Bart Ehrman's new book. Discusses the evolution of how the thought about Jesus' divinity evolved, in terms of: being made divine, being born divine, always being divine. Ehrman used to wonder how G-d became a man, now he wonders how a man became G-d. He does leave the theological questions and writes purely on history. He stopped being a Xian when he could no longer support his beliefs historically. Anyone read his works? Intelligent discussion?

This fits the timeline Ehrman demonstrates. Examining the Church's development: 1. Jesus is a peasant teacher, 2. Jesus is made a g-d after his death (later at his baptism), 3. Jesus was born a g-d from a virgin and then finally 4. Jesus was always a g-d. This was the evolution of the perception of Jesus and how it changed ove time.

Jesus is a peasant teacher

Jesus is made a g-d after his death (later at his baptism)

Jesus was born a g-d from a virgin and then finally

Jesus was always a g-d. This was the evolution of the perception of Jesus and how it changed ove time

Yahshua was born a man. Yet he was not born into sin. All people are born into sin. How can this be? He is Born of the Holy Spirit yet why did he wait until age 30 to come out and be baptized? Why?

This is true, God presented himself as a peasant. He did not want fortune of money or fame. He wanted to spread the good news, the instructions of what he wishes. Plus on a general note, the poor are generally more humble and home welcoming then the rich are.



Jesus was God before then, again he is our creator. But Jesus himself in the "flesh" was God before his death and before his baptism... although not sure how the baptism came later after his death. And is still God. "God" is not a word denoted to a type of being, it is a title showing authority over another(s). Thus why Jesus is our God, for he created us and has all and entire complete power over us.



We are gods, just Jesus is the God of gods, but yes he was born from a virgin. His mother, had not been with a man prior to Jesus being born.

Deuteronomy 10:17
17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:



What changed over time? God is the same today as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow.

I am not talking theologically; but historically. Xianity today is not the same as Xianity in the past

I can only talk about the theology since I don't actually have an opinion on this.

The hebrew messianic figure with which jesus is loosely associated is really derived as an extrapolation of old hebrew, pheonican, aramaic and early-greek scriptural representations of much earlier oral traditions within which the religion was once practised, well more of a system of government but that's basically the formative role of religion (to govern a peoples).

Essentially, at its core, the hebrew messianic figure of which xtians liken the jesus deity (or aspect thereof), is an ideogram of a conceptual statement written YHWH. This figure, YHWH is associated with elohim (literally 'to life'), which in good translation means 'god of strength' pentacostally. The hebrew term "YHWH elohim" is incorrectly translated in xtian bibles as "the LORD God".

It doesn't mean that at all. Never did.

YHWH is a person, it means literally 'military leader'. The degree of clear, demonstrable and obvious Platoic influence in the NT books which simply does not exist in earlier hebrew religion elicits the modern theological hypothesis that greek scholars of classically educated romans were attempting to utilize what was at the time an intriguing asiatic pagan mythology towards political agenda: to redirect an aristocratic focus in the roman world of conservative imperialism, towards a more fruitful endeavour of democratic reform. After all, it was the main difference between the romans and the greeks, and the romans had taken to educating their best and brightest in greece.

It's a bit like if Greenpeace got their hands on Wicca and started rewriting it as being all about saving the whales. So new generations intruigued or attracted to wicca would actually be supporting Greenpeace. Point being, white lie, good cause. But lie. It is definitely an out and out lie, lie and lie, no question. Simple research of primary source documentation with independent translation clears that up instantly.

Anyhoo, as controversial as the observation leads, the current theological understanding academically is that hebrew religion was originally pantheistic and not monotheistic at all, and Elohim is probably the closest word you're ever going to find to describe "god" concept, although it doesn't really mean that, and it's a feminine term, which would really annoy xtian pentacostals to the very core. YHWH is jesus sure, if you put him in a suit of shining armour and place him at the head of a huge army of israelites slaughtering their foes, as it is what the ideogram means.

In other words, the most original, primary source documentation of hebrew scriptures are not written in a phonetic language, and they don't translate very well into phonetic languages. And that, combined with subesequent political agendas involved, is the clear reason for obvious and in some cases entirely intentional mistranslations of a jewish governing system to become a xtian fairy tale.

Couple of simple examples: old-hebrew term for a foreign lord or knight, in xtian bibles mistranslated as giant or angel-born. The old-hebrew term for angel is actually mistranslated in xtian bibles about 50% of the time as devil, a word and concept which didn't actually exist prior to the 12th century by the way (it's a middle english word, no such thing in hebrew times). And the catholic term 'demon' is actually a mistranslation of a greek term that was used by rabbi in the 1st century to describe divine messengers.
There is no such thing as 'heaven' in any stretch of the imagination in the entirety of old-hebrew religion, and 'hell' which is actually a nordic term of the 7th century, loosely mistranslates the hebrew term 'sheol' which in fact means 'don't wind up destitute in a city whatever you do, your life will be very very bad', and it doesn't nor has it ever meant anything remotely otherworldly.
These fundamental xtian ideals are utter fictions. They just don't exist in the religion it claims to come from, at all, not in any way. Where they are found historically, is in the european rural pagan mythology of greco-roman times, not even slightly hebrew in origin.

It's all really nothing new. Same thing happened with egyptian revival. Their pagan religions were all but utterly wiped out by the end of the 1st century and experienced a few revivals over the next two millennia. But they were re-imagined innaccurately, and for example the pyramids went from bold examples of nationalist industrial potency in the face of any potential enemy, to 'doorways to the otherworld' which is utter rot. They were never that infantile, you'd could never accomplish such an undertaking if you were, and all empirical evidence infers the standing aforementioned hypothesis exclusively. Not magical vessels designed to perform magic, but intimidating monuments designed to intimidate. Clearly.
Compare a modern neo-egyptian pagan to a historical one and you'll find the old one laughing histerically at the new. That's how misinterpretation and ill-conception goes, it's the difference between the artist and their obsessed fans.

Couple of simple examples: old-hebrew term for a foreign lord or knight, in xtian bibles mistranslated as giant or angel-born. The old-hebrew term for angel is actually mistranslated in xtian bibles about 50% of the time as devil,

There is no such thing as 'heaven' in any stretch of the imagination in the entirety of old-hebrew religion, and 'hell' which is actually a nordic term of the 7th century, loosely mistranslates the hebrew term 'sheol' which in fact means 'don't wind up destitute in a city whatever you do, y

'hell'

Don't know what type of crack is being smoked up in here.

Jesus, according to the Bible I know has and always will be the Son of God.

He is our passage to heaven. Through him, we will see and know God.

BTW. It's spelled God, with a capital G. Not g-d.

Mass respeto.

still beating up on each other with dubious Bible-verses?

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/gospel-of-jesus-wife-is-no-forgery-experts-rule-140410.htm



The Gospel of Jesus'�� Wife, a papyrus fragment of Coptic script containing a suggestion that Jesus may have been married, is an ancient document, and not a modern forgery, says a paper published in the Harvard Theological Review on Tuesday.

Tests by teams of engineering, biology, and chemistry professors from Columbia University, Harvard University, and MIT indicate the papyrus dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries, and possibly as far back as the second to fourth centuries.

The brownish-yellow, tattered fragment, about 1 1/2 inches by 3 inches, caused international uproar when it was presented at a conference in Rome in September 2012 by Harvard Professor Karen L. King.



Written in Coptic, a language of ancient Egyptian Christians, the fragment appears to be a broken conversation between Jesus and his disciples.

The center of the business-card-sized papyrus, which features just eight lines of text on the front and six lines on the back, contained the bombshell phrase "��Jesus said to them, 'My wife'"��

"She will be able to be my disciple," said the next line. And then: "��I dwell with her."

Dismissed as a clumsy forgery�� by the Vatican newspaper, the Gospel of Jesus�� Wife was widely debated by scholars. Skepticism abounded, with several experts arguing over the document'��s poor grammar and its uncertain provenance.



But according to Harvard Divinity School, "��none of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery."

"��The fragment does not provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married but concerns an early Christian debate over whether women who are wives and mothers can be disciples of Jesus,"�� King wrote in the Harvard Theological Review.

In addition to radiocarbon testing, microscopic and multispectral imaging, the researchers used micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine that the carbon character of the ink matched samples of other papyri that date from the first to eighth centuries.

"After all the research was complete, King weighed all the evidence of the age and characteristics of the papyrus and ink, handwriting, language, and historical context to conclude the fragment is almost certainly a product of early Christians, not a modern forger," Harvard Divinity School said in a statement.



The Harvard Theological Review is also publishing a rebuttal to King'��s findings by Brown University professor Leo Depuydt, who still maintains the document is a forgery.

"��And not a very good one at that,"�� he wrote.

According to Depuydt, the fragment contains "��gross grammatical errors."�� Also, each word in it matched writing in the Gospel of Thomas, an early Christian text discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945.

"��It couldn'��t possibly be coincidence,"�� he told The New York Times.

Depuydt also argued that carbon black ink can be easily created by mixing candle soot and oil.

"An undergraduate student with one semester of Coptic can make a reed pen and start drawing lines,"�� he concluded.

Photo: Gospel of Jesus' Wife: front. Credit: Karen L. King 2012.

The Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has claimed the gospel is a "very modern forgery".[5] A number of independent scholars have since provided evidence to support this view, suggesting the papyrus includes textual mistakes (a typographical error) identical to those made only in a particular on-line modern iteration of corresponding texts.

Revelation 19:7
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
--

Ephesians 5:25-27
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
--

Think it's pretty clear that we're Jesus' bride, the church. More verses on this can be found if needed I do believe.

i dunno... there is a big chunk of his life that is missing, and unless he was gay, he should have gotten married.. that was the norm back then... but i'm sure you know better than me, i wasn't there... and if he wasn't married, how could there be the last Zion of Christ in dogma?

Zion of Christ in dogma? Please elaborate, not sure what is being referenced there. Why would he have to be gay or gotten married? He already has a wife, the church. And he didn't need a mortal wife eg., a flesh and blood woman, for he wasn't here to reproduce. He was here to finalize one covenant, and give us another in place.

He is referencing the movie Dogma