I think another important aspect of recent Jesus research is the emphasizing of Jesus’ humanity over him being a God. For instance, In Mark Jesus shows himself to be a fallible human prophet, not a God, when he is unable to do miracles in his home town: “Then Jesus told them, ‘A prophet is without honor only in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own household.’ So He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them (Mark 6:5).” This “humanity of Jesus” is no where more evident than in Jesus’ atoning death in Mark, where Jesus is a human in agony and terror before God. Mark’s portrayal of the death of Jesus was one of reconciling humanity to God through atonement. Upon Jesus’ death, the tearing of the veil of the temple symbolized the removing of the barrier between people and God. The words of the Roman soldier that “Jesus was truly the son of God" symbolized the reconciling of the differences between Jews and Gentiles. The women being the witnesses to the empty tomb reflected the eroding of the inferior place of women and the unreliability of the testimony of women in the eyes of God. Hence, on this point, Paul also said “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28)." How Jesus got to his atoning death reveals his humanity. Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane shows him to be a person in agony and terror about his fate, terrified of his place in God’s plan, and petitioning God to change His plan! You would need to go through complicated mental gymnastics to explain the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane from a Trinitarian point of view. In fact, it doesn’t make sense to see Jesus as any kind of God here, since it seems silly that a God would be terrified of his atoning death, because that is the only reason he would be on earth in the first place. Does it make sense that in a story about a God who came to earth to die to wipe out the sin debt of mankind, that this God would beg to abandon his post? After all, Jesus knows he has nothing to fear because he will just suffer for a few hours and eventually be resurrected: Jesus says “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise (Mark 9:31).” Jesus is not portrayed by Mark as a God, but just a terrified human. Probably what we see in Jesus’ prayer in The Garden of Gethsemane is the intrusion of doubts in Jesus’ mind about whether God will resurrect him or not (something that wouldn’t have happened if Jesus was a God, since as a God Jesus could have been in direct communication with God The Father). Or maybe Jesus had originally “discovered” that he was to be raised on the third day because he interpreted the story of Jonah in such a way that he believed it was to be fulfilled by him (by Jesus). We see this in the gospel of Matthew when Matthew writes “38Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, ‘Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.’ 39But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:38-40).” Maybe Jesus was losing faith in this hermeneutic (that maybe this prophesy wasn’t to be fulfilled by him), and so was afraid his atoning death wouldn’t end in resurrection. In any case, whatever Jesus thought God said in response to his desperate prayer in Gesthemane, Jesus comes out of it with renewed vigor and purpose: spouting blasphemy to the Jewish high council and telling Pilate he was the king of the Jews. So what had happened? Maybe Jesus thought God told him he would now be a traditional messiah, and that God would intervene in human history and help Jesus to defeat his enemies (The Romans and the Jewish Elite). When this doesn’t come to pass and Jesus goes to the cross, Jesus can’t understand it and Cries out for God to intervene in history and send a divine being to come and help him escape and bring him victory: Mark records that: “At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?’ which is translated, ‘MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?’ When some of the bystanders heard it, they began saying, ‘Behold, He is calling for Elijah.’ 36Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, ‘Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down’ (Mark 15:34-36).” And so maybe Jesus’ fear and wanting to opt out of God’s plan was, in fact, all a part of God’s plan. Maybe Jesus as a “willing sacrifice” could not pay the sin debt for the world, but maybe Jesus as an “unwilling sacrifice” could. If it would have been meaningful to God if Jesus wanted to offer up himself willingly, imagine how much more it would have meant to God if Jesus was sacrificed unwillingly and in terror! Luke evidently had a problem with the portrayal of Jesus’ death and last words in Mark, so Luke changed Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ last words from a terrified " “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME? (Mark 15:34-36)," to the resolute “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46).”
Too much gray, did not read.
Just what is your interest here John67? You write these long posts of stuff that has been around for a century or more. You draw conclusions that might be of interest to a liberal Protestant. What’s your expectation?
Just what is your interest here John67? You write these long posts of stuff that has been around for a century or more. You draw conclusions that might be of interest to a liberal Protestant. What's your expectation?Just trying to point out that Jesus wasn't a God, but just a man.
Glad you pointed out your thinking.
This is something I have read many times. “Jesus never claimed to be a god." That would be a question for Lausten to tell us whether or not that is true. Not my area of religion.
The way historians look at this, is early Christianity claimed authorization of their views by tracing their lineage back through the apostles to Jesus. And Jesus never wrote anything. For this reason apostolic authorship is assumed great importance to the earliest Christians, as you posts kind of proves. But this left the doors open for forgery and much more.
Just happened to have listened to this yesterday]
It’s Robert Price being interviewed on his book, “The Case Against The Case for Christ”. Some archaeology that was new to me in there. Somewhere around half way or so he addresses the, “did Jesus say he was God” question. I guess I tend to think most people know this stuff by now. Especially if you are hanging out on a skeptic forum. The only people who tend to NOT know it are those who are being told that Jesus was God, and they just accept it. They don’t worry about something like a source that tells you that, even if where they are hearing it has only one, rather brief, source.
The only place you could hear that is in the gospels. Everything else came after, and Paul or Peter never says things like, “I was talking to Jesus, and he said,…”. Some Bibles conveniently put all of Jesus’ words in red, so that saves you even more time. The biggest barrier is the translations, that are left in 16th century English, probably because it makes them hard to read.
So, whaddawe got? We got someone asking, “are you the son of God?” And, depending on the translation, Jesus says something like, “if you say so.” Now, if there is such a thing as the Trinity, and Jesus was #2 in that, why didn’t he just say it? Why didn’t he give a talk about it, instead of some ambiguous talk about “blessed are the cheese makers”?
So, whaddawe got? We got someone asking, "are you the son of God?" And, depending on the translation, Jesus says something like, "if you say so." Now, if there is such a thing as the Trinity, and Jesus was #2 in that, why didn't he just say it? Why didn't he give a talk about it, instead of some ambiguous talk about "blessed are the cheese makers"?All these years and I thought he said "Blessed are the peas makers." Cheese makes more sense. Or maybe not.
Just what is your interest here John67? You write these long posts of stuff that has been around for a century or more. You draw conclusions that might be of interest to a liberal Protestant. What's your expectation?Just trying to point out that Jesus wasn't a God, but just a man. The Christians also claim he is a god. Are you denying this? If so, what is your point. You are contradicting and denying 2000+ years of Christian theology. Was that your point? Lois
There were lots of miracles that would have been extremely helpful in improving the quality of Jewish life. Bringing a smoked fish back to life and other so-called Jesus miracles were not helpful for any other reason than to provide credibility for the new spin-off Christian religion.37 New Testament Miracles of Jesus Christ in Chronological Order. http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/Miracles-Of-Jesus.htm Most gods at the time of Jesus, and there were a lot. Only preformed an average of two miracles. Data says that bible has Jesus preforming 37, which stands out over the others. Where I am having trouble is when I think of Jesus and the miracles he performed, rising from the dead would be number one for me, and it is not listed. But, maybe, Jesus did not perform that one, maybe god did. Wait, isn’t god and Jesus the same? Anyway why is it not listed as one of Jesus's miracles?
Just what is your interest here John67? You write these long posts of stuff that has been around for a century or more. You draw conclusions that might be of interest to a liberal Protestant. What's your expectation?Just trying to point out that Jesus wasn't a God, but just a man. Tiberius, Augustus and Caligula were also gods at the time of Jesus and were also look at as just men too. I would like to note, that Barrie Wilson says that Jesus's wife was a god, but Jesus himself never made more that high priest while alive.
Just what is your interest here John67? You write these long posts of stuff that has been around for a century or more. You draw conclusions that might be of interest to a liberal Protestant. What's your expectation?Just trying to point out that Jesus wasn't a God, but just a man. The Christians also claim he is a god. Are you denying this? If so, what is your point. You are contradicting and denying 2000+ years of Christian theology. Was that your point? Lois Pretty sure that's where he's going. Besides some not-so-good myth theories out there, there is some actual historical work being done to UN-do the mess that Christians have done throughout the ages. This is being done by believers and non-believers. Or, going back further, you could say things got messy when the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile and tried to reconstruct their culture. The tradition of denying Jesus is god is not exactly new. It's right there in the Bible. Jews obviously did it, or they wouldn't still be Jews. Christians never stopped arguing over which interpretation of the scriptures is correct. When you say "contradicting and denying 2000+ years of Christian theology", which theology are you talking about? This idea that Christians are under attack from some outside non-religious force is a new one. There has never been a time when all Christians were unified.
Just what is your interest here John67? You write these long posts of stuff that has been around for a century or more. You draw conclusions that might be of interest to a liberal Protestant. What's your expectation?Just trying to point out that Jesus wasn't a God, but just a man. The Christians also claim he is a god. Are you denying this? If so, what is your point. You are contradicting and denying 2000+ years of Christian theology. Was that your point? Lois Pretty sure that's where he's going. Besides some not-so-good myth theories out there, there is some actual historical work being done to UN-do the mess that Christians have done throughout the ages. This is being done by believers and non-believers. Or, going back further, you could say things got messy when the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile and tried to reconstruct their culture. The tradition of denying Jesus is god is not exactly new. It's right there in the Bible. Jews obviously did it, or they wouldn't still be Jews. Christians never stopped arguing over which interpretation of the scriptures is correct. When you say "contradicting and denying 2000+ years of Christian theology", which theology are you talking about? This idea that Christians are under attack from some outside non-religious force is a new one. There has never been a time when all Christians were unified. An important new book about the humanity of Jesus by Dr. Daniel Kirk is coming out soon. The book is "A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels" see here: http://www.amazon.com/Man-Attested-God-Synoptic-Gospels/dp/0802867952/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1465245452&sr=1-1&keywords=a+man+attested+by+god . About this book, Dr. James McGrath says: "I cannot emphasize enough what an important study this is. I am hopeful that it will radically shift the direction of the field, and put an end to facile and unpersuasive claims that this or that in the Synoptic Gospels reflects the depiction of Jesus as himself in some sense the one God of Israel. Here is what I wrote by way of endorsement: This may be the most important book in Christology to appear in recent years. Written in an era when it has become increasingly popular to insist that Jesus is already depicted as a pre-existent figure in the Synoptic Gospels, one who is absorbed into the “divine identity," Daniel Kirk makes a persuasive case for viewing the depiction of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke as one of idealized humanity. Unlike many other proposals, this category, and this volume in which it is proposed, does good justice to the evidence, and is likely to stand the test of time." Here is Dr. McGrath's blog page on the book: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2016/04/a-man-attested-by-god-daniel-kirk-on-the-human-jesus-of-the-synoptic-gospels.html Here is Dr. Kirk's blog page about the book: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/storiedtheology/2016/03/18/revelation-of-jesus/ It's definitely one to look forward to!
I don’t know much about Kirk or McGrath. I’ve read a few of McGrath’s blogs on Patheos. This doesn’t impress me any more than your OP. I’m sure there is an audience for this, but that audience is people who haven’t done much of any Bible study. If you do, and are still convinced that Jesus was God, or even that the NT clearly says Jesus was God, then either you wanted to think that in the first place and facts don’t matter to you, or, you’re just not a very good studier.
I don't know much about Kirk or McGrath. I've read a few of McGrath's blogs on Patheos. This doesn't impress me any more than your OP. I'm sure there is an audience for this, but that audience is people who haven't done much of any Bible study. If you do, and are still convinced that Jesus was God, or even that the NT clearly says Jesus was God, then either you wanted to think that in the first place and facts don't matter to you, or, you're just not a very good studier.I don't know what you are talking about. My whole point is that Jesus is NOT a God, but just a human.
I don't know much about Kirk or McGrath. I've read a few of McGrath's blogs on Patheos. This doesn't impress me any more than your OP. I'm sure there is an audience for this, but that audience is people who haven't done much of any Bible study. If you do, and are still convinced that Jesus was God, or even that the NT clearly says Jesus was God, then either you wanted to think that in the first place and facts don't matter to you, or, you're just not a very good studier.I don't know what you are talking about. My whole point is that Jesus is NOT a God, but just a human. I'm talking about how easy it is to figure out he is not. A book like this seems to be directed to someone who started out thinking Jesus is God, and didn't really question it much. Before reading this book, I'd first need to be convinced why it would take a book of this length to convince someone the Jesus story is anything but an idealized figure. Kirk's review threw me for a loop right here, "Written in an era when it has become increasingly popular to insist that Jesus is already depicted as a pre-existent figure in the Synoptic Gospels, one who is absorbed into the “divine identity," ". What era is Kirk living in? It is becoming decreasingly popular to insist that. Fundamentalists are the embarrassing cousins in the Christian family. Very few people believe all the miracles in the Bible, especially the ones with Jesus.
I don't know much about Kirk or McGrath. I've read a few of McGrath's blogs on Patheos. This doesn't impress me any more than your OP. I'm sure there is an audience for this, but that audience is people who haven't done much of any Bible study. If you do, and are still convinced that Jesus was God, or even that the NT clearly says Jesus was God, then either you wanted to think that in the first place and facts don't matter to you, or, you're just not a very good studier.I don't know what you are talking about. My whole point is that Jesus is NOT a God, but just a human. I'm talking about how easy it is to figure out he is not. A book like this seems to be directed to someone who started out thinking Jesus is God, and didn't really question it much. Before reading this book, I'd first need to be convinced why it would take a book of this length to convince someone the Jesus story is anything but an idealized figure. Kirk's review threw me for a loop right here, "Written in an era when it has become increasingly popular to insist that Jesus is already depicted as a pre-existent figure in the Synoptic Gospels, one who is absorbed into the “divine identity," ". What era is Kirk living in? It is becoming decreasingly popular to insist that. Fundamentalists are the embarrassing cousins in the Christian family. Very few people believe all the miracles in the Bible, especially the ones with Jesus. The issue isn't whether commentators "today" think Jesus is a God, but rather if the writers of The New Testament thought Jesus was a God. McGrath, Kirk, and I say the writers of The New Testament didn't think Jesus was a God, but rather a human person.
The issue isn't whether commentators "today" think Jesus is a God, but rather if the writers of The New Testament thought Jesus was a God. McGrath, Kirk, and I say the writers of The New Testament didn't think Jesus was a God, but rather a human person.And I agree with that too. Actually the author of the book of John might have and Paul may have, but in a spirit form. There isn't much from Paul that says Jesus was a person. Kirk is the one who is talking about is commonly thought today, or do you read that sentence differently.
The issue isn't whether commentators "today" think Jesus is a God, but rather if the writers of The New Testament thought Jesus was a God. McGrath, Kirk, and I say the writers of The New Testament didn't think Jesus was a God, but rather a human person.At the time of Jesus you had many branches of Jewish religion, Jesus was said to have been a Nazarene. Was Jesus Jewish in religion? At the Council of Jamnia, the Jews said, no - his religion was not Jewish. So what was Jesus? It seems he was Gnostic in thinking. This shows up with Jesus’s followers that went north being Christians and the ones that stay in Israel and Egypt being Gnostic. We can see how the Christians thought about the question man/god back around the year 200. Here is data from Wikipedia. The Church being out of Rome. The distinction between the human and divine Saviour was a major point of contention between the Valentinians and the Church. Valentinus separated Christ into three figures; the spiritual, the psychical and material. Each of the three Christ figures had its own meaning and purpose. They acknowledged that Christ suffered and died, but believed that “in his incarnation, Christ transcended human nature so that he could prevail over death by divine power". These beliefs are what caused Irenaeus to say of the Valentinians, “Certainly they confess with their tongues the one Jesus Christ, but in their minds they divide him. Then a few decades latter we had Arian. Arianism is a Christian belief that asserts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was created by God the Father at a point in time, is distinct from the Father and is therefore subordinate to the Father. Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius (c. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt. So, yea, I see your point and would agree that the god thinking came latter.
The issue isn't whether commentators "today" think Jesus is a God, but rather if the writers of The New Testament thought Jesus was a God. McGrath, Kirk, and I say the writers of The New Testament didn't think Jesus was a God, but rather a human person.And I agree with that too. Actually the author of the book of John might have and Paul may have, but in a spirit form. There isn't much from Paul that says Jesus was a person. Kirk is the one who is talking about is commonly thought today, or do you read that sentence differently. Kirk means that in the synoptics Jesus is portrayed a (idealized) human.
The issue isn't whether commentators "today" think Jesus is a God, but rather if the writers of The New Testament thought Jesus was a God. McGrath, Kirk, and I say the writers of The New Testament didn't think Jesus was a God, but rather a human person.And I agree with that too. Actually the author of the book of John might have and Paul may have, but in a spirit form. There isn't much from Paul that says Jesus was a person. Kirk is the one who is talking about is commonly thought today, or do you read that sentence differently. Kirk means that in the synoptics Jesus is portrayed a (idealized) human. Just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Here's the line I'm referring to:
This may be the most important book in Christology to appear in recent years. Written in an era when it has become increasingly popular to insist that Jesus is already depicted as a pre-existent figure in the Synoptic Gospels, one who is absorbed into the “divine identity," Daniel Kirk makes a persuasive case for viewing the depiction of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke as one of idealized humanity.So, 1st sentence "this book", "recent years". 2nd sentence, "Written in an era when". What is that phrase referring to?