The Humanity of 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.
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? It says "an era when it has become increasingly popular to insist that Jesus is already depicted as a pre-existent figure in the Synoptic Gospels." This means it is popular right now among bible scholars to argue that Jesus was depicted as a pre existent divine being in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is the trend that Kirk is arguing against.
It says "an era when it has become increasingly popular to insist that Jesus is already depicted as a pre-existent figure in the Synoptic Gospels." This means it is popular right now among bible scholars to argue that Jesus was depicted as a pre existent divine being in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is the trend that Kirk is arguing against.
Okay, glad we got that straight. And I think he's wrong. It is not popular at all.
It says "an era when it has become increasingly popular to insist that Jesus is already depicted as a pre-existent figure in the Synoptic Gospels." This means it is popular right now among bible scholars to argue that Jesus was depicted as a pre existent divine being in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is the trend that Kirk is arguing against.
Okay, glad we got that straight. And I think he's wrong. It is not popular at all. He's thinking of people like Richard Bauckham et al.
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. Maybe not, but it seems to me that being a Christian means believing Jesus was a god. As with every belief system, there will be some renegades. Do you think most of the world's Christians think Jesus is a god or not? I was raised a Catholic and I was taught that Jesus was god. I never heard any arguments to the contrary. I spent many hours in catechism classes studying the divinity of Jesus and the trinity. The people I knew in the church would be shocked if anyone suggested that Jesus was not god. It is the "heart and soul" of Catholic and probably most Protestant theology as far as I can determine.
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. It was never an either/or question in the Church as I remember it. We were taught that Jesus was both a true man and a true god. That idea does sound contradictory to me, as an atheist, but that, as far as I know, is what Catholics and other Christians believe. Here are some biblical passages. Do these seem to you to say that the New Testament writers thought Jesus was god or not? John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 5:18, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." John 8:24, "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins." John 10:30-33, "I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God. John 20:28, "Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Matt. 14:33, "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God’s Son!" Matt. 28:9, "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him." John 9:35-38, "Jesus heard that they had put him out; and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" 36 He answered and said, "And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" 37 Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." 38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him." Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me." Lois

Great set of bible quotes, Lois.
But most of them do not come from the Synoptic Gospels. And those of Matthew are quite open to interpretation, don’t you think?
I am just reading a book of Ehrman: How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.
The case seems clear. In the probable chronological order that the Gospels were written, Jesus becomes more and more godlike, culminating in John, where Jesus more or less is identified with God.
So I do not know exactly the fuzz john76 is making. Isn’t this normal knowledge of New Testament historians?

It says "an era when it has become increasingly popular to insist that Jesus is already depicted as a pre-existent figure in the Synoptic Gospels." This means it is popular right now among bible scholars to argue that Jesus was depicted as a pre existent divine being in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is the trend that Kirk is arguing against.
Okay, glad we got that straight. And I think he's wrong. It is not popular at all. He's thinking of people like Richard Bauckham et al. Never heard of him. Not that it means anything that I haven't. But I do know of the "popular" guys, like Rick Warren, Lee Strobel, Greg Boyd. As Garrison Keillor pointed out, these days you can be really famous and no one has heard of you. With 7 Billion people on the planet and hundreds of channels to choose from, you can have a following of a few million, but outside that circle, be unknown. I watch the major trends, like secular governments, changes in seminaries, the difference between the last two Popes, splits in major denominations. Some guy selling books doesn't impress me.
Maybe not, but it seems to me that being a Christian means believing Jesus was a god. As with every belief system, there will be some renegades. Do you think most of the world's Christians think Jesus is a god or not? I was raised a Catholic and I was taught that Jesus was god. I never heard any arguments to the contrary. I spent many hours in catechism classes studying the divinity of Jesus and the trinity. The people I knew in the church would be shocked if anyone suggested that Jesus was not god. It is the "heart and soul" of Catholic and probably most Protestant theology as far as I can determine.
Good point, I thought someone might raise that. Being a Christian practically equals believing in the resurrection. Some hairs could be split there, but let's not. But this discussion is about a scholarly question of the synoptic gospels presenting Jesus as a pre-existent figure. You quoted heavily from John. John starts out putting Jesus at the right of God at creation. The other 3 don't do that. That's when this debate started, about 1,900 years ago. So, those Catholics who raised you are winning. But they win not by making an argument based on correct interpretations of ancient writings. In fact they do the opposite. They change words, they misinterpret, and if they find out one of the Church Fathers misinterpreted something, they don't correct themselves. For the last few hundred years, they have been losing their power over that scholarship, and IT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY POPULAR to point out they are wrong.
Maybe not, but it seems to me that being a Christian means believing Jesus was a god. As with every belief system, there will be some renegades. Do you think most of the world's Christians think Jesus is a god or not? I was raised a Catholic and I was taught that Jesus was god. I never heard any arguments to the contrary. I spent many hours in catechism classes studying the divinity of Jesus and the trinity. The people I knew in the church would be shocked if anyone suggested that Jesus was not god. It is the "heart and soul" of Catholic and probably most Protestant theology as far as I can determine.
Good point, I thought someone might raise that. Being a Christian practically equals believing in the resurrection. Some hairs could be split there, but let's not. But this discussion is about a scholarly question of the synoptic gospels presenting Jesus as a pre-existent figure. You quoted heavily from John. John starts out putting Jesus at the right of God at creation. The other 3 don't do that. That's when this debate started, about 1,900 years ago. So, those Catholics who raised you are winning. But they win not by making an argument based on correct interpretations of ancient writings. In fact they do the opposite. They change words, they misinterpret, and if they find out one of the Church Fathers misinterpreted something, they don't correct themselves. For the last few hundred years, they have been losing their power over that scholarship, and IT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY POPULAR to point out they are wrong. How can anyone be right or wrong about whether Jesus is a god? It comes down to belief. The way I understand Christianity, nearly every Christian believes Jesus is god, no matter how they came to that conclusion, whether through a true understanding of scripture or through a misinterpretation of it. In the end, what does it matter? As far as I'm concerned no god has been shown to exist. All claims to godliness are without evidence. But Christians believe it. This argument is on the same level as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
How can anyone be right or wrong about whether Jesus is a god? It comes down to belief. The way I understand Christianity, nearly every Christian believes Jesus is god, no matter how they came to that conclusion, whether through a true understanding of scripture or through a misinterpretation of it. In the end, what does it matter? As far as I'm concerned no god has been shown to exist. All claims to godliness are without evidence. But Christians believe it. This argument is on the same level as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
How can you be right or wrong about anything? Does gravity depend on belief? How you come to conclusions is the key factor. Do you listen to authority, as if you are a 3rd grader being told America is the land of the free, or do you try to understand concepts like "freedom" and the history of people who have promoted it? Angels on pins is an exercise in logic and arguing. The way you are using it, if I understand you, which is doubtful, is to say it is an esoteric discussion that doesn't affect the general population. How you come to a conclusion about the existence of god is not esoteric. As soon as you start to consider it, you dive deep into the philosophies of how we know things.
How can anyone be right or wrong about whether Jesus is a god? It comes down to belief. The way I understand Christianity, nearly every Christian believes Jesus is god, no matter how they came to that conclusion, whether through a true understanding of scripture or through a misinterpretation of it. In the end, what does it matter? As far as I'm concerned no god has been shown to exist. All claims to godliness are without evidence. But Christians believe it. This argument is on the same level as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Lois, my interest is in the timelines of history, I see Jesus as more of a political figure from where I stand than a god. Maybe because that is where my interest in history have taken me. To me your god is John and the synoptic group more than Jesus. But it is what it is. I would like to step away from the Synoptic for a moment and look at the evolving history. Trying to follow the history of religion, the apostles that went north established the Catholic Church, said to be commissioned by Jesus. Then there was a break off the church, what is known as the Catholic Church varies from the original Catholic Church which we know as Orthodox Christianity. This is important because of what they value as teachings. The Catholics use the Synoptic Gospels as being done here. But the Orthodox religion uses 2 Thessalonians 2:15King James Version (KJV). 15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Point being, the question at hand is, did the people at the time regard Jesus as man or god. And Orthodox is closer to the religion of Jesus’s time. An epistle (/ᵻˈpɪsəl/; Greek "πιστολή, epistolē, "letter") is a writing directed or sent to a person or group of people, usually an elegant and formal didactic letter. The epistle genre of letter-writing was common in ancient Egypt as part of the scribal-school writing curriculum. So my question would be are there any known Orthodox epistles that cover this question? We may be getting into a new area with little data for many of us. I know it is new to me. In Orthodox Christianity, my understanding is the Church, which would be the people (you and me), and Jesus make up Christ. Point being. In the early church, could the people also become part of god as Jesus did? Was that the way the thinking was back then? Basically, Jesus Christ did not come to establish such a thing as "Christianity". Even the word is not in the Holy Scriptures. What Christ Jesus did do was to establish the Church, which Scripture calls both His Body and His Bride. The communion which man seeks with God is found by being part of the Church, something which St. Paul calls a "great mystery", whereby we become members of Christ: "of His flesh, and of His bones." (Ephesians 5:30) http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/questions.html

I think the gospel of the first Christians (a la the Corinthian Creed that Paul received from them) was that humankind had become reconciled to God through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Maybe what made Jesus the anointed one for the first Christians was not that he was going to overthrow Roman rule, but that he had atoned for the sin debt of mankind and hence it was the end of the world and he was the “first fruits" of the general resurrection. Maybe after Jesus died some of his followers had visions of him, and searched scripture for what that meant. Maybe they came upon Isaiah 53 about the suffering servant and that “by his stripes we are healed," and so thought this is what Jesus’ death meant – that his death paid for our sins. We know the first Christians thought Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection was prefigured in scriptures, since Paul said “3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,… (1 Cor 15:3-4)." We know that it may have been prefigured in scripture (or the first Christian thought it was prefigured in scripture) that there would be some suffering to overcome Satan, because scripture says " He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel (Genesis 3:15)." We know that for the first Christians Jesus atoning death signalled the beginning of the end and the advent of the general resurrection, since Matthew said after Jesus died that “…51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.… (Matthew 27:51-53)." 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)."
None of this required Jesus to be a God.

How can anyone be right or wrong about whether Jesus is a god? It comes down to belief. The way I understand Christianity, nearly every Christian believes Jesus is god, no matter how they came to that conclusion, whether through a true understanding of scripture or through a misinterpretation of it. In the end, what does it matter? As far as I'm concerned no god has been shown to exist. All claims to godliness are without evidence. But Christians believe it. This argument is on the same level as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Lois, my interest is in the timelines of history, I see Jesus as more of a political figure from where I stand than a god. Maybe because that is where my interest in history have taken me. To me your god is John and the synoptic group more than Jesus. But it is what it is. I would like to step away from the Synoptic for a moment and look at the evolving history. Trying to follow the history of religion, the apostles that went north established the Catholic Church, said to be commissioned by Jesus. Then there was a break off the church, what is known as the Catholic Church varies from the original Catholic Church which we know as Orthodox Christianity. This is important because of what they value as teachings. The Catholics use the Synoptic Gospels as being done here. But the Orthodox religion uses 2 Thessalonians 2:15King James Version (KJV). 15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Point being, the question at hand is, did the people at the time regard Jesus as man or god. And Orthodox is closer to the religion of Jesus’s time. An epistle (/ᵻˈpɪsəl/; Greek "πιστολή, epistolē, "letter") is a writing directed or sent to a person or group of people, usually an elegant and formal didactic letter. The epistle genre of letter-writing was common in ancient Egypt as part of the scribal-school writing curriculum. So my question would be are there any known Orthodox epistles that cover this question? We may be getting into a new area with little data for many of us. I know it is new to me. In Orthodox Christianity, my understanding is the Church, which would be the people (you and me), and Jesus make up Christ. Point being. In the early church, could the people also become part of god as Jesus did? Was that the way the thinking was back then? Basically, Jesus Christ did not come to establish such a thing as "Christianity". Even the word is not in the Holy Scriptures. What Christ Jesus did do was to establish the Church, which Scripture calls both His Body and His Bride. The communion which man seeks with God is found by being part of the Church, something which St. Paul calls a "great mystery", whereby we become members of Christ: "of His flesh, and of His bones." (Ephesians 5:30) http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/questions.html I agree that Jesus did not establish Christianity. But the that was not the question. The question was whether the writers of the gospels believed that Jesus was god. Lois

Quoting Genesis when talking about Jesus won’t help you here

Quoting Genesis when talking about Jesus won't help you here
It is just speculation. I am not aware of the passage as being understood as messianic in any of the extant texts of second temple Judaism.
How can anyone be right or wrong about whether Jesus is a god? It comes down to belief. The way I understand Christianity, nearly every Christian believes Jesus is god, no matter how they came to that conclusion, whether through a true understanding of scripture or through a misinterpretation of it. In the end, what does it matter? As far as I'm concerned no god has been shown to exist. All claims to godliness are without evidence. But Christians believe it. This argument is on the same level as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Lois, my interest is in the timelines of history, I see Jesus as more of a political figure from where I stand than a god. Maybe because that is where my interest in history have taken me. To me your god is John and the synoptic group more than Jesus. But it is what it is. I would like to step away from the Synoptic for a moment and look at the evolving history. Trying to follow the history of religion, the apostles that went north established the Catholic Church, said to be commissioned by Jesus. Then there was a break off the church, what is known as the Catholic Church varies from the original Catholic Church which we know as Orthodox Christianity. This is important because of what they value as teachings. The Catholics use the Synoptic Gospels as being done here. But the Orthodox religion uses 2 Thessalonians 2:15King James Version (KJV). 15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Point being, the question at hand is, did the people at the time regard Jesus as man or god. And Orthodox is closer to the religion of Jesus’s time. An epistle (/ᵻˈpɪsəl/; Greek "πιστολή, epistolē, "letter") is a writing directed or sent to a person or group of people, usually an elegant and formal didactic letter. The epistle genre of letter-writing was common in ancient Egypt as part of the scribal-school writing curriculum. So my question would be are there any known Orthodox epistles that cover this question? We may be getting into a new area with little data for many of us. I know it is new to me. In Orthodox Christianity, my understanding is the Church, which would be the people (you and me), and Jesus make up Christ. Point being. In the early church, could the people also become part of god as Jesus did? Was that the way the thinking was back then? Basically, Jesus Christ did not come to establish such a thing as "Christianity". Even the word is not in the Holy Scriptures. What Christ Jesus did do was to establish the Church, which Scripture calls both His Body and His Bride. The communion which man seeks with God is found by being part of the Church, something which St. Paul calls a "great mystery", whereby we become members of Christ: "of His flesh, and of His bones." (Ephesians 5:30) http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/questions.html I agree that Jesus did not establish Christianity. But the that was not the question. The question was whether the writers of the gospels believed that Jesus was god. LoisI should have inserted a Point Being. Point being, I think the early writers had Jesus as a man. So, then if Jesus is a man and he can become part of god, then Lois should be able to do the same thing. I think that was the earliest thinking. If you were part of the church, then you were part of god. I think that’s what got Jesus in trouble with the Jews because they failed to understand his thinking and claimed he was declaring himself (the) god. They could not comprehend just being part of god.
If you were part of the church, then you were part of god. I think that’s what got Jesus in trouble with the Jews because they failed to understand his thinking and claimed he was declaring himself (the) god. They could not comprehend just being part of god.
On what evidence do you base this speculation?