• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scholar: Jesus Thought He was the Messiah, but Not God

Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
If Jesus was an actual person, the only way he would have actually thought he was god is if he was insane and/or delusional. Psychologically healthy people don't think that they're god. Of course, neither Jesus' existence, nor his sanity, are able to be verified, so it's certainly possible that he had megalomaniacal delusions. However, I suspect very few people are mentally ill enough to sincerely believe that they are god.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
Does the Pope think he's Catholic? I don't know what Jesus thought of himself if indeed the Son of God really walked the earth.
 
technomage

technomage

Finding my own way
Sunstone said:
How did Jesus think of himself? According to Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, the evidence suggests that he saw himself as the messiah, but not as God.

Source.

Please discuss.
Click to expand...

We really don't have enough hard historical data to answer the question. Logically, probably not--had he considered himself God or referred to himself as such, he'd have been imprisoned or executed a lot earlier.

Paul in his authentic letters treated Jesus as a separate and lesser entity from God, and the author of GoMark seemed to treat him as a prophet upon whom the spirit of God rested, but not as God himself.

In other words--best guess, no.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Kilgore Trout said:
If Jesus was an actual person, the only way he would have actually thought he was god is if he was insane and/or delusional. Psychologically healthy people don't think that they're god. Of course, neither Jesus' existence, nor his sanity, are able to be verified, so it's certainly possible that he had megalomaniacal delusions. However, I suspect very few people are mentally ill enough to sincerely believe that they are god.
Click to expand...

After reading Ehrman's piece, and thus after becoming an instant and indisputable expert on the subject, I'm inclined to guess that Jesus might not have thought of himself as God.
 
Tumah

Tumah

Veteran Member
Sunstone said:
What then, are the weaknesses in the evidence and reasoning that Ehrman presents?
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious? The weakness is that he hasn't accepted Jesus as his lord and savior.

Edit:
Disclaimer: I am not a Christian nor do I believe Jesus was anything more than a Jewish sinner.
 
Last edited:
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Tumah said:
Isn't it obvious? The weakness is that he hasn't accepted Jesus as his lord and savior.
Click to expand...


Funnily enough, he did. Ehrman was raised a fundamentalist leaning Christian who accepted Jesus as his lord and savior, but then he made the terrible mistake of actually studying religion. Consequently, he eventually became an agnostic.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
Sunstone said:
What then, are the weaknesses in the evidence and reasoning that Ehrman presents?
Click to expand...
Invented criteria is Ehrman's go to weapon. Criteria that is only used on the historical Jesus question was invented for providing the desired results for those that already have made their minds up that Jesus was historical. After having read Erhman's Did Jesus Exist I am skeptical of Ehrman's claims. The Jesus character is convoluted to say the least, different scholars reading the same texts come to different conclusions as to who this Jesus really was. As a result it's not a huge leap to suggest that perhaps Jesus is a mythical character but such suggestions cause many to cry that the sky is falling.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
Sunstone said:
Funnily enough, he did. Ehrman was raised a fundamentalist leaning Christian who accepted Jesus as his lord and savior, but then he made the terrible mistake of actually studying religion. Consequently, he eventually became an agnostic.
Click to expand...
He's not agnostic about the historical Jesus, in fact he is adamant in his knowledge that Jesus is historical.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
steeltoes said:
Invented criteria is Ehrman's go to weapon. Criteria that is only used on the historical Jesus question was invented for providing the desired results for those that already have made their minds up that Jesus was historical. After having read Erhman's Did Jesus Exist I am skeptical of Ehrman's claims. The Jesus character is convoluted to say the least, different scholars reading the same texts come to different conclusions as to who this Jesus really was. As a result it's not a huge leap to suggest that perhaps Jesus is a mythical character but such suggestions cause many to cry that the sky is falling.
Click to expand...

Do you have an specifics? Generalizations are a dime a dozen.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Sunstone said:
How did Jesus think of himself? According to Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, the evidence suggests that he saw himself as the messiah, but not as God.

Source.

Please discuss.
Click to expand...


In no way did he think of himself as a god. He probably was a devoted Jew, and they didn't play games with "son of god" that is a known Hellenistic addition.

It took over 300 years to even define jesus divinity in relationship to god, this was never orthodoxy early on.

In 150 Marcion even viewed jesus all spirit in the form of man.



I think Ehrman goes way out on a ledge claiming he thought he was a messiah. I do not. I think he went into the temple with a thought of trying to overthrow it and failed when no one followed him into war. Its my view he tried to rally the attendants at Passover to overthrow the corruption, and failed.

Much the way later Zealots revolted and they ended up dead and with a leveled temple.
 
technomage

technomage

Finding my own way
Sunstone said:
What then, are the weaknesses in the evidence and reasoning that Ehrman presents?
Click to expand...
He's actually a bit more credulous in his acceptance of the reliability of the text than I am--but not much. I don't give much credence to the concept of Judas Iscariot as a historical person. Ehrman's arguments work well with Judas as a literary character, but that gives more insight on what the early Christians thought than what Jesus himself thought.

But even if Judas is not a historical person, Ehrman's arguments are not fatally damaged. While the extent of Jesus' actual words in the Gospels is disputed, I can accept that we have some authentic words, and I agree with the mainstream position that what we have of Jesus' speech often used paradoxes and parables.

Where the argument is a bit weak is that one of the criteria of "authentic" words of Jesus is a lack of self reference. For example, Matt 16:13b: (paraphrased "What do men say of me as the Son of Man?")--this is widely accepted as a later theological addition, rather than an authentic statement. From what we see of authentic text, Jesus didn't put himself forward as the leader of the "Kingdom of Heaven"--he was simply a prophet _for_ the Kingdom of Heaven.

Part of that, I feel, comes from the history of prophets in Jewish literature. In Judaic culture, prophets were not kings--they had separate roles. This division of prophet from king is a fatal flaw within Ehrman's arguments.

I'm not expressing this as clearly as I could--I'm not having the best of days today, so I'm not as coherent as I would like. Ehrman's argument is, to my mind, somewhat weak, in part because it seems he's relying on post-crucifixion views of Jesus, rather than on what Jesus actually said.
 
G

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
Kilgore Trout said:
If Jesus was an actual person, the only way he would have actually thought he was god is if he was insane and/or delusional. Psychologically healthy people don't think that they're god.
Click to expand...
Presumably God does!

Of course, neither Jesus' existence, nor his sanity, are able to be verified
Click to expand...
How is some-ones existence to be verified? If there is documentation which appears to be contemporary — no obvious anachronisms, for example. The evidence of the Acts and the Pauline letters seems plausible. There's only one semi-contemporary source for Confucius and none for Pythagoras or Thales. So why don't we get people constantly denying their existence? Presumably because denying the historicity of Jesus is more fun: it makes you feel adventurous, clever, or superior. It doesn't make you look that way, though.
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
DavidMcCann said:
So why don't we get people constantly denying their existence? Presumably because denying the historicity of Jesus is more fun: it makes you feel adventurous, clever, or superior. It doesn't make you look that way, though.
Click to expand...

Christ, people - reading comprehension. I didn't deny the existence of Jesus, and never have. I simply stated that his existence isn't verifiable, which is a completely rational and factual statement. I personally don't care if someone named Jesus actually existed or not, or how much that person may or may not have had in common with the mythological figure created in the bible. However, if there was a guy named Jesus who thought he was a god, then he was delusional and/or psychotic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top