Ehrman on the Carmen Christi; Review of the Ehrman/Gathercole Unbelievable Exchange

And welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday afternoon good to be with you Afternoon times are gonna be probably more common in the future.

I would imagine but Good to be with you warning to Matt Hampton's Grand Canyon class,

I'll be Guest teaching tomorrow morning early in the morning. I don't remember 7 a .m.

Classes at Canyon But I I probably had one or once twice. I don't remember but that was a long time ago

But it'll be the first time I've been on campus in a long long time looking forward to Seeing those folks.

I had honestly hoped this program would not be necessary when

I Was in London a few weeks ago and spoke with Justin Brierley.

I Was pretty stoked there was going to be a program recorded between Bart Ehrman and Simon Gathercole on the subject of the duly released books

Ehrman's book on how Jesus became God and the Christian response to that how

God became Jesus and I Love Gathercole's work.

I've never met Simon Gathercole But I I've really enjoyed for example some of the recordings of apologetics conferences that have been done

In the UK at various churches with various the folks that are a part of Oxford and Cambridge and things like that And I've appreciated the fact that there are believers continuing to attempt to Remain Orthodox in the midst of all that kind of stuff

That is over in the UK and of course in our academic circles as well but in listening to the program

I I've come to the conclusion that if you're going to take on Bart Ehrman It might be good if you don't do so as a

Brit what I mean by that is our our good British brothers

Just tend to let people get away with murder they just don't

Aren't willing to say some of the things that need to be said with the force it needs to be said with and the result is a

Presentation where it's sort of like well, you know, yeah, this is the heart of the Christian faith, but you know, it's possible It might be this it might be that and that's exactly what

Bart Ehrman wants In fact, one of the things that sort of took me aback Was In fact,

I don't know if we can do this rich. I'd say we weren't gonna do this but let me

Can you can you see my Kindle Kindle program? There No, you can't see the

Kindle program You seem to tell the guy on the on the on the phone to cool his jets a minute.

Can you see my Kindle program? Sort of You can't okay

Let me show you all something This is Ehrman's book. Okay.

Let me let me do a search here for the word Apologists now, did you see the screen filling up over there on the left?

18 matches found you take the two out that are in the index and you have 16 places in this book

Where Bart Ehrman basically says now Christian apologists say this

But historians say this or the fact is this now I Don't know what it is about You know high -end scholarship

Especially as Christians, but it's time that we all recognize something Bart Ehrman is not an unbiased scholar.

Okay Misquoting Jesus Jesus interrupted

God's problem forged and now how Jesus became God The reality is every single one of these books has the same purpose and that is to eviscerate

The very heart of the Christian faith and theology You go after the

Word of God you say it cannot be trusted You go after what it teaches about the reliability of Jesus's teaching you go after Well, he's gone after every element of the scriptures transmission original writing alleged contradictions

Everything and now you're going after the Trinity the deity of Christ the resurrection

When are we gonna get the idea That this isn't just some historian sitting there going.

Well, you know, I have a slightly different perspective He's an apostate making a ton of money on His apostasy and his materials are being used by everybody now part of the problem here

Is that a lot of Christian scholarship just leaves apologetics off to the side just doesn't even concern itself about such things

And that's a problem But here's look at look at all these references to apologists apologists typically have

Christian top apologists often argue He's not quoting these in a positive way.

He's quoting these in a very negative way now look at look at what happens when

I go to my library here and I go to the response book and I do the exact same thing apologists

Two places and both of them are in reference to the early church when you talk about the apologists like Justin murder

Not even a recognition response to or reference to the fact that it is a regular element of Ermine's Argumentation to be taking on Christian apologetics now, of course and Christian apologists now problem, of course is that ermine presents himself as this unbiased

Type of of I'm just I'm just being a historian. I have no I have no presuppositions here.

I get you know, nothing like that That's just simply not the case. That's just something not the case and so I just I Don't it's extremely frustrating for me to Listen to for example these programs.

I'm only gonna look at the second one I could have looked at the first one too But I felt that the heart of the conversation took place in the second of the two programs, which obviously

Just meant that they were in the studio longer It's not like they left and then came back the next week type thing, you know, it's pre -recorded blah blah blah and One of the things

I want to do and Rich has just been too busy for me to even talk to him about this.

But one of the things I want to do is I Really think that there would be a tremendous benefit to doing a study of ermine's book and What I'd like to do is put together.

We have these bundles on on the website, right? Or you can you bundle mp3s and stuff like that What I'd like to do is

I would like to bundle The books that would needed it would need to be read to do a study of ermine's book

Chapter by chapter so you'd have the response book You would have the heresy of orthodoxy

You would have dr. Kruger's work on canon I Would I would think of a couple of a couple other books to add to it that would be the the background

Material the background reading material and then what we do either right here like this or Do it

In another room that we have that we've always wanted to get set up to be able to do Live teaching in that we could web stream and people would be able to Participate remotely in that way

Go through each of the chapters this book because it is in essence the current textbook for how to attack the

Christian faith and So if you no matter who you are if you're a student already in university if you're a parent with Children, they're gonna be heading that direction pretty much anybody in our society today that is going to be dealing with the

The the culture's attack upon the Christian faith Bart Ehrman is

Giving you the guidelines. Here's how you do it. You you attack the Bible here. You attack the resurrection here you attack the

Trinity and the deity of Christ here. This is how you do it and I would think that one of the most useful things we could do for the church as a whole

Would be to work through this book and to to demonstrate how you can respond to these things not not

Obviously so we can do apologetics, but also just for individuals for the strengthening of your own

Your own faith and your own confidence in the truth maybe make people a little bit more confident in the proclamation of the gospel and So that's something

I definitely want to try to pursue once What it's have to figure out how we could make that work

Obviously I could do it as a as a section of the dividing line if that's all we if that's all we did But it would be

I think more interesting to have some people in to have a live audience to have some interaction

I think that would be that would be neat as well So that's something that I've certainly been thinking about because as I listened to this book and as I heard

Bart Ehrman doing his best Jehovah's Witness impersonation, and that's really what he's doing in this book even though the witnesses

Need to be very careful I've been thinking a lot about How the

Muslims are going to be using this book and how they should not be using this book how no honest

Muslim Will be using this book How Jehovah's Witnesses might go?

Oh cool He's saying that Jesus Michael the Archangel and he's doing the angel thing and all this is great.

Be real careful because The foundation of his saying that is not the foundation that you say that as there's a big contradiction there

There's a there's a lot of problems there's a lot of problems and In fact, let me just read you something here

This really struck me because so many people and we're gonna get we're gonna get to the the audio here in a moment, but so many people look at And again,

I am confused about this I do not understand why it is that Ehrman gets such a pass

To get to write on any subject at all as the ultimate expert

I've read his doctoral dissertation and I know he's done further study beyond that.

I understand that but especially when it comes to exegesis Why would this man be considered an expert?

I've not figured that out and This book gives us lots of examples of why he shouldn't just be considered just be handed.

Oh, you just has He just has years and years and years of exegetical experience, no, he doesn't no he doesn't

Generally people who do their PhD on the on the development of a particular aspect of the Alexandrian text type

In in a particular early church father writing in Egypt Those folks generally aren't involved in doing a whole lot of You know high -end exegesis of texts.

Okay, and We'll get into one of those aspects where Ehrman tries to say that the

Greek supports his point when There's all sorts of reasons to question that As we'll see but here as he starts talking about this subject

Let's listen what he says I've read pondered research taught and written about the things of Paul about the writings of Paul for 40 years 40 years that's

Pushing it just a little bit maybe 30 But until recently there was one key aspect of his theology.

I could never quite get my mind around. I had the hardest time Understanding how exactly

Paul viewed Christ Some aspects of Paul's Christological teaching have been clear to me for decades

Especially his teaching that it was Jesus's death and resurrection that made a person right with God Rather than following the dictates the

Jewish law, but who did Paul think Christ was? And at the end of the end of the next paragraph, he says and I simply did not get it for the longest time

So here's Ehrman author of all these books And he's saying

I've never really figured it out. In fact the key that he comes up with which is that Galatians 414 identifies

Jesus as an angel and That therefore Jesus is an angelic creature Who actually pre -existed so Muslims?

I hope you're hearing this I hope you're hearing the new insight of Bart Ehrman. I'd love to see some

I'd love to see some commentary from from some of you guys responding to Bart Ehrman and Bart Ehrman's new teaching that And doing research for this book.

So only over the past year and a half Bart Ehrman has figured out who Paul thought

Jesus was so for years and years and years He wrote on this subject and lecture on this subject but hadn't figured it out and now he's figured out that Jesus was a pre -existent angelic being and What really blows

Paul away according to the Philippians 2 we're gonna hear this in the conversation is that after the angelic being becomes

Jesus That now God has exalted this incarnate angelic being to his equal

That's now of course, and then again those of you who are Jehovah's Witnesses Please recognize he's saying this is just Paul's view here

Paul elsewhere quotes other views that contradict this and of course that's completely different than what you have in Matthew Mark and Luke who have even different kinds of Theologies of Jesus and all this is different than John because of course the

Bible is a mishmash of self -contradiction on this point So any of you Muslims any of you

Jehovah's Witnesses that are gonna be trotting out quotes from Bart Ehrman Just be honest and say

Bart Ehrman the agnostic Apostate Believes that the

Bible is a mishmash of self -contradiction There is no consistent view about who Jesus is

But in regards to one of the contradictory views he says this and that supports my point

That's what you're gonna have to do if you're gonna be honest We'll see how many actually are honest

So anyway there there there you go He actually gets the point of saying, you know,

I I've just now figured this out Is it Jesus is an angel and therefore that's what

Paul was saying and that's what the Christ him is about And so now he will say oh, yes the belief of Jesus as a divine being was very early what he means by that is an angel

Christology and I can guarantee you 90 % of the people at NPR that are interviewing him right now promoting his new book get not getting he's getting all this free advertising

So on so forth don't have a clue what he's talking about. Don't have a clue what he's talking about and Sadly, it took the second program

Unbelievable for it to become clear what he was talking about which I think might have been brought out a little bit faster than it was but Anyway, that's that's how that works.

All right, let's get into it Let's listen to what took place. I will play this at one point two which again is

Is not fast folks. I queued this stuff at one point eight and two so one point two is not fast it just allows us to get through a little bit more a little bit faster and Here we go the the blurb by whoever wrote the thing for amazon .com

Indicated that this response book was going to be showing that I was wrong in thinking that Jesus was declared

God only hundreds of years later And that that would be in the response So I thought well this will be interesting because actually my book doesn't say that Jesus is considered to be

God only hundreds of years Later say, you know, a lot of people have this misconception that it was at the Council of Nicaea that people decided

Yeah, which is absolutely wrong, but I did think by the way, can

I replay that for for all of you? Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims that have said this and have

Bart Ehrman's books sitting on your desk during our debates Can I play this again misconception that it was at the

Council of Nicaea that people decided? Yeah, which is absolutely wrong. Okay, y 'all gonna y 'all gonna repeat that one?

I just just just wondering Just just just I thought that wasn't but I did think the

Christians didn't come out and call Jesus God for decades after his Resurrection that they that they had a different understanding of Jesus and can

I change my mind when I wrote this book? So you've in that sense you've okay. So here's Ehrman saying, you know,

I've changed my mind in Studying this I changed my mind. It's a good thing For people to change their mind

What Does that say about the comments that he made on these subjects in the past Is he is he gonna is he gonna make?

changes in Previous books because I'll be perfectly honest with you There was a there was a lot said in previous books that were based upon that idea

But even then make sure that you understand what he's saying. Now what he's saying now is not

Orthodox Christianity by any stretch the imagination and I Suppose he might think that John's view is pretty close to what eventually comes out in Orthodox Christianity, but Front for him for his perspective

Paul wasn't Orthodox Matthew wasn't Orthodox Mark wasn't Orthodox Luke wasn't Orthodox.

They all had different perspectives and mixtures and so on and so forth and he even

Very weirdly has Paul contradicting Paul at times And of course remember you're gonna hear a conversation for example about 1st

Corinthians chapter 8 and at one point You're all gonna be going. Well, wait a minute, but it says in Colossians 1 remember

Ehrman functions with a minimalized Pauline corpus So Paul didn't write

Colossians and Paul didn't write Ephesians and didn't write the pastorals Those are forged

Written by later later disciples based upon what mainly based upon Ehrman's own theories about what the early church looked like based upon that you utilize

Vocabulary studies where it says well look what? What Paul's talking about Timothy at first second

Timothy and Titus uses all sorts of vocabulary that Paul never used anywhere else So he couldn't have written it which again

I find to be just an amazingly facile argument Because he's talking about different things and Anyone could take

Bart Ehrman's books compare his book On the

Orthodox corruption of Scripture with the current book that he's just written Apply the same standards and obviously

Bart Ehrman didn't write one of the two Now he would say he wrote both and he would say well

I was addressing different audience. Uh -huh. Yeah, so was Paul But ancient writers don't get that benefit of the doubt so Minimized Pauline corpus all these things come into the discussion

When when listening to what what he's what he's saying here You're you're tying the belief in Jesus's deity to closer to thee the life of Jesus than for Americans deity means deity

That's just just just so you know, just like alpha alpha Alpha alpha and Omega is alpha and Omega just I Should provide translation services for our non

British friends than you would have before you started this Well, it's chronologically closer, but it's not it's not his life.

It's his resurrection and I don't think it's his resurrection I think it's it's the belief in his resurrection. It's belief in the resurrection.

Okay, now this is very important to understand what? What Ehrman's thesis is here

Herman's thesis in this book is that some of the disciples experienced hallucinations of Jesus's resurrection because of their grief at his death and these were turned into they were expanded upon basically lied about and became the doctrine of the resurrection and because of The belief in the resurrection because the resurrection knows he just made that change that he made that distinction there

Because of belief in the resurrection, that's what led to the exaltation of Jesus in Those first 20 some -odd years to a godlike being but in different ways you've got

Mark's low Christology where Jesus becomes a divine being again lesser than God always but a divine being at his baptism and adoption

Christology And then you've got incarnational Christology and John and exaltation

Christology and and some of them have a mixed up and there's mixtures and And all the rest this kind of stuff then you got

Paul Where you've got an angel Christology and then the amazing idea that this angels now been exalted to the equal of God Which is how he understands the

Philippians to him And these are all just sort of mishmash together in this big mess

Called the New Testament, and that's what he wants people to believe Including your children when they go to university and are taught by people who read his books and take them as gospel truth

So it's important to understand then what he's saying is It's it wasn't the resurrection because it doesn't believe the resurrection happened and in fact in this book, he actually goes the

John Dominic crossing route and Attacks the idea that Jesus was even buried

That he would have been thrown into a common grave He doesn't go with the dogs ate him stuff like crossing does but He goes with the common grave would not have been allowed to take the body down, etc, etc

Which was fairly well refuted in the response book, by the way, but just so you know, that's that's where he's going and so that's what he's saying here is then the belief in the resurrection based upon hallucination becomes widespread that then leads to the

Idea of exaltation of Jesus and that's where it all comes from Just so you know where he's going in there I think even from anybody's perspective you'd have to say that it's not the resurrection that starts

Christianity It's the belief in the resurrection because if Jesus had been raised from the dead and nobody knew about it No, obviously you wouldn't have yeah

Really? This this is this is high -end criticism to differentiate between the belief in the resurrection the resurrection itself

This is high -end criticism. I mean, I suppose Jesus could have risen the dead if nobody knew about then it wouldn't um if The father raises the son from the dead and he has a purpose in doing that.

Don't you think that there's going to be a Public demonstration of this that's the whole purpose of the resurrection, you know, the witnesses and the proclamation

So it's the belief in the resurrection and the question is what motivated that belief and that's where I spent a good bit of time

In the book trying to show why it is the reserve the belief in the resurrection started Yeah, so there's there's this thesis about the about the resurrection

I end up I this is something else I changed my mind on I came to think that this will be controversial and and Simon Certainly won't agree with this.

I came to think that the traditions about Jesus having a known tomb That was then discovered to be empty are probably not historical

That it's the belief in the resurrection hinges completely on the visions now whether whether or not you agree about the empty tomb

It is true that in the New Testament It's the empty tomb doesn't convince anybody to believe and you can understand why if somebody goes to a tomb where a body used

To be they don't immediately say resurrection. They say grave robbers or they say hey, I'm at the wrong tomb

So they don't so the immediate thought isn't resurrection It's the visions of Jesus in the New Testament itself that is said to inspire faith in the resurrection, right?

I think yeah, it is Jesus actually appearing to his disciples and eating with them and walking with them and Opening their minds to understand the scripture and all that other stuff, which of course he just has to reduce down to visions

I think I am being completely fair completely fair to point out that Bart Ehrman has debated this subject a number of times for example against Mike Laicona and I think this is a part of his apologetic his new apologetic.

I Think he's obviously, you know, we've reviewed those debates in the past remember the one world poor

Laicona had just a Horrible case of laryngitis. It was it was painful to listen to the poor guy.

I mean, I felt really sorry for him It was terrible but There they've debated the issue more than once and this has never been

Ehrman's position So now I guess this is gonna open up the opportunity for further Further, let's do it again because now you've got a new theory

But I think it is a part I'm being perfectly fair to say it is a part of the developing

Apologetic of Bart Ehrman for his apostasy from Christianity and his attacks upon Christianity That's that's where that's what's motivating these things and I think we need to recognize that that's that's the case

I don't know if Simon I agree completely on the dates but usually mark is thought to be the earliest gospel written maybe around the year 65 or 70 and and Matthew mark a decade or a little bit more after that and John toward the end of the first century

John's And Paul's letter so you just heard

Simon Gathergold say yeah, we basically agree on that now look I understand there are all sorts of Christian scholars

That have bought into the late dating of the Gospels. I understand that It'd be really nice If someday somebody

Would stand up and say well, you know, that's common. But some the reality is

That there's really no reason to accept those dates Because when you when you start pushing and saying, okay, why why do you say that, you know,

I did that in seminary I Asked the questions. I'm like, wait a minute.

Let me I mean, let me see if I understand this There are all sorts of things especially for example in the

Olivet discourse That are problematic in the current form of The Gospels as we have them

In other words, there are things that are said there I mean we struggle we all struggle to I don't care what your eschatology is

No one has ever tied Matthew chapter 24 up with a nice neat bow Everybody has to go.

Well, I think this is the background here and I think this is the background there and and so on and so forth

Let's keep keep that keep that thought in mind Because I want to respond to someone in channel

Because I'm confused Ehrman did write his dissertation on Didymus sublime. Well, he wrote his dissertation specifically on the development of a

Particular portion of the Alexandrian text type as Illustrated in the writings of Didymus sublime.

So it was a very narrow focus, which is perfectly appropriate For a doctoral dissertation

But it's perfectly appropriate for someone who's going to be an expert in textual critical issues

Anyone could write that dissertation without having almost any

Meaningful training in exegesis or theology or Any related fields in the background for example of Pauline theology?

Society at the time of Paul Didymus is long after Paul Etc, etc.

And so we're asked but why can't he gain sufficient competence to speak on other issues? If writing a dissertation is the only thing that qualifies on to speak or write on an issue

Then given the extreme specialization required for a good dissertation There is very little that one can then speak on following their doctoral studies

The point is what evidence do we have that Bart Ehrman is The go -to expert in all these other areas outside of his specific area of training

What other doctorates has he done what other study has he done He's been teaching pretty much since the time that he graduated now

I'm not saying that he that a textual critic cannot address other issues But I am saying that there needs to be an explanation for why it is that for example as we're gonna see his discussion on Galatians 414 is is

Not in any way shape or form compelling. Why is it that so many people will grant to him?

the same level of competence in Pauline theology That has been gained by people who have written tremendous works in the field he has not he has not so why is he looked at as Having this just massive level of expertise in anything

He chooses to address even when he says in the text and these are popularly written books even when he says in the text

You know up till recently. I just hadn't figured this out at all, but here's my conclusion now

And if on NPR it's still taken as the final word at all things That's what

I'm talking about. Well. I'm you say this and I'm thinking back to the programs We did years ago where you point out him saying

I'm just a historian. Oh, yeah I'm not theologian. No he says all this theology stuff.

That's right. You know I'm not gonna talk about I don't want to talk about that stuff cuz I'm not a theologian.

I'm a historian well My how things have changed very very very very quickly so for discipulus in in channel

There's your answer. I hope he's listening. I don't know So Why somebody somebody wants to know about my

Cheapie fries purified drinking water bottle that's pretty I think I'll hide this from now on back there there now

Is it no longer in the we did move that farther over to the left focus Dino Sun focus?

It is farther to the left now isn't it? That you're the camera. Yes. Yes. Yes, it's it's taking into most of your monitor there, and it's it's a great line of sight

I'm really enjoying, but we're not gonna see much of the books behind me. Oh, well sure we will because it's it's actually further back

So given the fact that I was able to remodel the room I don't have to stay zoomed in on you, so nobody will see all the junk in the room

Yes, it looks very very nice folks. It truly. It truly does it does seem so very dark to me

I do feel like I am truly in a bunker underneath Bruton Parker or whatever place

Cantor ends up being next Someone told me that the wall is very close to Bruton Parker to school color.

Did you did you know that oh now? That's that's that's really freaky I just I was gonna. I was gonna start a a theory that we that we had actually you know just absconded with some of the paint from the from the school and Dragged it in here

And I well my favorite was the tweet right after we did the first show after the change And the guy remarked that the block wall in the background made it looked like you were in a prison cell.

Yeah well we're gonna have a bookshelf right back here, and we're gonna put a bunch of Books I actually use

I just have to remember they're in here, and I've got my books back my my books are back So I can grab stuff when

I need it here like my own books It's good to have your own books nearby for some strange odd reason so they're back

But we're gonna put a bookshelf back there, and it's it's great. It's great. I'm I'm glad you have these skills sir.

You know what I saw one of the books fell over hmm I'm gonna have to fix that but you probably bumped it while you were

Shampooing the carpet which I was probably was pretty disgusting thing to have happen since it probably hadn't been Cleaned and I don't know how long yeah, there's probably lots of interesting stuff that came flying out there

Anyways now we've completely lost our train of thought and discapula said good answer. Thanks taking the time to answer your most most welcome

I will try to keep an eye every once in a while over on the mentions in tweet bot and in the channel and We'll see

We'll see how that works Wow I have no idea of what that one is about please realize folks

I cannot necessarily click links during the program to follow things. There's an interesting one from a chambers guy that looks

Looks interesting to click on but I I can't do that and everything else I'm doing at the same time unless we were to take a break so anyhow,

I Just marked that particular section Because there are all sorts of reasons to I think an incredibly strong argument can be made for a pre -70 date for Matthew Mark and Luke Some have even argued for a pre -70 date for John.

Okay, I Personally think you're talking 80s for John But I I would never

Object to someone who would make an argument for a pre -70 date Because when you really get down to it the argumentations for the late dates are all based upon theories that are that are presuppositional in nature and I just don't see it they have much in the way of weight behind them, but Thought I'd mention it now.

Let's let's listen to I'm just gonna let this roll and then I may go back through it because I want you to I want you to hear

What this is saying Okay, well we got somebody else

I guess they're yeah, that's funny we had somebody I guess who called in earlier and Was upset with with rich about the

The clarity of the instructions on How to get into our chat channel. The reality is that all sorts of folks managed to get into our chat channel

Who shouldn't get into our chat channel? So obviously it's clear enough for most folks

But what was really disappointing? Was what was said At the end and I don't know you didn't even know who this was.

Did you know but this person says Well, you know what I'm just I'm not going to I'm not gonna support you all anymore

Because the instructions are not clear enough and I'm just like There's a 90 % chance

Maybe even greater than 90 % That anyone who says that actually isn't supporting us in the first place because that would not be the first time someone has said something like that and then you look up their name and they've

Maybe they bought an mp3 once or they bought a book or something but they've they're not actually people who regularly support but it would be just so sad if Someone were to actually be a support and go, you know what?

I'm not gonna support you anymore because this is not clear enough to get into that chat channel Wow. Yeah, that's okay.

That's that but Someone has asked a question.

I'll go ahead and answer it. Please answer Bartman. I Think you mean Bart Ehrman about his wonderings in regard to why early

Christians Not wonder about the empty tomb, which sounds more logical rather than knowing that Jesus was united with God in heaven

I'm not sure. I understand that question to be perfectly honest with you I'm not even sure what that what that is saying.

Why would early Christians not wonder about the empty tomb? Which sounds more logical why don't you why don't you try that?

Let's try rephrasing that so that it's understandable and I'll give it a shot because that's not understandable. I'm sorry

No, nothing personal intended. It's just not well said at all Yeah, yeah

Discipulous, I hope it doesn't mind if I read this. I contacted one of Herman's grad students about my possibly

Applying to study at UNC. I was told very unceremoniously my evangelical convictions would preclude my being accepted

He also told me that apparently Herman is switching specialties from text criticism to pseudepigraphy studies

Which was a topic of his latest scholarly monograph. Anyway, I found that interesting Yeah, look

Not only do I have pretty much everything Herman has ever written in my library But before I debated him, not only did

I read his dissertation I took his classes that the classes he's recorded I listened to every

I think every debate he'd ever done Radio programs NPR interviews.

I Have very fairly and thoroughly listen to Bart Ehrman He of course didn't listen to anything

I had to say because it doesn't care what I have to say doesn't believe I have anything relevant to say at all and So I took the time to study where the guy was coming from and in that process we played things

I played for example, Dan Wallace's discussion of Bart Ehrman years ago saying that he's no longer in the field of text criticism

That's really not his field anymore he's moved on to other areas and I think he's gonna continue doing that Especially when he can write a popular level book.

It's gonna be a New York Times bestseller he doesn't have to invest $200 ,000 to make it a New York Times bestseller and He's gonna make a lot of money

The man's gonna have an incredible retirement Out of his attacks upon the

Christian faith. That's just a given isn't it? I Think that it is. I think that is

Anyway, I want to play the primary discussion on The Carmen Christie from Philippians chapter 2 and I want you to listen to how this is presented and Right now my plan is not to interrupt it

But if too many things start going by I I may we'll see we'll just see let's listen to what?

happened in the discussion with Bart Ehrman on The Carmen Christie Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 and following something that I've often heard in my time doing this show when we touched on these kinds of issues is

Philippians 2 This is often reputed to be Paul quoting in that letter to the

Philippians some kind of a poem or song Him that was going around the early

Christian Church in which we appear to have to use the technical term very high Christology and I'm sure both of you guys could quote to me the and what's written there and As far as I've understood that's often been used as an example of well here you have

Jesus being talked about in extremely Godlike terms really early on which kind of puts a light to the idea that You know

It was it was 50 60 70 years for this kind of belief about him to develop it It seems like it was going pretty soon after These events around Jesus life happened if Paul's quoting something that was already there

If you like and who knows how close to the answer that might have been so am I right in thinking that am I wrong? What's what's your take on on that kind of whole aspect of this part?

No, I completely agree. I Well, I pretty much agree the

This this poem in Philippians, which I used to think was a hymn I've got a I've got a friend now who's an expert in in Greek and Roman music who says it can't be a hymn because it doesn't scan properly

But so I don't know maybe the Christians couldn't scan Maybe it was a hymn, but it is definitely has a poetic feel to its

Philippians chapter 2 verses 6 to 11 Just give us the quote if you would so it talked about Christ who was in the form of God Who's in the form of God even though he was in the form?

He did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, but he emptied himself becoming a slave And then it goes on to talk about how he died on the cross

After which God highly exalted him and bestowed upon him the name that's above every name that at the name of Jesus Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is

Lord to the glory of God the Father now Obviously different translations in different Bibles might might put this differently I'm assuming you're going with what you think is that the best translation of that?

I think that's the end. I've heard it said. I think that the beginning of the poem is something like Christ who was in very nature

God Okay, so is that kind of more dubious kind of way

Well on that on that point the Greek word is more fair which simply means as Translated form which is having the same form.

Yeah. Yeah, okay Possibly the most the most controversial point of translation is actually over the grasping bit

Jesus was in the very form of God But did not consider equality with God as something to be well either to be grasped that which which which sounds like he doesn't have

It and and he good for him He didn't grasp a grasp for it or or he didn't consider it as something to be exploited in other words

He has it right he has equality, but didn't he didn't hang on to that in some way Would not enable him to cut step down from that throne to be incarnated

Because of the word itself I mean It's a word that isn't used very and is this another reason why people think

Paul's quoting something from earlier because it has aspects of it That aren't typical Paul if you like in that sense elsewhere in his writings

Or what makes them us then think that he's quoting something rather than writing something fresh from himself if you like in that poem in Philippians in that in that vocabulary is one factor so Often often when scholars are trying to identify when

Paul is not just not just in a nice sort of home like this or Pseudo poem or semi poem like this, but even in just little little snippets.

Yeah, sometimes the appeal is made to strange The difficult The difficulty of course in doing this is that you know the port the whole corpus of Paul's letters is tiny

And so you know that to say that Paul doesn't use this word elsewhere. We don't know what he might be writing else

Other letters yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, and so But on the face of it then a pretty good indicator that the early

Christians Did seem to hold Jesus in very high regard as equal with God or is that not quite what you would draw out of okay?

So this is I imagine Simon. I are going to disagree on this point so My view of this is that it's trying to say that before Jesus became a human

He was he had he was a divine being with God in heaven angel, but he didn't want to seek

Equality with God he didn't want to grasp after something that wasn't his he didn't want equality with God instead now

I wasn't gonna stop it, but those of you who have listened to this program for years and have read the

Forgotten Trinity Listened to the debates. We've done with Unitarians Jehovah's Witnesses so and so forth are sitting there going

Wow really and It doesn't come out in this conversation unfortunately.

I will explain to you how Ehrman gets around The real problem with his interpretation, but yeah, he emptied himself and became a slave and as a slave

He died on the cross therefore God highly exalted him And I think what happens is God exalts him more highly than he was before because now at the name of Jesus every knee every

Tongue at the energy every knee will bow and every time will confess This is a quotation from the book of Isaiah that says only to Yahweh only to the

God of Israel will every knee bow and every tongue confess So that God now has exalted

Jesus to his own level to his own So so there is now after the resurrection and equality with God that there wasn't before in the sort of Johannine sense

So in a sense that that very poem for you is illustrating the what the kind of evolution that took place in the minds of Christians that it was because of what happened in his earthly life and his resurrection that we can now say of Jesus He is co -equal with Yahweh the

God of Israel, right? So it gets a little complicated which why it takes a whole book to try and explain it But but the basic idea

I have is that in the Greek and Roman worlds there were ideas that some human beings were made divine Romulus Apollonius of Tiana they become divine

By being exalted there are other there are other stories in Greek and Roman world where a divine being becomes a human

So in one case you have an exaltation of a human to divinity and the other you have the incarnation of a divinity into Into a human and I think

I think John for example has the incarnation view and I think the synoptic Gospels have the exaltation view

And Paul this hymn that Paul's quoting is a combination of the two Jesus does start out as a divine being

But he's not equal with God It's only after the resurrection that he gets exalted to an even higher position where he's equal with God What's your take on the

Philippians passage and as Bart's explained it I think I think we agree about this I think we probably agree about the second part of the

God is it God exalted Jesus to as as the strange Greek word puts it super exalts

Jesus to a position where he's above every every heavenly and earthly and under some you know sub earthly knee and tongue and I suppose where I disagree on the second point is that it's the point of the him is not so much is not is not that God exalted him to a place where he wasn't what wasn't before but he exalted him above all these other powers and so I Take the the first which he had been subjected to Voluntarily, that's the whole point first him the first half of the hymn to refer to I mean to me the evidence that the evidence for this, you know

Complicated word about grasping to me to me is I Find it convincing that the phrase means

Equality with God is something you know something Jesus didn't want to hold on to and and therefore had yeah And therefore

I was willing to really yeah If you like, I mean, I think I think obviously treating a sort of little thing like this in isolation is difficult

And so inevitably we're gonna have to go elsewhere. Yeah, I think one of the main At that point gather

Cole then leaves the him It's touched upon again a little bit more we'll we'll get back to it we're only halfway through the program, but there's there's the primary discussion and Wow Folks, this is really where again

What I've been trying to do for years in You know what we do on this program is is rather unique the

Topics we address and the way we address them Many people who have viewed the debate that I did with Bart Ehrman have commented on not only how dismissive

Disrespectful He was toward me, but he was toward the audience as well He gets up after my opening presentation and basically says well, that was a very good opening presentation

But I'm just not sure how many people in the audience could have understood what you were saying We have done multi -hour

Christology Discussions on this program. We have had entire programs on single textual variants

We're obviously not trying to make this the most popular podcast in the world because we recognize that there is a there is a limited audience of people who are going to want to engage their minds on the level that we assume you're going to be willing to engage your minds on and so What we've been trying to do for years is

To train you To be able to listen to what you just listened to and to take it apart to not be

Intimidated by the fact that Bart Ehrman is a scholar Not be intimidated by the fact that he probably knows

Greek better than you do That doesn't matter those types of things almost never override bad presuppositions and bad exegesis and In listening from our in our society today if Bart Ehrman says well, this is how

I see it Well allegedly The words as they are written by Paul Can be interpreted in any number of ways and all interpretations are equal that's absurd obviously and None of us would want our writings to be interpreted that way and Bart Ehrman would not want his

Writings to interpreted in that way either But that's how it happens in our in our society today now what's interesting is let me let me address a presuppositional issue here and Let me do so out of Ehrman's book

Specifically in regards to Philippians chapter 2 hopefully most of you

Saw what the problem is and Here's and again, this is relevant whether you're taught you're talking to Jehovah's Witnesses or whoever is you're talking to Philippians 2 6 through following is a sermon illustration.

Paul is writing to the Church of Philippi. He is exhorting them to tapinas a frune humility of mind he is exhorting them to Look to the affairs of others and not just to themselves to put themselves in a position of service to others

Even though the Christians have an equality before Christ even though they

As it's been well said the ground is level at the foot of the cross You don't have super Christians and less super Christians and so on and so forth

Even though all those things are true. We are to lay aside those rights and privileges that would be ours in Service to others and this is the very mechanism whereby the unity of the church is maintained and on a very practical level

Anyone who's involved in ministry knows exactly how this works That when you have people who are not concerned about themselves when you have people who are focused upon them

Their service to Christ rather than upon their being noticed We all know those are the churches that have unity that move forward things get done we also know what a pain it is to have the people in The choir that want to get all the the solos and All the rest that stuff and the disunity and the division that that brings about this hymn is provided by Paul as an example of what

Topana safroun a looks like Of what humility of mind looks like he says have this attitude in yourselves, which is also in Christ Jesus and Then he demonstrates the humility of mind that Jesus shows in the incarnation

Now what I've taught people to do for years is in your conversations with these folks

When we work through the the specific issue that these two scholars brought up Even though they didn't mention the word they sort of mentioned in passing

What they were talking about is that the key exegetical

Debate is focused upon Philippians 2 6 Haas and more faith a you who park own uke harpog mon

Hey, gays, it's a tie. I know it's a say. Oh harpog mon is

The term that we're looking at you have you want to throw a cordons I've got a cordons ready for you.

If you want to throw it up there. Got it. Okay, here's harpog mon. It's interesting sometimes

Sometimes the link Over to like the NSB or something like that is not quite what's actually the word being translated, but you can see there uke harpog mon a

Gaysa taught to regard to give consideration to we've used this text number of times illustration of the pre -existence of Christ Because this is something that Christ is doing and interestingly enough

Ermin would have to agree. This is something that Christ did prior to incarnation.

So here's Christ acting as a person pre -incarnate he did not give consideration and then you have a

Infinitival phrase to I and I is a say Oh equality with God So He is not considering that equality with God either a thing to be grasped or a thing to be held on to and You heard them mentioning?

Yeah, you know this it's not it's not a really common word There's there's not a lot of usage to be able to look at it

It can be taken either direction Gather Cole was saying he's convinced of one perspective

Ermin says it's the other perspective and obviously when you have conversations with Jehovah's Witnesses The New World Translation slaughters this as gave no consideration to a seizure namely to be equal with God They certainly are going to be in agreement with Ermin at this point

That what you've got here is Michael the Archangel not giving consideration to becoming equal

With Jehovah God is how they understand this text and that's how they have rendered it as well

And I have for years Told the story of meeting with Jehovah's Witnesses using this illustration with them

I've used it many many times and we've taught it many many times here on the program We're gonna do it again now because we have so many more listeners now than we've had in the past as well

But if you've heard it before like I'll go and a number of other folks. It's just a good reminder What I like to do is

I like to ask people to Not do what Ermin does

Ermin in his book I was gonna read it, but I'll just summarize it for you Basically says that the Paul's sermon illustration really doesn't fit.

In fact, it's one of his arguments for why Paul is quoting This is something that Paul didn't himself, right

That it is an early fragment of at least a poem you heard him dispute the idea of a hymn because it doesn't scan properly to be sung or something, but He does recognize it as having been written by someone other than Paul In other words something that was shared between Paul and the

Philippian believers So he does understand that and does take that perspective

But what he says is it doesn't really fit because what he's doing he recognizes He's exhorting the people to act in humility of mind

But Jesus gets exalted the other thing so it doesn't really fit and that's why we know Paul didn't write it and in the process he touches on what should have

Alerted him to the error that he's making exegetically here, but doesn't see it again remember for Ermin Paul's not an inspired writer and So he can just simply go.

Yeah, it's a sermon illustration, but doesn't really fit doesn't really work So he can just simply insert

Examples of error into Paul's thinking and that's okay. We don't you know that's that's that's not a problem makes exegesis real easy and it also

Interestingly results in your exegesis mirroring your own presuppositions and theories. It's sort of how funny how it works so What I try to point out to folks is that is

I'll ask your ho's witness of males, okay? If this is a sermon illustration Then what would be an example of humility of mind?

I? Mean that very term top. I not always used in Philippians 2 8 He humbled himself

Notice the use of the reflexive pronoun. Hey, I'll taunt there. He humbled himself Excuse me and he humbled himself by Doing something by being born in likeness of men by being by taking on the form of servant

That is how he humbled himself so what would be an example of humility and Ermin does not address this failure in his exegesis because he didn't see it he would have to say that even the humility aspect of the hymn does not fit

Paul's perspective because if Jesus was an angelic creature and He did not grasp at equality with Yahweh himself, that's not humility of mind

Is it is it humility of mind to be a mere creature to be a created being of God and not to?

Grasp at equality with God. That's not humility. That's just not committing blasphemy back in the day when

I Developed this I Use the illustration back then

I would have to change names now it shows how long ago this was I Use the illustration back then saying

Would you say it was humble for the water boy for the Chicago Bulls? to not ask to be put in at the end of the game and Instead of Michael Jordan Getting the last shot to win the basketball game

He should be thrown the ball to take the last shot. Is that humility or is that just not being stupid?

Now I'd have to come up with somebody else I guess well I won't mention who because I don't want to get people starting to thinking about Basketball and which team has the best players and all the rest that kind of stuff

And that would cause all sorts of yes, so yeah, especially after the game last night so we won't we won't even go there

But the illustration works You want the ball in the hands of the person that is trained and as the experience do that kind of thing you don't put the water boy in there and In the same way no matter how highly exalted this creature

Was and even from Irwin's perspective at this point, he's just an angel. He's still just a creature. He's not eternal

He didn't create all things So for him to not grasp at equality with God is not humility of mind but if he possessed

Humility of mind if ta I know is a theo is something that was his

But he does not consider it something to be held on to but and Then they didn't even talk about this the next line

Allah how tan a kenosun you have the kenosis you have kana Oh, you have the emptying the making of no reputation the laying aside of the privileges that were his for what?

Service to others. Isn't that exactly what tapina software name means? humility of mind it is It is so ermine's interpretation

Destroys it makes the utilization of this poem this hymn utterly incongruous and ridiculous on Paul's part

Because even the section that he said would fit the exhortation humility isn't actually a humility at all because a mere creature on this side of the created divide

You know, you've got that which is uncreated and that which is created and there is a chasm between the two not trying to cross over and Grab equality with the uncreated.

That's not humility. That's just not committing blasphemy. And so there it is.

There's the real issue there's the real problem and We need to be the ones saying, you know

This makes this text understandable Why is it that you take an interpretation that requires us to in in essence impugn the intelligence

Accuracy of the author himself Why do we have to assume that Paul is guilty?

Until proven innocent don't know

But there you go. So when we look at this

That really is the key issue that wasn't brought out, you know Gather Cole very rightly said

I'm convinced that Harpogh Mon Means it's something that he possessed but did not consider something to be held on to But there's so much more to be said because then the rest of it.

Well, let me mention something else they both basically dismissed The idea of being in very nature

God I would say who eternally existing in the form of God or in the very nature of God Because who

Park own who Park owned the the participle Haas and more faith a who

Park own becomes the The the context

That gives the illustration its meaning Even though he was in The very form of God and the the present tense can be pushed back.

So he's he's eternally existing He doesn't come into that See, I would

I would argue that it would make much more sense for Ehrman's interpretation If this was an heiress of some some form of an heiress was used here

To refer to the fact he was a created being Why use this unusual terminology that would lead us to conclude that he's not a created being so who existing in the form of God Does not consider the equality he had with God something to be held on to but and then it's very important to recognize that kana 'o

This emptying does not mean that he ceases to be deity Paul never uses kana 'o in a literal sense

And that's why here the King James actually has a fairly decent translation made himself of no reputation that's an appropriate understanding of Paul's use of kana 'o because And notice whatever the kana 'o is here.

Hey, Alton comes before but that's a reflexive pronoun. He emptied himself This is something

Christ does again those people who? Don't have a pre -existence

Christ can't even begin to make a sense out of this This just takes apart

Modalism and and all that kind of stuff because this is something that Christ does I Wonder if the phone's gonna ring because I dared mention the word modalism but He emptied himself, but notice how he does so and this is beautiful folks.

This is beautiful He does this by taking on Here's the next phrase morphine dooloo labone

By taking on the morphe same term, it's used up above for God of a servant the form of a servant taking the form of a servant and gnomonos and homoip homo a omote on throw phone

Being made in the likeness of men so notice

It's not He gets rid of something and that then becomes what cannot

Oh refers to The humiliation The being made of no reputation is the taking on of the human nature.

This is the incarnation so it's by positively doing something that the

Cannot Oh the emptying takes place and then it is having done so having having

Being born likeness of men and being found in human likeness What happens?

He there there you have He humbles himself and again same reflexive pronoun

He humbles himself. This is exactly why this fits in This is why

Paul has drawn this in as his sermon illustration. This is his whole point he humbles himself

By what and I thought it was interesting that That ermine sort of just Rushed over in these comments the crucifixion

Because notice what he never even mentioned or emphasized and that is

Becoming obedient to the point of death even the cross death So there there is why is this important?

Why is this relevant here? Because this is one Who even though he's doing this to himself.

This hasn't been forced upon him and I would like ermine to explain how an angel can do all these things

How an angel because I kiss here and again it just throws so many kinks into ermine's alleged exegesis an

Angel can empty himself an angel has a power to bring about incarnation to take on a human nature

But then even more than that He then humbles himself by becoming obedient obedient to whom to the father

So the will the father is known to him. This is the will of the father that he do this and So he becomes obedient at the point of death even the cross death and he assumes that this is this is where the poetry breaks down and and That's where Paul's added something in to emphasize the death of Christ in the cross

Well, maybe but I think far more likely. The reason is that that term stauro is so Bone -jarring so jarring to the the hearer because of what it means and because of the degradation of crucifixion

That It is included because that shows the depth of the obedience to the father that the

Sun illustrates and Then you have Dio for this reason also

God has and then they they both had talked about super exalted highly Exalted him

But there was no discussion of the why? the why was the

Humiliation obedience and suffering Which is exactly what

Paul for example talks about in Romans chapter 8 Which is the route that we're to walk when we follow

Christ Humble ourselves suffer we suffer together with him that we might be what

Glorified with him It's clearly part of Paul's regular teaching It's part of the

New Testament regular teaching but for Bart Ehrman There is no New Testament regular teaching can't even address such things doesn't even enter into his thinking any longer, by the way

Next program On Thursday, we are going to have a radio free

Geneva and I've already mentioned this on Twitter but we are going to be

Demonstrating that the golden chain of redemption cannot be broken even though a man by name of Kerrigan Skelly thinks that he's broken it and I was directed to a

YouTube video. He posted of a study. He did a Romans chapter 8 and It is a classic example of The exegetical nightmare

That results from trying to read God -centered inspired scripture from a man -centered perspective

Perfect illustration extremely educational so I hope you'll Be with us for the next program on Thursday when we do a radio free

Geneva respond to Kerrigan Skelly open air preacher, I believe on Twitter Run some

Calvinism refuted website or something like that. We will demonstrate numerous exegetical errors errors in Greek logic interpretation everything from a recently posted

Video that that he has posted and The reason

I mentioned that the reason I thought of that at that point Was it basically the theory comes down to from his perspective?

He goes back to if we suffer with him that becomes the key thing instead of seeing that this whole text is about what

God does and About the God centeredness of salvation the glory of God and the perfection of the work of God It's all

God wants to do this stuff, but it's up to us to suffer with him so that all of this can happen

It's amazing To to look at that material and to and to see where it goes and that's what reminded me here is you have the suffering of Christ and We are certainly called to enter into that Do we are to suffer with him as an example and then that leads to his exaltation and The giving to him of the name which is above every name now again

It I Cannot Look into someone's heart But you look at a

Bart Ehrman who was exposed to so much light and is now one of the chief purveyors of darkness in our society and You just have to ask the question

How can he handle? divine truth So often without becoming blinded to it,

I mean this is second Thessalonians, isn't it? this is if you will not love the truth, you'll be caused to love the lie and He knows that this section beginning in verse 10

About every knee will bow come straight out of Isaiah and it's about Yahweh and he'll actually say yeah the mind -blowing thing here is that an angel has been made equal with Yahweh and This is the super he's exalted above where he was before he's exalted to where he was before But now there is something unique about his position because of the incarnation

Redemption has been accomplished. It is finished and now he has been exalted and Now there is a people that are united with him in his death burial and resurrection

It is not that. Oh, wow He's now got a higher position than he had before if you're

God you're God The point is that for eternity the triune

God will be praised for the tremendous Condescension that was demonstrated in the incarnation and the provision of the one means

By which any of us fallen sons and daughters of Adam? Will ever have peace with God and it's because of what

Jesus does on the cross It's because of that humility of mind that is his That is what's going on here

And this is not some place where there's some as a result a detraction from the glory of God because even when every tongue in heaven on earth and under the earth confesses that Jesus Christ is courteous

Courteous Jesus Christos and Again, this then would tie us into the next section, which

I thought I was gonna get all this done today But oh, well this ties us into the next section Where they start talking about first Corinthians 8 none of this came out but you have courteous here the very term that is used of Yahweh in The Old Testament translation called the

Septuagint All to the glory of God the Father What a what a what a text and we've just barely touched on it, but hopefully touched on it enough to help you see where Bart Ehrman's exegesis simply fails and It fails primarily because it does not even seek

To honor the text and to say, you know what maybe Paul knows what he's talking about Maybe I should not assume error on the part of the author

When you cut up the Bible the way Bart Ehrman does it just becomes Plato you can form anything out of it that you want

Okay, ten minutes left I barely noticed the bouncing of somebody out of channel while I was speaking there wasn't really able to pay attention to that Let's say go on to the next section first Corinthians Chapter 8 and this will be primarily with Simon Gather call

Perhaps we won't say more about this and say I'll just mention this briefly but one of the main places where We see

Jesus having a an extremely exalted position in in Paul's mind before the resurrection is all the way back in creation

I mean one of the most remarkable things that we touched on last week is The prologue to John's gospel saying through him were all things made and without him was not anything made that was made that is an amazing thing to say

But Paul also shares, you know, right at the right at the beginning of the New Testament Documentary history

Paul also shares this idea that Jesus was with the father involved in creation You know hadn't been called

Jesus yet, but he was Lord Lord of everything and through him All things all things exist.

Where's that? One Corinthians 8 6. I'm thinking of particularly. Sorry. Yes, I should have I know Bart knows where it is prompting me to the reference for listeners

Yeah, one could say one Corinthians 8 6 for us There is one God the father from whom all things come and for him all things exist

Yeah, there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things come and through him Yeah, so this this theology of the pre -existent

Christ there with God as part of the Godhead from the beginning Therein as far as you can see

Paul's writing Paul Writing pretty soon after the events of Jesus life and so for you again

Confirmatory evidence that this belief Paul has already picked up from someone else presumably it's out there

It's not something that's kind of been developing and the Paul is inventing in any sense Yes, I think it's difficult to argue that and I don't think but takes this for example

I think he thinks that here Paul is tapping into something Pre -Paul and I think the reason why it can't really have easily been invented by Paul is that one finds the very same phrasing

I'm a very similar phrasing in John very similar phrasing in Hebrews Very to the phrasing that one finds in in one

Corinthians and also in Colossians You know, these four places are are unlikely all to have been

Derived from from from Pauline teaching. Yeah, I think the point though is not it's not so much that gosh This is this this shows

Jesus is pre -existent the point is that Jesus is on the you know, when we were talking about last week about the line between deity and non deity

I mean, I think I I I think one point where boss and I would disagree is that I think that there is a firmer

Line, hmm, and that what marks out? The entities on either side of the line is that that God is the creator and everything else is created so for example in in Romans 1

Paul says What is the fundamental sin? Fundamental sin is idolatry.

It's worshiping a created thing rather than rather than the creator So Paul has the Paul has a very rigid line between between Deity and non deity and if Jesus was just an exalted angel that would equally be as anathema to Paul to worship an exalted angel

Yes worship an idol exactly. So if Jesus is a creature Then you jolly well really shouldn't worship him because because if Jesus is a creature to worship him as idolatry

It's worshiping a thing Paul rather than the Chris perspective has for you the the highest sort of view of Jesus divinity not just a sort of Angelic being type of view but but that this is firm.

Yes, that's right. I mean only That reminds me of a statement made by an old Oxford professor

Long long gone now, but he was a professor in the 1970s in commenting on the the Philippians him here

He stated that this is evidence that this is George cared Who said this he said that the highest the early the highest

Christology of the New Testament is the earliest This Philippians him is is one of our earliest testimonies and the highest

II and Okay. Now I would agree with the vast majority of what was said there obviously The distinction that line between created and and creature vitally important Romans one.

It's exactly right Now, let's listen what Ehrman says and note something Herman's gonna try to limit idolatry in Romans one to just people worshiping idols, you know gross gross forms of external idolatry

Not even close Not even close To a full orbed or meaningful understanding of just how wide and deep

Paul's understanding of idolatry in Romans one is not even this is this just pathetic but listen to what

Herman says in response But yeah responses on that then yes,

I have lots of responses. So I'm deciding which ones to make In this section before we go to break you've got about three minutes so choose choose one and then we'll do some

I think my view is that Paul did understand

Jesus to be a pre -existent being I I don't know whether Paul thought that Christ was a creator of the universe

First Corinthians 8 6 does not to me say that The verse says that all things came from God and lead to God So God is the all -in -all but all things exist through Jesus as we exist through Jesus.

So I don't think that's saying that That Christ created everything. I think it's saying that Christ is the

Lord of the universe Now is sovereign overall and provides us with our being. I don't think it's talking about now

Just just for a second think about that think about that Christ is now sovereign in the universe.

We drive is our being from him, but he didn't create us He's a creature so now we have a created

Sovereign of the universe. How do you get that? How do you get that?

First Corinthians 8? Nobody unfortunately is even going to begin to point out the fact that first Corinthians 8 very obviously

Is based upon the Shema? It is based upon the Greek version of the

Shema Shema. Yes. I yahoo. Elohim. Yahweh God They aren't even gonna mention that and I'm gonna come up unfortunately and the parallelism

From whom are all things and we for him through whom are all things and we through him

It's the exact same terminology. You've just changed prepositions to illustrate relationship the difference between hapater

God the Father and Hacorias Again I'm left stuttering at At how

Ermin could say Creation when I was first if it is referring to creation Christ It wouldn't really affect my view very much because it really wouldn't affect my view very much if in fact

Christ is a creator of all things Really What does that say about your view?

Um My my view is that there were Jews who thought that there was a Being that helped

God create the universe based on Proverbs chapter 8 where wisdom is Understood to have been the one through whom

God created the universe Okay And so if if Paul does understand it that way then he understands Christ as a kind of a wisdom a wisdom figure

I I agree actually with Simon that there's a line between the Creator and everything else but I think that there is

Is There's a lot of fuzziness in how people imagine this in the ancient world There were

Jews who thought that it was appropriate to worship angels We know there were Jews who thought this because there are constant prohibitions of it

And so the fact that you prohibit something that's that's going on So the Jews who believed in worshiping angels obviously lost out in this struggle about how to define theology

But even Jews agree that there are superhuman beings up in heaven that's catch that that's that Lost out in this struggle see for him.

It's all this Bowery in This group fighting that group and and here it's in the

New Testament itself. You got all these different Perspectives and one's just gonna win out and and what can't be is that there's any consistent meaning here

Anything like that all I just want to finish up this one section and we'll we'll wrap up for the day There are angels there are archangels their cherubim their seraphim their principalities their powers

These are divine beings They're not God. They're not the Creator so there's a difference between the Creator and these other divine beings and you think

Jesus is more likely to be being referred to as One of these Paul Jesus was one of these other super divine beings probably

The head of the head of them all who became a human and then God exalted him even higher to a status equal with himself hmm, and he would have been happy to Encourage people to worship that kind of thing, even though it still wasn't quite

Yes, just as just as other Jews believed for example that the Son of Man should be worshipped along with God There there's a whole strain of Judaism that thought that there was a second power

Enthroned with God up in heaven that was also worthy of worship. Well, we'll get a response from Simon on okay very interesting relevant to Trinitarian understandings, which of course are not even allowed into the discussion by by Bart Ehrman and I didn't get to The one section that I really wanted to get to but we will we will leave that for Maybe next

Tuesday. I'll try to make a mark and and note that because I Really felt there was one point that was that was fumbled here and We need to unfumble it and we'll get to that get that next week

So hopefully this has been useful to you again, this is not the kind of program that we do to try to Take over the number one spot in webcasting.

We didn't have any funny sound effects Anything like that at all today? but we did try to deal with some very vitally important issues and in a straightforward manner and that's what we do around here and If you want to continue doing that think about supporting us to be a good thing

It'd be very encouraging for us. So we're gonna be back again on Thursday where we'll have radio free

Geneva and radio free Geneva, we will be responding to Kerrigan Skelly's attempt massively failed attempt to break the golden chain of Redemption, that's what we do on Thursday.