Bart Ehrman: Paul Viewed Jesus Christ as an Angel.

by Emery 52 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ÁrbolesdeArabia

  Slim, that is a interesting point! I don't think Jesus Christ is almighty God and I don't think he was just a angel created by his Father. It's one of those areas that nobody can be certain over this issue. The older scriptures in Isaiah point to Jesus as "Eternal Father" and "Mighty God", what if God created Jesus with a higher level than the highest angel? A creation we are not told about who is given the status of some kind of god after proving himself?

  I no longer believe anyone will die for not believing or getting it exactly right what Jesus is? I know he is the First of Creation, what he was before he was exalated, it would be nice to know but it's not a life or death question the Watchtower make's it out to be. I enjoy Dr. Barts books and will probably read it and than read Dr. Wallace's remarks on his book. Thanks for bring this book to our attention!

  Slim, it's people like you who bring out great topics and discussions I could never have at the Kingdom Hall because they were too busy reading the dumb-down versions of the liter-a-trash the organization printed. Thank's Slim!
• 

  sarahsmile

  I enjoyed reading Barts first book and second book but along came the Others. He was just leading every one to read the book of Thomas and the other ones. Anyhow, it been years and I think he lost something along the way. He changed and miss the old Bart. I just thought he was one of the best bibical historical writers of our times.

  I can see the JW qouting Bart Jesus is an angel concept. Bart probably got the thought from a WT.
• 

  Band on the Run

  You are discussing how many angels fit on a pinhead. We are dealing with God, not a human construct. My gut feeling is with Arobles. Notice the Legion account is from Luke and not John. I don't think jesus of Nazareth was fully conscious of his status. Christ is different.

  Many Jews, and god-fearers (Gentiles who would be Jews but for circumcision) quickly proclaimed Jesus as God.

  Bart is not the last word. Indeed, he is not the most respected by other scholars. His opinions are important and crucial to the field. In no way, though, is he the field. You can't pick your favorite scholar and be true academically. Of course, we can as individuals. I prefer N.T. Wright and Paul Crossan. Elaine Pagels, too.

  Elaine always taught us the full gamut of scholarship. Please when I was one of her students, "Q" definintely existed. After law school, I have time in my practice so I glance at a NYT article. Few now believe "Q; existed. Decades pass, "Q" now existed for many academics but some still doubt it. There are fads in NT scholarship. Also, it is great that these scholars write popular books and that a mass market for their books exist. The real meat, though, and qualifications are present in the NT academic journals. One person never has a monpoly on truth. Someone can argue politely that they think their view is better. Other people with equal credentials will respond, "no, you are wrong. I prefer X;s theories."

  This is not new stuff. It revolves around and around. Such claims sell the mass market books. Life is usually more nuanced.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Dominic Crossan you mean.
• 

  EdenOne

  Jesus is an angel, just like all other spiritual "sons of God". He happened to be the first to be created, therefore he was special to Jehovah. He happened to be the one that assisted his Father on creating everything else, including the other angels like him. Jehovah is a Father for all other angels as well. The superior power and authority that the spiritual Jesus has over the other angels isn't because he was made differently from the others; It's simply because the Father empowered him more.

  Naturally, after his earthly experience, the angelic Jesus was "super-exalted" to a position superior of that he had before; not in terms of "ranking", for he continued to be number two after Jehovah, but in terms of respect. He had gone through such an experience that he was now even more worthy of respect and admiration from the other angels - and from his Father as well.

  What's so difficult about that?

  Eden
• 

  Larsinger58

  Thanks.
• 

  Pistoff

  "We are dealing with God, not a human construct."

  God is of course a human construct.

  The name and nature of god/gods changes with each culture and changes over time.

  It may be the thing that most differentiates humans from animals.
• 

  mP

  Well the cause of bart is probablly the simple fact, that Paul knows nothing of the earthly jesus. No Mary, virgin birth, bethlehem, apostles, death on a cross and so on. Paul always refers to Jesus as a spirit creature.
• 

  mP

  @arboles

  Does Pauls words written here sound like he is talking about a angel?

  mP:

  The words you quote, dont sound like an earthly man.

  In his writings Paul says jesus wouldnt even be a priest if he was on earth.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Dominic Crossan is right. I can never remember his first name. The first book of his that I read had to deal with Paul and the Roman Empire. Not that I know deep background in the field but I was so impressed. I despise my notion of Paul b/c of the Witnesses. Despite years of hearing others go on about Paul being great and not writing what I object to from my soul, Crossan's arguments and writing style altered my vision of Paul. I don't know enough to know whether he is correct. I mix St. Paul and Crossan up in my brain.

  I always want to share my experience with other Christians and I tell them about Crossan. His first name forever eludes me. I can even recall his photo. He looks more like a Dominic than a Paul, too.