
I am new to the website, so please forgive me if I am posting an old question.
I am watching Dr. Ehrman’s “Jesus the Secret Messiah” and I have watched his Great Courses on the Historical Jesus. I have also watched several youtube videos. I clearly have not seen everything he has said or read every book.
In what I saw, Dr. Ehrman believed that Jesus did not see himself as divine, but only as “the Son of God”, like David or Israel was the Son of God. In the “The Secret Messiah” he addresses the question of him forgiving the paralytic’s sins and the question of the Pharisees “Who can forgive sins but God”. He said that Jesus was only claiming that the authority to forgive sins had been delegated to him by God.
This seems to me to be an unnatural reading of the text. The text repeatedly has the people asking “Who is this man that…” he can teach and proclaim new scripture as if he is a law-giver… he can forgive sins… he can rule the weather… he can raise the dead…. And the Pharisees give a possible answer with “who can, except God.” Jesus, of course, does not answer the implied question “Do you claim to be God?” but instead says, “That you may know the Son of Man has power to forgive sins.”
When the people complain about him making new scripture, he switches around to speaking in parables, so that they can’t stone him for claiming to be God. When arrested him and he knew the time had finally arrived for the predicted crucifixion, he says “I AM” and the soldiers fall down. Mark is making a pretty powerful point, even if Jesus didn’t make it, himself.
The final proof is when Jesus raises HIMSELF from the dead. The power to raise the dead is undoubtedly a divine power, which couldn’t be delegated to a dead man. The conclusion is the inescapable conclusion that Mark leaves you to draw for yourself.
Thus Jesus is saying, implicitly throughout Mark, “I am God, but you have to say it for yourself.” I think this is the implied message of “Thou sayest”.
I think that I am using only Mark. But I think that the more extensive claims of divinity, especially in John, actually are simply the early Christians drawing the natural conclusions that Mark was leading them too.
I think that Mark’s Jesus is being a Walter White here:
“SAY MY NAME”
“Who are you!”
“SAY MY NAME”
Robert, I think this is the nub of the problem for modern believers. The ancients didn’t have the same view of what divinity is as moderns do. We think in discrete categories. God is divine and nothing else is. Of course this makes it impossible for them to conceive that Jesus could be divine and yet not be God. It doesn’t help when you read the ancients and they call things “gods” without bothering to make such a distinction. One of the byproducts of polytheism I suppose.
Was Jesus a god? Yes. Was Jesus The God? No.
ps We’ve also lost a sense of the impersonal aspect of divinity as well. Even Homer’s gods were beholden to fate, moira. I’m unaware of this aspect in ancient Jewish thinking.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
