For my COM 150 essay (regarding the Trinity) I have been listening to a series of lectures by Professor Bart Ehrman, one of my all time favorite Early Christianity historians. I enjoy Dr. Ehrman’s lectures and books, but I must admit that I particularly enjoy his writing because he is not attached to any particular Christian denomination (honestly I do not even know if he considers himself a Christian since the Christian historians came out with their smear campiegns against him after Misquoting Jesus). The reason I enjoy his lack of affiliation is that I do not feel he is attempting to apologetically hammer home a particular theological idea, belief, or opinion – rather he simply presents the facts and everything surrounding these facts and let’s his students or readers draw their own conclusions.

As I read more about Early Christianity and the various beliefs, movements, and people both within this group and around it, I find myself questioning my faith more and more. This is not to say that I lack faith or disbelieve that Jesus is the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Rather, I find myself wanting to define my beliefs regarding who He was, what He taught, and what Early Christians actually believed based on better sources than today’s Bible.

For example, Dr. Ehrman outlines what sources are acceptable (and why) for as accuratly as we can, understanding Early Christianity, specifically the historical Jesus. I was not surprised when Dr. Ehrman stated that historians would limit the time line of accepting sources (ie earlier is better and there is a cut off date) but was surprised by the actual timeline – no later than 120 AD. Of course, the New Testament is included in this time line, but some books are under suspecion of being altered to fit a theological point that the author wanted to make (the Gospel of John is a great example).

Currently I am halfway through the course and wanted to take a moment to write down my beliefs, ideas, opinions, etc.

I believe that Jesus is the Savior of the world for lots of reasons. For non-logical ones, I believe that the Spirit has revealed this to me (gosh that sounds hokey) and for logical ones every accepted source for the historical Jesus discusses this point (ie that the followers of Christ believe that He was the Savior – the gospels and their sources Q, L, and M also state this, Jophesus, and Pliny the Younger also briefly wrote about this).

I believe that Jesus was crucified and that He was resurrected. What I don’t believe:

• In docetism – I believe Jesus suffered, although currently have no logical reason for doing so except to take the Bible, in it’s current form, at it’s word.
• That as Paulus argued, that Jesus survived the crucification (um, hello he was supposedly stabbed with a spear – again no logic behind believing this except face value belief) and awoke in the tomb then walked out.
• In the defination or application of Strauss’ “myth” regarding the Bible. Illogically, I lean more towards the pre-Enlightened period of “supernatural histories” than the other options presented.
• I suspect John of altering his account of the resurrection since it contradicts Mark’s (the earliest manuscript we have – sadly we do not have Q) and John has a motive to change his account – to make a theological point, whereas Mark does not. Therefor, I am undecided if Jesus was crucified before Passover at 9 am or on the Passover at noon.
• That Jesus walked out of the tomb with a talking cross behind Him.

I believe that Christians are documented as having changed or invented scriptures in order to fit their own point of view. Otherwise, we would all believe Jesus made clay sparrows come to life, as a child cursed small children, struke people dead on the street, was resurrected with an extended head and talking cross, and so forth. Not to mention the suspecion scholars have regarding non-Christian texts like the Jewish Antiquities by Josephus being altered by Christians.

I believe that Jesus created the world, but do not believe He created our spirits.

As far as sin goes – I believe that God has outlined in His standard in the scriptures, and acknowledge that I will never be able to live up that standard. As such, I do need a Savior, that is clearly identified as Jesus. I believe that as a Christian, I am accountable for myself and should live my life in unity with Christ’s teachings HOWEVER I do not believe in forcing those views upon others. I believe, that just as Jesus was the ultimate example within His mortal life, I should strive to live my life by example, not attempts in how to limit the decisions of others in hopes of restraining them from sin. I mean c’mon – if we begin outlawing things based upon our personal morals, then how far away are we from outlawing, say coffee, which is also harmful for you since it contains an addictive DRUG or alcohol or tabacco and so on? For me, this is utterly demonic and I do not wish to engage in this behavior.

I believe the Bible to contain the Truth but to have been changed and altered by authors and scribes. Again, John being a primary example. Within John’s gospel comes the strongest arguements for the Trinity which so far, I haven’t seen any historical (no later than 120 AD) documentation for. Rather, in Mark’s gospel (again the earliest manuscript that we have) Jesus is not portrayed as divine, but in John’s gospel He is. It appears that John alters his gospel to make a point and to attract pagan converts by the conception of a demi-god like the popular Appolonius.

I’m sure my opinions are not popular, and I don’t mind that. Honestly, I would rather do my homework now on what Early Christianity (all forms, all groups, all traditions) consisted of and logically sort out my questions now, than simply go along with what’s popular.