My main aim in producing such a stark comparison is to demonstrate how an idea, viewed differently, can have enormously varied end results.
Dr John Dickson is the co-founder for the Centre for Public Christianity and he invited Dr. Michael Bird to participate in the open discussion for this thread .
"Historian" Bart Ehrman has his say with his new book publicised with the Huff
A wonderful quote I agree with (with a my own paraphrase, of course) is, "It is not hard to make the argument that if Jesus had never been declared God, our form of civilization would have been unalterably and indescribably different." In my own paraphrase of this sentence, I would rather he said, "accepted" instead of "declared".
Then he gets a bit weird... as if he did not bother to read the Bible itself: "Many believers - at least very conservative evangelical Christians and others who have not had much contact with biblical scholarship - will be surprised to learn that Jesus did not spend his preaching ministry in Galilee proclaiming that he was the second member of the Trinity. In fact, as I argue in the book, the followers of Jesus had no inkling that he was divine until after his death."
Acquiescence of Divinity is not pronounced (or "declared") like a false god gaining followers or in the Papal tradition, white smoke coming out of the chimney. Time and time again, Jesus's Lordship is not only pronounced by Him in a synagouge, rather it was deciphered by His closest followers, it was evident to the Jewish leaders, it was witnessed by the on-lookers, it was broadcast by the people He healed and by the exorcised demons themselves and finally it was revealed by His resurrection.
Jesus did not BECOME God... HE IS.
I am begging the readers , regardless of your belief status, to look at the source of the allegation.
I instill this ideal in my children. All ideas are worth considering. But when considering, you need to look at the idea as a whole and make a judgement call as to adopt this ideology or to disregard it based on its merits. (I know it sounds funny having a four and six year old listen to me intently as I mold their minds for logic)
Then, there is also this "scientific" claim : Religious Children Struggle To Separate Fact From Fiction
If you then investigate further the abstract reads: "The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children's differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories."
Why would you compare such a hypothesis on children who, by definition of law, are not even qualified to testify unless certified? The premise of the experiment has flaws, but the conclusion mass media has made about the inference is libelous at best.
I am a Christian. I am under NO FANTASIES that my faith is perfect. I am aware that in the pantheistic buffet that is our postmodern world Christianity is a sane, dare I say, logical choice!
TL;DR - DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE TILL YOU READ THE REFERENCES!!! Sheeple follow the crowd. Think for yourself and make a decision based on the evidence provided.
