Is he right? Is Jesus really not portrayed as God in 3/4

>still hung up on Christianity
Why even care?

>>2227769

That's not quite Ehrman's position. The Gospels, as literary artifacts, portray Jesus as God very clearly in Luke, Matthew, and John, and reasonably clearly in Mark.

Rather, John excepted, Jesus's own words in the Gospels do not portray him as God.

>>2227783
Wait, why are Christians believe more in the apostles than in Jesus himself?

>>2227804
Most information we have on Jesus comes from the Apostles. The words of Jesus as those as told by the Apostles.

>>2227804

I don't understand the question. If you buy into Ehrman's argument, you presumably buy into a lot of the rest of it, namely that the Gospels were not written by direct eyewitnesses to the events contained therein and that no actual, primary record of Jesus's statements survive.

>>2227812
I think what he means is why some Christians seem to place so much emphasis on things like the epistles that they seem to be given equal weight to what are supposed to be under the Christian belief system accurate recordings of Jesus's own words. In other words once Paul was on to delivering his own thoughts instead of just recording the teachings of Jesus, why do they still consider that "the Bible" implying it has just as much weight as the accounts of Jesus.

It's a legitimate question that I've often wondered about. If I was a Christian I think I'd be inclined only to regard to the accounts of Jesus's life and teachings as being actual revelation. Well, and Revelation itself, because God still speaks directly in that.

>>2227827

Christianity is really polytheism.

>>2227804
>Its another "Christianity is comprised solely of autistically following the words in a book" episode.

>>2227833
No, not really. That's only arguably the case in Catholicism, and it took them a while to get around to it.

>>2227840
What about orthodoxy or any sect before luther?

>>2227840
Behold >>2222838

Tell me what're your thoughts

>>2227859
god i hate that annoying faggot. he might as well be a tripfag

>>2227882

At least he's not the Hebrew Grammar Nazi.

>>2227846
Well orthodoxy I am basically lumping in. They got the doctrine of the trinity from the same place the catholic church did.

Early Christian sects did not have any consistent idea that God was three separate persons to my knowledge, if you're aware of some that did I'd be interested to find out about that. From what I understand there were a variety of different positions on the nature of Jesus's divinity or lack thereof, but the idea that there were three separate distinct persons within God didn't become a clear, established doctrine until the Catholic church began to solidify it.

>>2227882
Am I really not allowed to spread the word of Jesus? Do you really hate him that much?

>>2227895
This is a good rundown on the history of the trinity with citations. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

I know that by the late 14th century the trinity was firmly established. I know this far from the church fathers, but my point being by than it was developed in full.

>>2227895
So the first recorded use of the word trinity to describe God was from 180 AD

>>2227912
I don't have a problem with his content or message per se, he just does it in such an obnoxious way

>>2227933
Give him a break. You expect him to write a whole new paragraph rather than copy paste? It's because of the anime? What's obnoxious about him?

>>2227951
>hahaha I'm so funny and spontaneous, let me reuse the same images over and over and repost the same arguments over and over in the same format. look at the memes I mixed in, I made sure to space out every sentence so that my post is huge and impossible to ignore, I'm so funny look at me! now time to reply to 10+ posts all in the same post.

>>2227967
He gave you a chance to refute. Guess you can't refute shit.

File: 1483898432762.jpg (482KB, 999x1399px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 999x1399px

>>2227981
refute what exactly? this is my subjective opinion of the shitter, nothing more.

>>2227990
Refute his argument I mean

>>2228001
why? I never even said that I disagree with his argument. he's just an annoying attention whore.

>>2228001
He doesn't accept differing arguments. His entire argument boils down to
>the translation I like doesn't translate a certain verse a certain way therefore there's no way the Trinity can be real
He has no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, basic exegesis, or church history. He cherry picks verses he doesn't understand as prooftexts then spazzes when you call him on it. Seriously, screw that guy. I'm all for a discussion about trinitarian theology, but that dude is dim as fuck.

>>2228011
Everyone wants (You)s. He just wants you to read them.

>>2228042
Anon, be fair. You're also cherry picked the verses.

The only difference is he used Jesus words while others, most of the time, use the apostles. Thus, making his argument more convincing.

He already straight out say to show him 'where did he go wrong in his argument'. No one said a thing.

What is it that you don't agree with anime-anon? I'm more than happy to help.

>>2228084
He went wrong in his entire understanding of biblical scholarship. He has no foundation to argue from. It's like asking where Jesus said he was crucified and since he never explicitly says it, he must have not been crucified. He's presenting an incredibly weird personal bar for discussing the Trinity and refuses to understand basic doctrine about the incarnation that deal with his objections. But again, his idea of what's "convincing" is idiotic.

>>2228186
>weird personal bar?
You mean the Trinity can't be confusing? Since it will contradict a certain verse in the Bible?

Wasn't he already gave 'the Council of Nicea' as an example to show that Trinity is confusing?

>he refuse to understand
No, he has some basics understanding about it. And he also provide why it isn't so.

Look, if you see him making dumb post. Just reason with him. I think he's pretty reasonable.