Stephen said
I have read all of the responses so far and the result is almost comical. My argument is that if even a person thought he was divine he probably, based on patterns of human behavior, would not talk about his divinity, unless he were also crazy. Every response has been on texts, as if texts are more important than real people.
You don’t get it. THE ONLY ACCESS WE HAVE TO THE FIGURE OF JESUS IS THROUGH THE TEXTS.
You imagine you can penetrate Jesus’ personal psychology? It was the mainstream viewpoint of Hellenistic intellectuals of the first century that the stars were intelligent divine beings. (That was the smart people. Who knows what the average guy thought.) According to the gospels Jesus, like everyone else, believed that sickness was caused not by germs or viruses but by demons. Jesus, the apocalyptic prophet and son of a day laborer, apparently believed he was selected by God to have a special role in His Kingdom to be established next Tues after lunch. You really imagine you can penetrate the psychology of a person living in such a different conceptual universe?
I imagine I can penetrate Jesus’ personal psychology? That is the exact opposite of what I am arguing.
I am not arguing that Jesus thought he was divine; nor am I arguing that he did NOT think he was divine. I am arguing that we cannot know, but on the basis that humans (and both orthodox and atheists believe Jesus was human) simply don’t talk about their genus. THAT is my argument. I have heard too numerous people, amateurs and historians, who point out that Jesus never claimed he was God (or a god) with the implied conclusion that he must not have had such high pretensions. They say, “If he thought he was God incarnate, surely he would have said so.” My argument is, surely he would not have, based on patterns of human psychology.
Put another way, I am arguing that any heading in a chapter on the historical Jesus that reads, “Did Jesus think he was divine” should be followed with one sentence, we can’t know. It should not be filled with pages of his words, with the conclusion that he never said he was God.
It is not I but scholars like Dr. Ehrman who think they can penetrate Jesus’ self understanding by studying his words.
I don’t quite understand your last sentence.
Here is what I am saying: Dr. Ehrman devoted a chapter to the question, Did Jesus think he was God? My argument is that the question neither requires nor admits a chapter, because Jesus never (in the synoptics) talks about his “divinity”; he neither confirms nor denies it, no more than he confirms or denies that he was born of two human parents or a virgin mother. He simply does not mention any of it.
Now if you agree to these facts, then the question for you is, why did Dr. Ehrman title a chapter, “Did Jesus think he was God?”, a chapter that goes on for several pages, and concludes with the point that Jesus never claimed to be God, as if that is “telling”? My point, it is not tellling.
Robert said
brown.connor4 said
… I have heard too numerous people, amateurs and historians, who point out that Jesus never claimed he was God (or a god) with the implied conclusion that he must not have had such high pretensions. They say, “If he thought he was God incarnate, surely he would have said so.” … It is not I but scholars like Dr. Ehrman who think they can penetrate Jesus’ self understanding by studying his words.It is wise that you now seem to be back-tracking a bit and are now referring to “too numerous people, amateurs and historians” and “scholars like Dr. Ehrman.” Are you now tacitly conceding that the point of Bart’s chapter was not to demonstrate Jesus was not God because he did not say he was God?
Eratosthenes24601 said
There was actually no widespread expectation in Jesus’ time that the Messiah would be an incarnation or avatar of God himself. Most Jewish messianic expectations were much more this-worldly and practical. Generally, the Messiah was expected to:
Be a descendant of David through his father’s line
Rebuild the Temple
Gather the exiles of Israel
Defeat Israel’s enemies
Bring about peace
Lead all nations to worship the God of Abraham
Be born in Bethlehem
Enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey
Be preceded by Elijah
Some traditions also anticipated two messiahs—a priestly Messiah (of Aaron) and a royal Messiah (of Israel)—rather than a single divine figure.
In all of these expectations, messiahship was understood as a role or calling, not a claim about divine nature. Even texts like Psalms 2 and 110 seem to describe the Messiah being exalted or given titles such as “Son of God” after being enthroned, rather than possessing divine status by default. Luke appears to reflect this same way of thinking.
So within that historical setting, Jesus identifying himself as Messiah wouldn’t necessarily imply that he would also openly claim divinity, nor would his not doing so be especially surprising. It may simply be that the categories we’re asking him to speak in developed later than the context he was actually operating in.
No one was claiming any of the things you are refuting.
Your response sounds pedantic and prefabricated, as if you had it in an arsenal of “responses” and saw an opportunity to unleash it here.
I propose you read the OP. If you don’t understand the OP then ask questions. But don’t do what you are doing; it sounds like you are showing off, and showing off of information that everyone here knows.
I imagine I can penetrate Jesus’ personal psychology? That is the exact opposite of what I am arguing.
But then
They say, “If he thought he was God incarnate, surely he would have said so.” My argument is, surely he would not have, based on patterns of human psychology.
My bad. You can penetrate everyone’s personal psychology! Not just Jesus.
Then how to explain all the zanies and madcaps and scaramouches that dot the history of the human race claiming exactly that?
Ancient rulers had a bad habit of claiming divinity. See the Pharaohs who all claimed to be incarnations of Osiris. The Dalai Lamas all claim to be incarnations of Avalokiteśvara, the Mahayana Buddhist bodhisattva of infinite compassion.
Less far afield, in the 20th century there were:
African American cleric, Father Divine;
Taher Saifuddin, the Ismaili Muslim leader;
Lou de Palingboer, a Dutch fisherman and eel vendor. That’s what his name means, Lou the Eel Vendor. He preached to his customers from a market stall, claiming to be Jesus. He had a small circle of followers until a rich patron bought him a mansion they called the “White House”. (I love this guy! I’m tempted to convert but eels are kinda yucky.)
The list goes on but I’m bored. See Hindu gurus Sai Baba & Maher Baba. And of course there’s Jim Jones (yikes).
In the five minutes I devoted to this research I noted that George Washington is considered a divinity in one Shinto sect and Douglas MacArthur is worshipped by South Korean shamans. Who knew?
Connor, you still haven’t defined what you mean by “claims to be God”. As I tried to explain earlier claiming to be “God” and claiming to be “divine” would have meant different things to a first century Hellenized Jew.
Lou de Palingboer, a Dutch fisherman and eel vendor. That’s what his name means, Lou the Eel Vendor. He preached to his customers from a market stall, claiming to be Jesus. He had a small circle of followers until a rich patron bought him a mansion they called the “White House”. (I love this guy! I’m tempted to convert but eels are kinda yucky.)
Thanks for the reference to Lou – I must read more about him!
Many of my French-Canadian ancestors were by trade fishers not of men, but of eel.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)