Divinity of Jesus

Nighttrain writes:Kindly point out any references to where the disciples are portrayed as other than incompetent. Hardly any literary talents among them. Any evidence the Jews of that period understood the OT as allegorical in sections?

Josephus writes: 4. But because almost all our constitution depends on the wisdom of Moses, our legislator, I cannot avoid saying somewhat concerning him beforehand, though I shall do it briefly; I mean, because otherwise those that read my book may wonder how it comes to pass, that my discourse, which promises an account of laws and historical facts, contains so much of philosophy. The reader is therefore to know, that Moses deemed it exceeding necessary, that he who would conduct his own life well, and give laws to others, in the first place should consider the Divine nature; and, upon the contemplation of God's operations, should thereby imitate the best of all patterns, so far as it is possible for human nature to do, and to endeavor to follow after it: neither could the legislator himself have a right mind without such a contemplation; nor would any thing he should write tend to the promotion of virtue in his readers; I mean, unless they be taught first of all, that God is the Father and Lord of all things, and sees all things, and that thence he bestows a happy life upon those that follow him; but plunges such as do not walk in the paths of virtue into inevitable miseries. Now when Moses was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did; I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another, but by raising their minds upwards to regard God, and his creation of the world; and by persuading them, that we men are the most excellent of the creatures of God upon earth. Now when once he had brought them to submit to religion, he easily persuaded them to submit in all other things: for as to other legislators, they followed fables, and by their discourses transferred the most reproachful of human vices unto the gods, and afforded wicked men the most plausible excuses for their crimes; but as for our legislator, when he had once demonstrated that God was possessed of perfect virtue, he supposed that men also ought to strive after the participation of it; and on those who did not so think, and so believe, he inflicted the severest punishments. I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of; but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it (6) after I have finished the present work. I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.

Jon writes:What historical aspect of the Jesus situation could explain why he was deified into one with God? With so many prophets in the day, what about Jesus and his followers brought about the following cult? There's been a lot of people since then who have been highly-regarded; why didn't they get a super-mega religion named after them?For this post, I'd just like to say that I want to focus on the historical aspects behind this matter, and not the supernatural ones”so no posts saying 'Jesus really was God, that's why'. We must assume that there is a reasonable, realistic, real-world and non-supernatural-invoking answer to this question.

jar writes:No, the only way Jesus life can have any value or meaning is if he was totally human while living among us, limited just as any of the rest of us, the sacrifice of a GOD becoming man, to suffer teething and learning to go potty and to walk and talk and NOT knowing the future or that he really will rise from the dead, yet still following his path.No, for Jesus to have meaning he must NOT have been divine while living among us.

jar writes:If Jesus was divine while living among us, I can see no value to his life and for the reasons outlined above.

jar writes:That never made any sense, and I just do not understand that at all.

jar writes:No, the reasons I outlined above were based on Jesus being divine. Even if he did not know he was divine, if he was, the whole thing is just a fraud and joke.

jar writes:While Jesus lived among us he was NOT divine. Before his birth and post ascension he is and was divine.

jar writes:Uh, he did not have much of an option.

jar writes:Plus, once he was born he was bound to die.

jar writes:And his death was not that unusual, in fact two others were treated the same the very same day and location, and likely hundreds of others across the roman Empire were treated the very same.

GDR writes:Jesus went to the cross because He believed that He was the one to fullfill the Jewish scripture but He went as an act of pure faith,

Brian writes:Born of a virgin, kills people with a glance, brings people back to life, that whole 40 day thing in the desert with the devil, His predicting that He will rise in 3 days (although this was a fictional prophecy), water into wine, chatting about His Father all the time........Hardly a big leap of faith required.

Brian writes:kills people with a glance,

Brian writes:But the things that are claimed for Jesus are not the same as what the Old Testament claims for the Messiah. The virgin birth, for example, is an alien concept to Jews, the messiah would be a simple straightforward human like you or I.

Brian writes:As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."This is certainly not messianic, and God says Jesus is His Son.

N.T. Wright writes:Son of God: Originally a title for Israel (Exodus 4.22) and the Davidic king (Psalm 2.7) also used of ancient angelic figures (Genesis 6.2) By the New Testament period it was already used as a messianic title, for example in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There and when used of Jesus in the gospels 9eg. Matthew 16.16), it means, or reinforces, "Messiah" without the later significance of 'divine'. However, already in Paul the transition to the fuller meaning (one already equal with God and was sent by Him to become human and to become messiah) is apparent, without loss of the meaning 'Messiah' itself. (eg. Galatians 4.4)

Brian writes:Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1-4

jar writes:The point is that Jesus dying was not a sacrifice, nor was crucifixion some special type of suffering.
There are two things of importance here.One is that if Jesus was divine then even death was just a sham. A God dying is simply a God pretending to die; a kids game.Second, Jesus death was not a sacrifice. The idea that God could kill himself to pay himself some token that would allow God to the forgive mankind is just silly.Finally, the idea of GOD actually becoming man, no longer GOD, not even God or god, but just man; that IS a sacrifice. GOD becoming flesh, dirty, smelly, often in pain, often unable to control even his own body; that is a sacrifice and lesson.

N.T.Wright writes:My case has been, and remains, that Jesus believed himself called to do and be things which, in the traditions to which he fell heir, only Israel’s God, YHWH, was to do and be. I think he held this belief both with passionate and firm conviction and with the knowledge that he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake. I do not think this in any way downplays the signals of transcendence within the Gospel narratives. It is, I believe, consonant both with a full and high Christology and with the recognition that Jesus was a human figure who can be studied historically in the same way that any other human figure can be.[20] Indeed, I have come to regard such historical study not just as a possibly helpful source for theology but a vital and non-negotiable resource: not just part of the possible bene esse, but of the esse itself. Partial proof of this drastic proposal lies in observing what happens if we ignore the history: we condemn ourselves to talking about abstractions, even perhaps to making Jesus himself an abstraction. Fuller proof could only come if and when systematicians are prepared to work with the first-century Jewish categories which are there in the historical accounts of Jesus and which shaped and formed his own mindset.[60] It will also enable other topics in New Testament theology, notably the Christology of Paul, John, Hebrews, and indeed the Synoptics, to fall into a more appropriate place and shape. The ultimate origins of that very early, very Jewish, very high Christology which we find not only in Paul but in the (hypothetically) pre-Pauline passages are to be found, I suggest, not in an explosion of creative thought which took place after the resurrection”though there certainly was an explosion of creative thought on that point”but in the mindset of Jesus himself. And this mindset is discovered not by probing individual sayings in isolation, but in the whole tenor and aim of Jesus’ public career and teachings.It will be noted that I have come as far as the last paragraph without mentioning the resurrection. Despite a long tradition, I do not regard the resurrection as instantly ”proving Jesus’ divinity’. In such Jewish thought as cherished the notion of resurrection was what would happen to everybody, or at least all the righteous. It would not constitute those raised as divine beings. Nor would the ”glorification’ of Jesus, his ascension to God’s right hand have that effect: Jesus had, in New Testament theology, thereby attained the place marked out from the beginning not for an incarnate being but for the truly human one (note the use of Psalm 8 in e.g. 1 Cor, 15: 27). But this is not to say that the resurrection and ascension have nothing to do with the early church’s belief in Jesus’ divinity. We must not short-circuit their thought-processes, even though the time involved for such thinking may have been very short.My own reading of the process goes like this. The resurrection and ascension proved, first and foremost, that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. This meant, at once, that his death had to be regarded in some fashion as a victory, not a defeat, whereupon all Jesus’ cryptic sayings about the meaning of his death fell into place. Within that, again very quickly, the earliest Christians came to see that what had been accomplished in Jesus’ death and resurrection as the decisive climax to his public career of kingdom-inauguration, was indeed the victory of YHWH over the last enemies, sin and death. And with that they could no longer resist the sense, backed up again by Jesus’ cryptic sayings, that in dealing with him they were dealing with the living”and dying”embodiment of YHWH himself, Israel’s God in person. From that it is a short step”not a long haul, involving abandoning Jewish categories and embracing those of the pagan [61] world”to speaking of ”that which was from the beginning, which we heard, which we saw with our eyes, which we beheld, and which our hands touched, concerning the word of life’ (1 John 1:1). The worship of Jesus in early Jewish Christianity, a worship which was not perceived as flouting monotheism but as discerning its inner heart, was indeed, as is now more regularly seen, the beginnings of Christian thinking about Jesus. But that worship was simply discerning, in the Jewish categories that he had himself made thematic, what lay at the heart of the vocation and self-understanding of Jesus himself.

ramoss writes:The word as translated into the Greek, which Matthew used, was 'parthenos' which often meant virgin,but was not exclusively virgin.
The Hebrew term means 'young maiden'.

ramoss writes:And, if you read Isaiah on context, Isaiah is talking about his wife, since it says in Isaiah 8:4 "I went to the prophetess and insured she conceived'