Loading...Soon after Jesus’ death, his disciples claimed that he was God.
What did they mean by that? Did they think he was God *before* he died, during his public ministry? Did they think he had always been God? Did they think he Was he the One and Only God, Yahweh?
More important still: Did Jesus himself think he was God? To find an answer, we have to explore two issues: does Jesus actually ever call himself God in the Gospels, or give any other indication that he thought he was God? If so, given the problems with the Gospels — can we know if they are accurate on this point? Can we show what the historical figure of Jesus actually said about himself?
These are terrifically important questions. Traditional Christianity, as it has come down over all the centuries, has always claimed Jesus himself is a divine being. Did that teaching start with Jesus himself?
Announcing a Webinar on the Topic!
I will be doing a webinar on the topic on Sunday, November 7. I NEED TO EMPHASIZE: This webinar is not connected to the blog, and will not be raising funds for its charities. It is my own thing. I am announcing it here only because you as a blog member may want to come and some of you would be a bit cheesed off if I held an event you might be interested in without letting you know.
So now you do! I’ve titled the webinar “Did Jesus Call Himself God? A Closer Look at the Evidence.”
The webinar will be about 90 minutes long including Q&A. As a bonus for signing up, you’ll also get lifetime access to a recording of the video.
Below, I’ll post a video and links where you can learn more. To register, click the link at the bottom. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask them here on the blog.’
>>Click here to learn more or to register.
I hope to see you there!
To understand the question, one must first understand in what sense the author perceived God. This premise is just more and more of a challenge and becomes deeper and bigger when one experiences and / or thinks of God.
Is this question based on the assumption that God is an indefinable essence from which all many forms and lives exist ?, even death that captures everything, and at the same time is the source of everything that will be born? Yes, these ideas are also Christian ideas, perhaps more within a mysterious tradition, but still many great theologians have embraced such ideas as, for example, Bishop John Shelby Spong, and many other contemporaris ,,, and Meister Eckhart and many other historical characters such as, as the Bible itself points to the goal/(“destiny” in my mind) of being in oneness with God.
If so, maybe.
Or did the text refer to an incarnation of an external being, which is outside ourselves and on the fringes of what we are able to see.
If so, I do not think so.
If Jesus himself said it exactly as written in these Greek manuscripts from decades later, it probably difficult to argue in particular in the Gospel of John which I don’t think is literal but mystical/symbolic.
Thankyou – this looks like an excellent event!
Tell me if I am the only one who thinks like this but given your large international following it would be helpful to cite that the NC time zone then (EST) will be UTC -5hr. I don’t know anyone who keeps track in their head what are all the various time zones around the world and what time difference it is to their current location. BUT it’s easy to know (& one should know?) ones own location. Add in the hassle of adjusting for Summer Time switching on or off at staggered weekends all around the world. This webinar will be on USA’s first day back on Standard Time. Many people have personal and professional interests across the globe to keep track of! I know in Melbourne we are UTC +10hr Standard and UTC +11hr Daylight Saving (now – & throughout Nov) so it’s 5+11=16hr ahead of NC for me to tune in to this webinar. And so 7am 8th Nov turns out to be very doable!
Thanks!
This raises many questions. Did Jesus claim he was the G-God? Did he claim he was divine? What did the disciples think while he was with them?
Yup, that’s what I’ll be discussing.
Thank you as always very informative and interesting. I’m keen to understand more about who Jesus says he is, what made people call him God and how this transformation created Christianity.
Thankyou for an excellent webinar. Very informative & well reasoned, as usual. Yes, the rampant Chat (chattering?) on screen by some was a frustration to others & not good conduct from within an audience that ought to have focussed on listening to a presenter. BUT it made a very interesting example of various behaviours, especially when the “bear was poked” re certain sensibilities! Interesting how many people are happy to talk AT a group (even one gathered to hear someone else) and not seem to care about courtesies of discussion. Such is the risk of response Prof. Ehrman takes every time he puts his head above the parapet!
Thanks for the webinar. While informative I was struck by how little Bart addressed the core points Brant Pitre makes in “The Case for Jesus” that show the synoptic Gospels clearly presented a divine Christ, especially when seen through the eyes of a 1st Century Jew. There seems to be a strong case that Jesus, his disciples and other 1st century Jews like Josephus had overwhelming messianic expectations based on Daniel 2, 7 and 9 even if they were wrong about Daniel’s history, dating and meaning. Daniel’s “one like a son of man” is the ONLY time in the OT when “son of man” doesn’t just mean “man.” Jesus was clearly referencing himself as “the son of man” in the synoptics. 27 synoptic “son of man” references could be deemed “ambiguous” but only if you completely argue the 39 unambiguous references were planted on Jesus’s lips. Jesus’s focus on Daniel also explains why Matthew used “kingdom of heaven” while Mark/Luke used “kingdom of God” because Jesus probably used both because of Daniel 2:44 “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom” (that is eternal). Jesus thought he was the “cut-down” Messiah/Divine Son of Man combo.
Thanks. As you know, I was not discussing whether Mark portrays Jesus as God, but only if Jesus calls himself God. The only times he refers to the Son of Man in Mark as a divine being, the cosmic judge of the earth, the most striking thing is that in THOSE sayings he precisely does NOT indicate heis talking about himself. (Mark 8:38; 14:61 e.g. Unless you already think that Jesus must mean “ME” when he says SON OF MAN, then you would never suspect these verses are self-referential)
I also note that Bart says Jesus talks like he’s been around for ages with John 8:58 – “Before Abraham Was, I Am” but ignores Luke 10:18, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” There are other subtle divine synoptics references that 1st Century Jews would have understood. The actual Greek (ego eimi) in Matthew 14:27 is the same “I AM” divine assertion and is meant to echo God passing by Moses. Overall Bart does a great job at skewering the straw man of a Bible Literalist, fundamentalist but not a more nuanced approach that expects there to be errors, exaggerations and even made up stories in a Bible written by flawed humans inspired by God–along with downright miracles and clearly divine inspiration. Pitre is not a wackjob and his “Case for Jesus” arguments deserve a response. Jesus NEVER went around Palestine screaming “I am God!” and for a long time was hiding his messiah and divine nature to avoid getting killed until he was ready. He spoke in parables and wanted people to look at the evidence and come to their own conclusion that he WAS God–just like the synoptics do.
You need to read that verse in context. He is referring to what was happening while the disciples were out on their mission casting out demons, not to something that happened in his pre-existence. The only reason I didn’t take on Pitre is that I didn’t take on any of the hundreds of peole who have written about all these things.
Thanks Bart. You are right. Luke 10:18 does likely refer to the work of the 72. I still think you are wrong in your basic premise that if Jesus didn’t run around preaching “I am God!” everywhere or if all the disciples didn’t get it right away then Jesus must not have thought he was God. The essence of the Bible is stupid, sinful man’s slow grasping of the truth of God’s love. Even WE don’t get it all today. Jesus spoke in parables open to interpretation. Followers were slow to grasp the truth, even after the resurrection. Even Peter thought at first the Gospel was only for Jews. In the end, the synoptic authors thought it best to tell the story the way Jesus did. Let each person answer Christ personally “Who do YOU say I am?” They counted on Jews to see the clear divinity messages in the synoptics. In the end, Jesus thought people would better believe he was God by showing rather than saying. Just like you’d rather me contribute $$ to your great nonprofit work rather than say “I love your work.” 🙂
I”m not saying that “Jesus must not have thought he was God.” I’m saying that he gives no indication that he thought that, and that it’s highly unlikely he ever said so to anyone, and that if anyone thinks he did think so it wold require pretty good evidence. My view is that it’s highly improbable, but not impossible. A divine message does not require a divine messenger. (Consider the OT prophets, e.g.)
A lot of confusion is around. In John 14,7 Jesus does not say „When you have seen me, you have seen God“. He says „you have seen the Father“. How is that different ? The Father has begotten a man. When you see this man, you see the Father as a Son, as a man, but not as God because God cannot be seen. A lot of confusion is removed when we allow this viewpoint, that God can actually „bring forth real flesh“. Like he can eject out of himself a material Utterance. Remember Jesus is the „Amen“ the firstBORN of all creation. No creation was ever born from God. This was a unique thing. The Word that God spoke when the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary was „Amen“. The Quran says in Surah 4:171 that Jesus is „God‘s Word to Mary AND of His Spirit“. The Son of God is an utterance of God that has morphed into an embryo. The bible names this to be the very reason why he is called Son of God, because God‘s Word is the source of all that God is. Follow the trail of a Word backwards. Where is it from ?
It’s not quite clear to me if you are asking these questions about what an author such as John *says* or about what is theologically “true.” Those are not the same thing. John didn’t subscribe to a lot of the views you are stating, but he is the one who wrote John 14:7.
I think you are wrong. In your webinar, you essentially said John was a Trinitarian. And as so often, your views seem very shallow and slack in analysis, influenced by your past in evangelical circles. John, as Paul, clearly taught a heavenly Son of God. It seems to be a waste of time to sharpen your senses, maybe you are getting too old.
No, I definitely do not think John held to the doctrine of the Trinity. And of course John taught a heavenly Son of God. I’m not sure which of my words you are referring to.
Binitarianism leads into Trinitarianism, so if you say John taught Binitarianism then we are half way there.
Dr M.Heiser sent me 2 papers way back, one from Boyarin. I find it crazy how people drift so far into fantasy land and sound so very intellectual. The Boyarin paper is an example of such a confused professor. I mean he honestly implies Jesus was Sophia, footnote says that is no big deal. So now we have God, the Daughter come in flesh. Mystery, of course. Insanity rather. The NT teaches a “docetic” (hate that term) Son of God.
Carefully follow:
John 8,23 Jesus says he has no part out of this kosmos
John 8,40 he says he is a Man
John 8,42 says he “exechomai ek” God.
This is very clear. He is God’s Raising up, he came out of God, God really “vomitted out” (forgive me Jesus) a Man who would grow in Mary’s womb as our savior to die for us.
This is the true Christology. I think you can still be saved because you did not know these things so may God guide you.
I believe Bart is at his most influential when he pulls together several pieces of evidence into a single coherent logical theory.
This webinar is the 3rd time he has done that for me. ( There should be more but I’m a slow learner).
First was the Messianic secret – not even Bart’s idea – but it explained why Mark says Jesus went around telling people not to mention he was the Messiah. He didn’t. Mark put that in there to try and explain why people in Jesus day didn’t recognise Jesus as the Messiah.
Then there’s the visit to John The Baptist. Of course it’s embarrassing to Christianity that somehow Jesus needed authorisation from someone else. So the gospels adjust the story so that the event isn’t John approving Jesus. They fill it with words from ‘above’ announcing that Jesus is His son. The event had to be turned around somehow to make it clear that John was not superior in any way.
And now the ‘did Jesus think he was God’ question. So beautifully solved when you look at the debates that followed Jesus around in the Synotpics. No one was stoning him for calling himself God.
They were criticising him for other issues – like the way he interpreted the law of Moses or the fact he healed on the sabbath. No one was stoning him (regardless of what John says) because Jesus wasnt saying that, and as Bart says it’s unbelievable that the gospel authors would not clearly state Jesus calling himself God if in fact he did say that.
Anyway, webinar is worth the money if you want to sit back and absorb the entire issue and get it clear in your head. Bit slow at the start if you know about the gospel sources but stay with it.
Unfortunately, I missed the webinar last weekend on “Did Jesus Call Himself God” but hope that there is still time to comment. Your introduction states “Soon after Jesus’ death, his disciples claimed that he was God”
Did they?
Paul believed the resurrected Jesus was the Son of God. The disciples believed the resurrected Jesus was Israel’s Messiah but did they also believe that he was divine?
Jesus supposedly resurrected several ordinary people and even Peter did it (Acts 9:36-43) but these people were not considered to be divine so why would the disciples come to this conclusion about Jesus just because he had been resurrected?
Without direct evidence of the disciple’s beliefs, we can only make inferences from reports by Paul and the Gospel writers. Paul needed to claim that the disciples agreed with him to reassure his supporters that he was following Jewish traditions and the Gospels were written more than 40 years after the events described, long after Christ’s divinity became an established belief, so these reports should be considered to be biased.
On the face of it, it would be extraordinary for someone to believe that their very own brother was actually the Son of God, so is this what really happened?
I have a book that deals with the issue at some length, How Jesus Became God. And the video is still availalbe if you want to purchase it.
With the conclusion that Jesus did not claim to be God, where does that put the Filioque Disputation? Would it not put Arius’ argument on firmer logical grounds? And the Nicene Creed…?
Not necessarily. Even if he didn’t claim to be God, he could have been God.
I have your book “How Jesus became God” and note that your arguments about the disciple’s beliefs are based on what Paul and the Gospel writers said about them. Why suppose that the pre-Pauline creeds that you quote originated from the disciples rather than from Paul’s own followers? As you note (page 213), even the earliest epistle dates from about 15 years after Paul’s conversion.
There is not space to discuss this matter here, so I would appreciate if I may make direct contact.
I’m not assuming they go back to the disciples of Jesus. I’m simply pointing out that they are the earilest surviving statements of faith that we have. To think that some *other* form of faith was actually earlier than the earliest attested would require some kind of argument or evidence, I should think.
I enjoyed your webinar, “Did Jesus Call Himself God,” and would like to watch it again but I can’t figure out how to get access to it. Please help.
There were instructions when you registered, I believe. If you’re stuck, zap me a personal email.
Did the disciples share Paul’s belief in Jesus’s resurrection and that he was the Son of God or just believe that the resurrected Jesus was Israel’s Messiah?
1. It is unnatural for anyone to believe that their own brother is divine.
2. Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem was met with suspicion instead of welcome as a fellow believer.
3. Paul’s second visit aimed at confirming his teaching with the disciples but he never says that they shared his belief that Jesus was the Son of God.
4. On his third visit, Paul was arrested by the Romans but no disciples supported him. Paul complains that only four Jewish Christians work with him.
5. Paul repeatedly claims receiving a secret from Jesus, not from any human, so not from the disciples.
Was this secret that Jesus was divine?
It is impossible to provide a full argument and evidence within 200 words and impossible to prove what was not believed. The burden of proof lies with the proponent of a claim. In this case, what evidence exists that the disciples believed that Jesus was the Son of God?
They believed the Messiah *was* the Son of God, and vice versa. The earliest disciples certainly thought he ws the mesisah who died for sins, and he was the Son of God because he had a particularly close relationship with God and mediated his will. After the resurrection they believed God had made him a divine being. So on these points they were all agreed. The ISSUE with Paul was not about Christ’s identity but about whether a person had to be a Jew in order to receive the salvation he brought.
Your statements are certainly fundamental to Christianity but there are reasons to conclude that they are false. Supporting evidence is problematic since, as far as I am aware, it all comes from the Gospels or Paul. Paul had an incentive to claim that the disciples agreed with him in order to reassure his followers that he was following Jewish traditions and the Gospels were written long after Jesus’ divinity became established belief. If the issue with Paul was just about whether a person had to be a Jew in order to receive salvation, then why was there so little cooperation between the disciples and Paul? After all, many or even most of Paul’s converts were Jews from the diaspora. So what evidence exists that the disciples shared Paul’s belief that Jesus was not only resurrected but was also the Son of God?
I don’t think there’s much evidence to suggest most of Paul’s converts were Jewish; I’d say the opposite. But as to wehther the followers of Jesus considered him the Son of God before Paul — it’s what all the evidence says, so far as I know. If they didn’t, why do you suppose (serious question) he was persecuting them?
The evidence that most of Paul’s converts were Jewish is that, in his epistles, Paul refers to Old Testament characters who would have been unknown to non-Jews. Also, according to Acts, Paul went to synagogues in places he visited, which is exactly what would be expected since he was also Jewish. The gentile converts were non-Jews who were associated with the synagogues.
Paul persecuted the disciples and their followers in Jerusalem for the claim that a resurrected Jesus meant that the expected apocalypse was now imminent, when all existing authorities would be swept away. The disciples were not making a ridiculous claim that the crucified Jesus was the Son of God.
Paul speaks to his converts in both 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians to remind them how he turned them away from worshiping idols. These were gentiles. Once a gentile converted, they were taught about the OT, so Xn authors could quote the OT. Paul never says anything about persecutng Xns in Jerusalem. That’s only in Acts, as is the references to synagogues in Paul’s ministry. So the issue yoou’ll need to address is whether you think Acts is historically reliable, especially in relation to its discrepacies wth Paul.