As chance would have it, I was asked virtually the same question within about fifteen minutes of one another, a couple of days ago. Here is the question, in both its iterations:
QUESTION ONE: I have a question with regard to your statement that you are not “trying to argue that Jesus is not God.” If the message of the book is that the concept of the “divinity of Jesus” was not clearly stated by Jesus and, instead, slowly evolved after His death, then doesn’t this imply that this concept of the “divinity of Jesus” is a human invention and, therefore, Jesus is not really God?
ANOTHER QUESTION ONE: I confess I don’t see how something can be theologically “true” and yet not be historically true. If Jesus did not claim to be God and his immediate disciples did not believe he was God in what sense can he be God now? If they don’t discipline their speculations with recourse to history how can theologians claim to be making truth statements of any kind? What are theologians doing when they claim to be doing theology?
RESPONSE: Good questions. So, I’m obviously not a theologian, although I’ve been around a lot of theologians in my life, and have at least some years of training in the field. If I *were* a Christian and *were* interested in doing theology, I would have a pretty ready answer to this. Maybe other theologically inclined readers to the blog have other answers. But this would be mine.
It involves …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN UP! It costs very little, and every dime goes to charity.