If Jesus was not divine, then he was another poor sap murdered by powerful elites. He is not worthy of our consideration. Interestingly enough, there are other historians who come to a different conclusion, taking the recorded words of Jesus and actually putting them in context, and it becomes clear. Though Jesus never mouthed the words, “I am divine.” he certainly claimed being one with the Father. There were even events where his claim to deity pressed the crowd to pick up rocks to stone him for what they perceived was basphemy.
I’d disagree with the premise that 3 out of 4 Gospels are good odds to support a non-deity Jesus. It is a fallacy that John supports a high Christology, as it relies on inferences and a clumsy reading of the text. No, it’s 4 from 4.
Didn't Jesus accept worship? Didn't he say, "Before Moses was, I am"? Didn't he say, "I and the Father are one"? I think you're missing a lot here. Perhaps he didn't go around saying he was divine because he would've been lynched very quickly into his ministry.
Others said ‘ego eimi’ (I am) are they God too? One what? These are typical proof-texts used to support a Jesus is God construct but make bucket loads of contradictions with the rest of the text which says Jesus cannot be God.
Forgiving sins is what only God can do. Superseding the Mosaic law (the language of "But I say to you....." rather than re-interpreting) is something only God can do.
The most significant action of all is the Resurrection. This was transformative in all respects, validating and advancing what the actions cited above indicate. As radical and innovative as the Christian belief in the Resurrection was (see N T Wright, Surprised by Hope), is affirmed what came before in the ministry of Jesus. So we see John's Gospel presenting Jesus himself as the new Temple, where heaven and earth meet in one place/person/event.
Positing a discontinuity rather than a development between the "historical Jesus" and the Jesus of the "high Christology" of the earliest believers is a judgment that involves certain assumptions about reading the Gospels. If the reports of forgiving sins and superseding the law actually are authentic, as they plausibly are, then Jesus believed that he actually did have the divine authority to do what he was doing. His Resurrection appearances persuaded his followers that he was right.
“Forgiving sins is what only God can do”. This is untrue/unbiblical. Jesus did everything by God working in him. He was given authority to forgive sins and his miracles were God’ doing.
To be more clear, "Forgiving sins is what only God can do." Jesus forgave sins. Thus he was acting on his belief that "the Father and I are one." (I believe that this belief is accurate.)
Belief in the divinity of Jesus is rooted in the earliest strata of the Gospels. That's my point.
This belief in the divinity of Jesus later was developed formally into the doctrine of the Trinity, which affirms Jesus as God the Son. Rather than being alien to earliest Christian thinking, it was rooted in this thinking.
I appreciate the comments. It seems, though, that I need to correct some misunderstandings about this article. In the age of the internet, there's a tendency to read the title of an article, and maybe a couple of paragraphs, and then assume we understand what's being said, without reading the whole thing. That pretty much always leads to a failure to grasp the actual content of the piece. In this case, we need to remember Proverbs 18:13--"To answer before listening—that is folly and shame."
As the material after the article shows, this is an excerpt from a book by New Testament scholar Brant Pitre titled "Jesus and Divine Christology." As the short description of the book in the same location states: "Jesus and Divine Christology sheds light on long-neglected yet key evidence that the historical Jesus saw himself as divine." Thus, this a book-length defense of the divinity of Jesus. Anyone with any familiarity with The Worldview Bulletin should be well aware that we proclaim, defend, and promote the divinity of Jesus. If there's any confusion about that, one need only read the description of the book I just quoted.
The title of the article, "Jesus did not declare himself to be God" is in quotation marks because it's a quote from Bart Ehrman that appears in the article. We need to be more sophisticated readers than to merely look at the title of an article, and assume we've grasped anything significant about it.
A significant amount of space in this piece was devoted to describing what mainstream historical Jesus scholars believe about Jesus' claims to divinity. As with any topic that an apologist seeks to substantively address, we've got to understand what the other side is saying before we can respond to it. If we have no idea what skeptical thinkers say about, for example, the resurrection, our efforts to defend the resurrection will be mostly in vain--because we're not addressing the relevant topics and discussions that secular people are often finding persuasive. Thus, we need to know what's being said about the historical Jesus and his claims to divinity.
At the end of the essay, the author makes a strong case for an early, high Christology, once again undercutting the mistaken belief that the author is trying to undermine Jesus' divinity.
We'll continue to defend the divinity of Jesus, as we always have, but it's imperative that we understand what skeptics are saying so that we can adequately respond to it.
I read the article twice before commenting and couldn’t discern the point the author is making and still do not. Is he supporting Ehrman’s position, refuting it, or offering something in the middle? I understand the meaning of “High Christology”. In the article there was no support for why the term was introduced and again we are left questioning what the author’s position is. A proper introduction and conclusion would have been helpful. BTW, if you are correct about the author’s position, I’m all in. We need frequent new material discussing Ehrman’s positions.
Hi Mark, in this part of the excerpt from the book, the author is describing the current scholarly discussion on the historical Jesus as well as early high Christology. He's describing what notable scholars in these areas are saying. He does this to provide the necessary background to then proceed to make his arguments in the rest of the book, which is about 350 pages long.
I aimed to provide enough context in this excerpt to understand the main point the author makes in the featured section--that there's a disconnect between the conclusions of historical Jesus scholars (who deny Jesus claimed divinity) and another set of scholars who argue for an early high Christology. That's a fascinating and noteworthy observation. Naturally, in any given excerpt from a non-fiction book, you won't find the author's full arguments presented.
The entire purpose of the book, though, is to present a scriptural and historical case that Jesus understood himself to be God, and gave indications of that in various ways.
Jesus certainly believed He was divine based on Son of God and Son of Man claims. Poeple around Him understood those claims based on how they reacted. The author might need to repent of false teaching.
I assume this article was 1] a ploy to get more hits at your site by stating something absurb you think is controversial, 2] written by some soulless AI app, or 3] third, like Jefferson, your Bible has this verse redacted...
“Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”
Will there be a part two? The title says Jesus did claim to be God. You did a great job explaining why many scholars conclude (incorrectly IMO) that Jesus doesn’t make claims of divinity in the synoptic Gospels. But the article never lays out that evidence. Right at the point in the article I expected to see it, the article ended and the endnotes began. But up to that point it was very well done.
If Jesus was not divine, then he was another poor sap murdered by powerful elites. He is not worthy of our consideration. Interestingly enough, there are other historians who come to a different conclusion, taking the recorded words of Jesus and actually putting them in context, and it becomes clear. Though Jesus never mouthed the words, “I am divine.” he certainly claimed being one with the Father. There were even events where his claim to deity pressed the crowd to pick up rocks to stone him for what they perceived was basphemy.
I’d disagree with the premise that 3 out of 4 Gospels are good odds to support a non-deity Jesus. It is a fallacy that John supports a high Christology, as it relies on inferences and a clumsy reading of the text. No, it’s 4 from 4.
Didn't Jesus accept worship? Didn't he say, "Before Moses was, I am"? Didn't he say, "I and the Father are one"? I think you're missing a lot here. Perhaps he didn't go around saying he was divine because he would've been lynched very quickly into his ministry.
Others said ‘ego eimi’ (I am) are they God too? One what? These are typical proof-texts used to support a Jesus is God construct but make bucket loads of contradictions with the rest of the text which says Jesus cannot be God.
If one looks at actions, meaning becomes clear.
Forgiving sins is what only God can do. Superseding the Mosaic law (the language of "But I say to you....." rather than re-interpreting) is something only God can do.
The most significant action of all is the Resurrection. This was transformative in all respects, validating and advancing what the actions cited above indicate. As radical and innovative as the Christian belief in the Resurrection was (see N T Wright, Surprised by Hope), is affirmed what came before in the ministry of Jesus. So we see John's Gospel presenting Jesus himself as the new Temple, where heaven and earth meet in one place/person/event.
Positing a discontinuity rather than a development between the "historical Jesus" and the Jesus of the "high Christology" of the earliest believers is a judgment that involves certain assumptions about reading the Gospels. If the reports of forgiving sins and superseding the law actually are authentic, as they plausibly are, then Jesus believed that he actually did have the divine authority to do what he was doing. His Resurrection appearances persuaded his followers that he was right.
“Forgiving sins is what only God can do”. This is untrue/unbiblical. Jesus did everything by God working in him. He was given authority to forgive sins and his miracles were God’ doing.
To be more clear, "Forgiving sins is what only God can do." Jesus forgave sins. Thus he was acting on his belief that "the Father and I are one." (I believe that this belief is accurate.)
Belief in the divinity of Jesus is rooted in the earliest strata of the Gospels. That's my point.
This belief in the divinity of Jesus later was developed formally into the doctrine of the Trinity, which affirms Jesus as God the Son. Rather than being alien to earliest Christian thinking, it was rooted in this thinking.
Did you hear about this recent archeological find?
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/topics/amazing-discoveries-in-biblical-archaeology/5181-three-extraordinary-early-christian-inscriptions
Very interesting, especially the Akeptous Inscription!
I appreciate the comments. It seems, though, that I need to correct some misunderstandings about this article. In the age of the internet, there's a tendency to read the title of an article, and maybe a couple of paragraphs, and then assume we understand what's being said, without reading the whole thing. That pretty much always leads to a failure to grasp the actual content of the piece. In this case, we need to remember Proverbs 18:13--"To answer before listening—that is folly and shame."
As the material after the article shows, this is an excerpt from a book by New Testament scholar Brant Pitre titled "Jesus and Divine Christology." As the short description of the book in the same location states: "Jesus and Divine Christology sheds light on long-neglected yet key evidence that the historical Jesus saw himself as divine." Thus, this a book-length defense of the divinity of Jesus. Anyone with any familiarity with The Worldview Bulletin should be well aware that we proclaim, defend, and promote the divinity of Jesus. If there's any confusion about that, one need only read the description of the book I just quoted.
The title of the article, "Jesus did not declare himself to be God" is in quotation marks because it's a quote from Bart Ehrman that appears in the article. We need to be more sophisticated readers than to merely look at the title of an article, and assume we've grasped anything significant about it.
A significant amount of space in this piece was devoted to describing what mainstream historical Jesus scholars believe about Jesus' claims to divinity. As with any topic that an apologist seeks to substantively address, we've got to understand what the other side is saying before we can respond to it. If we have no idea what skeptical thinkers say about, for example, the resurrection, our efforts to defend the resurrection will be mostly in vain--because we're not addressing the relevant topics and discussions that secular people are often finding persuasive. Thus, we need to know what's being said about the historical Jesus and his claims to divinity.
At the end of the essay, the author makes a strong case for an early, high Christology, once again undercutting the mistaken belief that the author is trying to undermine Jesus' divinity.
We'll continue to defend the divinity of Jesus, as we always have, but it's imperative that we understand what skeptics are saying so that we can adequately respond to it.
I read the article twice before commenting and couldn’t discern the point the author is making and still do not. Is he supporting Ehrman’s position, refuting it, or offering something in the middle? I understand the meaning of “High Christology”. In the article there was no support for why the term was introduced and again we are left questioning what the author’s position is. A proper introduction and conclusion would have been helpful. BTW, if you are correct about the author’s position, I’m all in. We need frequent new material discussing Ehrman’s positions.
Hi Mark, in this part of the excerpt from the book, the author is describing the current scholarly discussion on the historical Jesus as well as early high Christology. He's describing what notable scholars in these areas are saying. He does this to provide the necessary background to then proceed to make his arguments in the rest of the book, which is about 350 pages long.
I aimed to provide enough context in this excerpt to understand the main point the author makes in the featured section--that there's a disconnect between the conclusions of historical Jesus scholars (who deny Jesus claimed divinity) and another set of scholars who argue for an early high Christology. That's a fascinating and noteworthy observation. Naturally, in any given excerpt from a non-fiction book, you won't find the author's full arguments presented.
The entire purpose of the book, though, is to present a scriptural and historical case that Jesus understood himself to be God, and gave indications of that in various ways.
Uhmmm… Yes he did… several times into Jewish ears. Perhaps you need a course on biblical context.
Jesus certainly believed He was divine based on Son of God and Son of Man claims. Poeple around Him understood those claims based on how they reacted. The author might need to repent of false teaching.
I assume this article was 1] a ploy to get more hits at your site by stating something absurb you think is controversial, 2] written by some soulless AI app, or 3] third, like Jefferson, your Bible has this verse redacted...
“Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”
John 14:9 ESV
Will there be a part two? The title says Jesus did claim to be God. You did a great job explaining why many scholars conclude (incorrectly IMO) that Jesus doesn’t make claims of divinity in the synoptic Gospels. But the article never lays out that evidence. Right at the point in the article I expected to see it, the article ended and the endnotes began. But up to that point it was very well done.
If you scroll past the footnotes, it says it's an excerpt from a book.