السلام عليكم اخي
هذا الكلام موجود في كتاب بارت ايرمن
how jesus became god

Judgment
But apocalypticists believed that when things got just as bad as they possibly could get, God would
intervene in a mighty act of judgment. In the previous chapter we saw that 1 Enoch described the
powerful Son of Man who would be a future cosmic judge of the earth. First Enoch embraces this
apocalyptic worldview and maintains that indeed a time will come when God will judge all the
powers of evil on earth and in heaven through his representative the Son of Man.

Other
apocalypticists too thought that judgment was coming, that God would destroy the evil powers
aligned against him and his people

Look again at the sayings given above. In none of them is there any hint that Jesus is talking about
himself when he refers to the Son of Man coming in judgment on the earth. Readers naturally assume
that he is talking about himself either because they believe that Jesus is the Son of Man or because
they know that elsewhere the Gospels identify him as the Son of Man. But nothing in these sayings
would lead someone to make the identification. These sayings are not phrased the way early
Christians would have been likely to invent if they, rather than Jesus, had come up with them


I think there are excellent reasons for thinking that Jesus imagined himself as the messiah, in a
very specific and particular sense. The messiah was thought to be the future ruler of the people of
Israel. But as an apocalypticist, Jesus did not think that the future kingdom was going to be won by a
political struggle or a military engagement per se. It was going to be brought by the Son of Man, who
came in judgment against everyone and everything opposed to God. Then the kingdom would arrive.
And I think Jesus believed he himself would be the king in that kingdom.

First let me go back to my earlier point about the disciples.
They clearly thought and talked about Jesus as the messiah during his earthly life. But in fact he did
nothing to make a person think that he was the messiah. He may well have been a pacifist (“love your
enemy,” “turn the other cheek,” “blessed are the peacemakers,” etc.), which would not exactly make
him a leading candidate to be general over the Jewish armed forces. He did not preach the violent
overthrow of the Roman armies. And he talked about someone else, rather than himself, as the
coming Son of Man. So if nothing in what Jesus was actively doing would make anyone suspect that
he had messianic pretensions, why would his followers almost certainly have been thinking about him
and calling him the messiah during his public ministry? The easiest explanation is that Jesus told them
that he was the messiah.
But what he meant by “messiah” has to be understood within the broader context of his
apocalyptic proclamation.

Jesus must have thought that he would be the king of the
kingdom of God soon to be brought by the Son of Man. And what is the typical designation for the
future king of Israel? Messiah. It is in this sense that Jesus must have taught his disciples that he was
the messiah.

عليك بقراءة الفصل الثالث كامل
لتفهم الصورة كاملة

It was going to be brought by the Son of Man, who
came in judgment against everyone and everything opposed to God. Then the kingdom would arrive.
And I think Jesus believed he himself would be the king in that kingdom.

He did not preach the violent
overthrow of the Roman armies. And he talked about someone else, rather than himself, as the

السلام عليكم

اذن بارت ايرمان يعتقد ان عيسى عليه السلام في الكتاب المقدس قال ان ابن الانسان سياتي من بعده ليدمر الممالك الوثنية
و ليحكم الارض
و يؤسس مملكة الله على الارض ...
ثم يرجع عيسى عليه السلام و يعيش في ضمن مملكة ابن الانسان الذي هو شخص اخر غير عيسى عليه السلام ..

هذه قنبلة في وجه النصارى ..
بارت ايرمان شخص محايد تماما ...

و من اقام مملكة التوحيد و هزم الممالك الوثنية سوى محمد عليه الصلاة و السلام ؟؟؟؟؟؟

سبحان الله
الحقيقة واضحة مثل الشمس

نعم
سؤال جيد
اولا بارت ايرمان ان احببت او لم تحب هو من اكبر علماء الكتاب المقدس في الغرب
ثانيا هو غير مسلم .... فلن يقول هذا الكلام ليثبت ان الاسلام حق مثلا
فهو يقوله لان هذا هو ما وجده في الكتاب المقدس .... اقرا كتابه جيدا .... و انظر هل هو يقول الحق ام لا
و كونه ملحد هذا في صالح وجهة نظري
فلا يوجد عنده دافع لقول هذا الا دراسته العلمية ... فهذا راي علمي و لا علاقة له بالحاده
اقرا كلامه
ستجده منطقيا جدا
هدانا و اياكم الله

و بارت ايرمان لم ينكر وجود عيسى عليه السلام
بل لقد الف كتابا ليثبت وجود المسيح تاريخيا
هذا مجرد تصحيح

Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by the academic and author Bart Ehrman, a leading scholar of the New Testament and writer of over twenty-five books (including three college textbooks) in that field of study. In the book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus Christ at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that "whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist."^[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman)