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

[technomage]

Not to mention Superman/Clark Kent.

Historical criticism was not even developed to tackle the NT--it was first developed to analyze the OT. It was then applied to the NT, and to classical books from Greece and and Rome, then to texts like the Qur'an, Buddhist, Confucian, and Hindu texts.

Come back when you have an actual objection at least _slightly_ stronger than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La, la, la, I can't hear you."

 

[jtartar]

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.

Sunstone,
If Jesus thought that he was God, I doubt that he would have spent so much time praying to God, Matt 26:39, Luke 22:41-44, Heb 5:7,8.
Why would Jesus praise his Father and his God, Matt 11:25-27, John 20:17.
Why would Jesus say that he did not know some things that his Father did, if he were his own Father, Matt 24:36, 20:23.
Why would Jesus pray all night to himself, Luke 6:12
Why would Jesus say that the Father is greater than I am, if he were his Father.
Why would Jesus say that the Father is his God, several times, John 20:17, Rev 3:12.
Why would Jesus say that he lives because of the Father, John 6:57, Pro 23:22.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Jesus always referred to himself as God's Son, never as God. (John 3:18, 10:36, 17:3)

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe the autho of the article isn't saying anything that hasn't been said in some way on this site. I believe it is largely the preambulations of an imaginative mind and that there is a decided lack of evidence to support his claims and plenty of evidence to refute his claims

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe if He thought He is God and actually is God then he is not delusional.

I believe it is verifiable through the Paraclete and I do verify both His existence and His sanity.

 

[Muffled]

What then, are the weaknesses in the evidence and reasoning that Ehrman presents?

1. I believe the idea that John is the only one who spoke of the divinty of Jesus is incorrect. Matthew calls Him Immanuel (God with us) and Isaiah calls Him Mighty God and everlasting Father.

2. I believe the concept that God can't pray to Himself has no evidentiary basis.

3. I believe stating that He is equal with God can only mean that He is God.

 

[Sunstone]

...there is a decided lack of evidence to support his claims and plenty of evidence to refute his claims

If you read the article, then how do you deal with the evidence presented in it that Jesus thought of himself as the messiah, but not as God?

 

[Muffled]

If you read the article, then how do you deal with the evidence presented in it that Jesus thought of himself as the messiah, but not as God?

What evidence? As far as I can tell the author just statess it without trying to prove it.

I skimmed over the Messiah section because it wasn't relevant to this thread and read much of what he said about Jesus as God.

 

[Sunstone]

What evidence?

You're avoiding answering the question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

An Interesting Article by Ehrman.

Please discuss.

So we get such gems as …

According to our accounts, the trial of Jesus before Pilate was short and to the point. Pilate asked him whether it was true that he was the king of the Jews. Almost certainly, this was the actual charge leveled against Jesus. It is multiply attested in numerous independent witnesses, both at the trial itself and as the charge written on the placard that hung with him on his cross (e.g., Mark 15:2, 26). Moreover, it is not a charge that Christians would have invented for Jesus—for a possibly unexpected reason. Even though Christians came to understand Jesus to be the messiah, they never ever, from what we can tell, applied to him the title “king of the Jews.” If Christians were to invent a charge to put on Pilate’s lips, it would be, “Are you the messiah?” But that’s not how it works in the Gospels. The charge is specifically that he called himself “king of the Jews.”

Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he were in fact calling himself this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he meant no trouble and that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews, and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.

The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the king of the Jews was precisely that he did call himself the king of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense: when the kingdom arrived, he would be made the king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state.

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, flogged him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and the two others to a public place of execution and fixed them all to crosses. According to our earliest account, Jesus was dead in six hours.

Seriously?

 

[Reverend Rick]

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.

That is the eventual path for most folks who study and comprehend.

 

[outhouse]

So we get such gems as …Seriously?

Most scholars claim the trial is fiction dont they?


I do.


I understand "INRI" is considered historical due to multiple attestation, but to link that to a trial by Pilate is unsubstantiated IMHO.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus always referred to himself as God's Son, never as God. (John 3:18, 10:36, 17:3)

How can "you" be assured it ment a literal son of a god, and not one of gods children because he was possibly a devoted Jew?


John also deals with a more spiritual side using rhetoric to build divinity as a literal "son" of god, so you have that going for you.

 

[Nakosis]

Where the article states the easiest explanation is Jesus told them he was the Messiah, I think this is wrong. The easiest explanation is that people at the time were looking for a Messiah. They wanted Jesus to be that Messiah. From this if what is being stated is otherwise true then there is no reason to think Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah.

 

[technomage]

Where the article states the easiest explanation is Jesus told them he was the Messiah, I think this is wrong. The easiest explanation is that people at the time were looking for a Messiah. They wanted Jesus to be that Messiah. From this if what is being stated is otherwise true then there is no reason to think Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah.

The problem is, Jesus _might_ have considered himself to be the Messiah. He might not have. While we do have (probably) some authentic statements of Jesus, we simply do not know enough to say if the messianic claims are Jesus' actual statements, or later theological additions.

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is, Jesus _might_ have considered himself to be the Messiah. He might not have. While we do have (probably) some authentic statements of Jesus, we simply do not know enough to say if the messianic claims are Jesus' actual statements, or later theological additions.

I think that is accurate, so that leaves us with our vested interests.

I have a concept of Jesus. No way to validate it. I suppose if I could work on my debating/people skills, find enough charisma in my words, convince others to accept "my" concept of Jesus. Might or might not have anything to do with the truth of things. However if I can convince others of my belief, that's a valuable skill.

I have found the forums a good place to practice the art of persuasion. Not necessarily a place where truth will be determined.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have found the forums a good place to practice the art of persuasion. Not necessarily a place where truth will be determined.

Truth lies in debate, I think. Not in encyclopedias.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

................... this article to promote his new book, just published 'How Jesus became God'.

I notice that in the article he wrote:-

there is no doubt that Judas did betray Jesus (the betrayal passes all our criteria),.............

......... no doubt.......?? What crystal ball is this book seller using?

 

[technomage]

I have found the forums a good place to practice the art of persuasion. Not necessarily a place where truth will be determined.

You deserve a frubal for this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

While we do have (probably) some authentic statements of Jesus, we simply do not know enough to say if the messianic claims are Jesus' actual statements, or later theological additions.

I'd be curious to know the basis for …

While we do have (probably) some authentic statements …​

versus, e.g., …

While we may have (possibly) some authentic statements …​

Even if you buy into "Q," all that gives you is an earlier tradition rather than a body of 'authentic statements.'