreetfroyzJesus has authority to make them do it, I believe. They didn’t want to, but his power is so much greater.
@@bethl why would a demon care about authority?
@@Backstreetfroyz what choice would they have in the face of a far greater power? When you read the accounts, it’s clear
A clear, unequivocal instance of Jesus calling himself God in the synoptics is in Mark 2 when Jesus calls himself the "bridegroom". Any Jewish hearer would have known what that meant, as YHWH declares himself to be the husband of Israel throughout the Hebrew scriptures time and again. It is why the reception of the Law at Mount Sinai is described as a marriage ceremony (Exodus 19 & 20). It is why God consistently equates idolatry with adultery. And it is why God uses marital imagery to depict his relationship with Israel over and over again.
So when Jesus calls himself the Bridegroom, that is as straightforward a statement saying he is YHWH as one could ask for.
Good point. In my recent study of Mark, I was amazed at how much God calls himself the Bridegroom in the Old Testament.
The Son of Man has (on Earth) authority to forgive sins. Please note that the authority is in their (the pharisees) witness in the present moment not simply in the removed realm of heaven. The Revelation of Jesus' divinity in the current moment of his life on Earth.
Why is Alex Clark (Genetically Modified Skeptic) hosting a conversation that presumes Jesus was a real person and did miracles? Isn't Alex a philosophical materialist?
"It looks like any stick is good enough to beat Christianity with." -- G.K. Chesterton.
Alex O'Connor isn't the Genetically Modified Skeptic. Jesus was a real person just like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Vespasian doesn't mean any of the supernatural claims are true
Please could you debate or review Don Mclennan
Bart debates were some of the final steps i took before coming to Christ ~5 years ago
This is why understanding Biblical Inerrancy is so important. You lose that then it’s the Wild West.
8:42 what if the only person who can forgive sins is the person against whom the sin is committed?
Edit: 10:25 Alex and Bart argue this point as well. And it’s a point my friend Sam Tideman would make. You should talk to him. His availability and interlocutor quality is much better than Ehrman’s imo.
There are a lot of things that could be said about this, but it seems shocking to me that the conclusion of the parallel account in Matthew 9 wasn't factored in! Unless I just missed it (in which case, I apologize). Ehrman is saying Jesus has been granted authority by God and that God is really the one forgiving; Ortlund is disagreeing. But, the report in Matthew tells us the conclusion drawn at the time: "they glorified God, who _gave such authority to _*_men_* "
Nice catch!
The crowd did say that. That was their impression.
@@bethl Here's God's good loving judgement from a different perspective, in 1940's Germany imagine one 20 year-old female Jewish college student. She's a big liar, and she does not believe in Jesus's resurrection even after hearing a street preacher tell her. She ends up in a concentration camp she is s3xually assaulted, starved, beaten and finally gassed to death--is she going to wake up in God's concentration camp called Hell for eternity? Is this your God's good justice. Don't forget there are plenty of Jewish, Muslim and Hindus who will apparently be in Jesus 's concentration camp, tortured worst than any human dictator can inflict, by the God of justice.
If you actually care about truth, learn from those that disagree with you, I recommend here on TH-cam: Paulogia and TMM.
The mistake in thinking we make on this issue, the same mistake we make these days on so many issues, is polar thinking, forcing ourselves not to ponder the question at hand in all of its ambiguities and complexities, but rather to choose between two extreme, oversimplified, diametrically opposed, positions. So is Jesus God or isn't he; did he claim to be God or didn't he? Such is the superficial, simplistic polar framing of an issue about as subtle and nuanced as issues can get. Those who would prefer to grapple with the ambiguities and complexities of Jesus' self-concept, as alluded to in his reported words, should pick up Dale Allison's "The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus"--especially the section about Christology, too high or too low. Or for a faster dive into deep, deep water, search for Albert Schweitzer's famous passage that begins "He comes to us as One unknown...."
Lord give me strength to overcome every battle I face as a single mom raising two sons with special needs because Lord I’m struggling to support them financially please Lord give me courage and faith as I struggle to provide for my children please give me a sound mind to keep faith and believe and trust in you.
You pop up everywhere with your narrative of woe. Remarkably your woes don't keep you off social media, though.
Alot of these biblical critics have the same bait and switch of introducing a presupposition of the scriptures communication of an idea that is their own opinion or more likely introducing one that supports their criticism.
Question: Whats the definition of "blasphemy" used in Mark chapter 2?
Blasphemy has multiple meanings depending on context. For example, being a false prophet, i.e. saying "The LORD says..." followed by a bunch of made up stuff is considered blaspheming the Holy Spirit, correct?
None of the Jewish authorities ever said or implied Jesus was a priest or priest like. Almost all of us today think Jesus is speaking to us. His audience was very narrow. He is speaking directly with Jews and Jewish authorities. It is very difficult to put ourselves in Jewish shoes from two thousand years ago. The Jewish authorities accuse Jesus of blasphemy five times in the gospels. They heard him claim to be God, but we do not. My prayer is that we would read the scriptures together with the Holy Spirit. They were written together with the Holy Spirit.
Actually I see him claiming to be God throughout, so I’m not sure I understand your point.
I AM I AM WHO AM I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. If you have seen me, you have seen the Father ( In the Trinity, the Son is wholly in the Father, and the Father is wholly in the Son)
Christ gave his apostles and their successors the authority to forgive sins in his name. This authority has been handed down to the Priest's of to day by virtue of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The Priest is not the one who actually forgives and absolves the penitent from Sin. It is still done by Christ through the Priest. This is why confession to a priest is the best way of reconciling back to God. You obtain the fruits of the Sacrament and are more closely united to the Church and the members.
Christ did not cling to his divinity when he assumed a human nature. He emptied it before coming man.
I ask because I am not sure of the answer: is there a place in the Gospels where Jesus gave his disciples authority to give authority to others?