What is Reddit's opinion of
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
41 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
I recommend Bart Ehrman's book "How Jesus Became God".
>The claim at the heart of the Christian faith is that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. But this is not what the original disciples believed during Jesus’s lifetime—and it is not what Jesus claimed about himself. How Jesus Became God tells the story of an idea that shaped Christianity, and of the evolution of a belief that looked very different in the fourth century than it did in the first.
I listened to the Audible version.
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
I recommend looking into Bart Ehrman's books. Dude used to be a Christian, now he is a secular (agnostic?) professor of religious studies. He's written a lot about the historical Jesus and early Christianity. He's interested in it purely from an academic perspective and has no interest in converting or deconverting anyone. You might want to start with How Jesus Became God, since it will answer the question you asked here, but any of his books are a good read.
How sure are you that the Gospels are faithful accounts of who Jesus really was? They were written decades after Jesus died, in a language neither he or his disciples spoke (Greek).
Jesus was likely an apocalyptic preacher who gained a following, and then his following grew and evolved via oral tradition in the decades after he died before the Gospels were actually written down.
Bart Ehrman is considered a preeminent scholar on the historical Jesus. He explores this topic in “How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.”
https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184#
Now. I got you. Because Ehrman wrote a full book on this subject. https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184#:~:text=From%20the%20Back%20Cover&text=of%20all%20things.-,Ehrman%20sketches%20Jesus's%20transformation%20from%20a%20human%20prophet%20to%20the,from%20Galilee%2C%20had%20beco....
I go buy thousands of hours of research. Not from experience.
Jesus doesn’t talk about Hell for example. The Bible turns Jesus into God while ignoring his teachings
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061778184/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_imm_N1NFP5ZHCZWVN32TGY33
Here’s a great book about Jesus and how he was made into God. They cite sources to
see Bart Ehrman's How Jesus became God
He argues that Jesus gradually became more divine as time went on from being a typical faith healer in Mark to full blown God in John... Though I would disagree with this as even John holds back from saying he IS GOD.... the reading of John 1:1 is typically translated as the WORD WAS GOD but the greek can also mean a god or divine and unitarian christians have seen it that way from before the trinity formerly existed.
Bart Ehrman, "How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee"
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee: Ehrman, Bart D.: 9780061778186: Amazon.com: Books
​
Highly recommend this book. Ehrman attempts to reconstruct the time period from the crucifixion to where it ended up as orthodox belief like what is widely believed today.
If you check the sources at the bottom of that Wikipedia article, there are actually a bunch of books written by historians that apply critical historical methods in attempt to suss out the life of Jesus. Granted, the only books I've read personally (but can recommend highly) are by Bart D. Ehrman. If you only read one, I would recommend: How Jesus Became God . But there are other good authors too: Craig A Evans and Bruce Chilton I know have written several books and are cited in that Wikipedia article.
Essentially though, what it comes down to is looking for historical sources that couldn't be influenced by each other that reference the same fact and give the same details. If there are enough of these references, the reasonable conclusion is that they are either true or the author genuinely believed them to be true based on some source of information common to the other unrelated sources.
​
Applying that type of critical method to stories about Jesus is difficult ( and in many cases impossible) to do given that by 300-400 CE there were so many Christian religious texts floating around. But there were Roman, Greek, and Jewish/Palestinian historians that existed during that time and enough of them mentioned those facts I listed that historians largely agree that the notion that a Galilean Jew named Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist and later executed by crucifixion for being politically subversive is pretty much a foregone conclusion as people who had never heard of Christianity had written about it before even the first known copies of the Gospels were making their way through the Mediterranean region.
one of the foremost seminary scholar in modern times Bart Ehrman wrote this book recently How Jesus became God
The claim at the heart of the Christian faith is that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. But this is not what the original disciples believed during Jesus’s lifetime—and it is not what Jesus claimed about himself. How Jesus Became God tells the story of an idea that shaped Christianity, and of the evolution of a belief that looked very different in the fourth century than it did in the first.
A master explainer of Christian history, texts, and traditions, Ehrman reveals how an apocalyptic prophet from the backwaters of rural Galilee crucified for crimes against the state came to be thought of as equal with the one God Almighty, Creator of all things. But how did he move from being a Jewish prophet to being God? In a book that took eight years to research and write, Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection. Only when some of Jesus’s followers had visions of him after his death—alive again—did anyone come to think that he, the prophet from Galilee, had become God. And what they meant by that was not at all what people mean today.
Written for secular historians of religion and believers alike, How Jesus Became God will engage anyone interested in the historical developments that led to the affirmation at the heart of Christianity: Jesus was, and is, God.
Not intending to change your view here. Just wanted to comment on the following:
>The fact that we are judged if we don't follow God denotes that humans weren't really bestowed with freedom; our fates were already determined: follow Him or face consequences.
You might be interested in Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God. In one chapter of the book Erhman said that, historically, religion was never about policing people's morals in order for them to gain access to an afterlife (e.g. "be saved or be damned"). The premise of an eternal life was only an innovation that gained ground during the early years of Christianity, something which was discussed in great detail in that book.
(That, among others, is why the book was titled "How Jesus Became God"...it did not address the question of whether Jesus is god or not, but discusses how that came to be.)
I got zero Mormon theology in me. Well respected biblical scholars agree - it all came later.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Jesus-Became-Bart-Ehrman/dp/0061778184
There would have been zero need for a the council of Nicea if it weren’t a big topic for the prior 300 years.
Indeed. A good read is How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee which explores how gods and myths came about, merged and how, if he existed, jesus was likely some minor priest who was turned into the god of the religion. Quite an interesting read.
If you want a complete answer, this book by Bart Ehrman is a good read. In short, no, the trinity is not in the Bible. Jesus being, in a sense, divine, is. The church needed some way of reconciling a divine Jesus with a not-Yahweh Jesus, and still be monotheists. There were a number of competing views, and the trinity won out.
no thank you, when jesus was crucified did he rise from the dead and slaughtered all the people who crucified him? We dont solve our turmoil by slaughtering. You should research more about the history roman catholic. heres a book for you to start with: http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184
If you haven't yet you should check out Bart Ehrman's books on Jesus. They're pretty interesting scholarly takes on who he was and how he became deified. Helped me a lot to sort out my feelings on this issue.
[Continued From Above.]
The TL:DR version of the above article: The Trial of Jesus, as depicted in the Canon Gospels, is not supported in many essential and required elements against the much more credible records of Roman Jurisprudence of the time. The Trial of Jesus, in the Gospels was written by someone that was highly ignorant of the actual system; i.e., "fake news".
And from the low credibility of the Trial of Jesus, even more doubt is cast against the following events as depicted in the Gospels.
Execution, removal of the body from the death site to a private grave/tomb, and burial claim of the Gospel narratives.... From....
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, by Bart D. Ehrman, HarperOne (March 25, 2014)
From Chapter 4. The Resurrection of Jesus: What We Cannot Know: The Resurrection: What We Cannot Know
[A link to the full argument I posted a couple years ago - warning it is a wall of text]
The Too Effing long;Won't Read: Unless a cause can be made against the burden of proof for Divine Intervention regarding the resurrection narrative, it is more likely that the Roman criminal Jesus was left to rot after death via crucifixion for the birds and other carrion feeding animals and/or the remains buried in a common unmarked grave. The allowance of removal of the body immediately after death was extremely rare and the circumstances of the death of Jesus, and his family, does not correlate with the historical record of those special exceptions. Additionally, if the body was released immediately (unlikely) Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to have provided a tome and burial of Jesus as this represents a contradiction of the resurrection narrative.
The necessary event to support the argument from "An Empty Tomb," i.e., the putting of the dead body of Jesus in a tomb is highly questionable and rather unsupported by the Roman policies and practices of the day. And this non-credible event continues the decrease in the reliability and confidence of the Resurrection claim and narrative.
- The empty tomb.
The above discussion casts significant unanswered doubts that the Jesus character would have even been placed in an empty tomb to begin with. A disastrous point of contention that undermines the entire "Then how do you explain the empty tomb?" fallacy of reverse burden of proof that apologists pull to support the Gospel narratives as historical and true.
But what of the Gospel narrative of the Empty Tomb - well, there are a great many discrepancies of the Gospel narratives concerning the discovery of the Empty Tomb. And given that there is significance evidence that the later Gospel writers were aware of, and had copies of, the earlier Gospels, the scope and magnitude of these discrepancies completely eclipse the pivotal and essential role of the Empty Tomb in the Resurrection claim and narrative.
And thus, the testimony of the canon Gospels themselves further reduce the reliability and confidence of the Biblical Resurrection claim and narrative, and thus, reduces the credibility of the historicity of Jesus claim.
OP, should I continue?
> Tacitus, .... non-Christian sources supporting the existence of Jesus....
I am aware of the claims of the following historians/histories that are usually called upon to show extra-Biblical support of the historical existence of Jesus.
- Flavius Josephus
- The Testimonium Flavianum
- “him called Christ”
- Suetonius
- Pliny the Younger
- Tacitus
- Mara Bar-Serapion
- Lucian of Samosata
- The Jewish Talmud
- Thallus
- Phlegon
And against these claims of extra-Biblical support to the partial historicity of the Jesus character (none of these references support, or even begin to approach, a case for FULL historicity) - collectively these sources DO NOT paint a clear and highly convincing picture of a Jewish man named Jesus who truly lived during the AD first century, and DOES NOT support that "researchers agree virtually unanimously."
And what is the text of these historians you mentioned?
sources: The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus, by Earl Doherty, January 1, 2005 and Choking on the Camel, by Ebon Musings/Daylight Atheism
- Flavius Josephus
Of all the ancient historians claimed to bear witness to the existence of Jesus, Josephus is without a doubt the one cited most frequently by Christians. He was a respected Jewish historian who worked for the Romans under the patronage of Emperor Vespasian; born around 37 CE, he is also the closest to the time of Jesus of all the historians cited by apologists. His two major surviving works are titled The Antiquities of the Jews, a detailed history of the Jewish people based largely on biblical records, and The Jewish War, a history of the disastrous Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation of Jerusalem around 70 CE.
Antiquities, book 18, chapter 3, contains the most infamous reference to Jesus to be found in the work of any historian. Few passages have ignited as much debate as this one, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, whose full text appears below:
>> “Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day.”
To anyone unfamiliar with the debates swirling around this passage, it might appear to provide startling corroboration of the Gospel stories in virtually every detail. In fact, it seems too fantastic to be true. And indeed, this is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of critical scholars today. No one argues other than that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at least in part, a forgery, a later interpolation into Josephus’ work. We can be certain of this for several reasons. One is that the enthusiastic endorsement of Jesus’ miracles could only have been written by a Christian, and Josephus was not a Christian. He was an orthodox Jew and remained so his entire life. The church father Origen, who quoted freely from Josephus, wrote that he was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ”. Furthermore, in The Jewish War, Josephus specifically states his belief that the Roman emperor Vespasian was the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies – which is what got him his job in the first place.
So, imagine we remove the obvious Christian interpolations – phrases such as “if it be lawful to call him a man”, “he was the Christ”, and “he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold”. Could we let the rest remain, preserving a “reduced” Testimonium in which Josephus testifies to the simple existence of Jesus as a teacher and wise man without touting him as a messiah or a miracle-worker?
This is the position taken by most Christian scholars today, but it too is flawed. For one thing, even the “reduced” Testimonium still praises Jesus highly. This is very unlikely. Elsewhere Josephus does mention other self-proclaimed messiahs of the time, such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas the magician, but he has nothing but evil to say about them. He scorns them as deceivers and deluders, labels them “false prophets”, “impostors” and “cheats”, blames them for wars and famines that afflicted the Jews, and more. This is entirely understandable, since Josephus was writing under Roman patronage, and the Romans did not look highly on the self-proclaimed messiahs of the time since many of them preached about overturning the established order, i.e., Roman rule. (“The meek shall inherit the earth” would have fallen squarely into this category, as would “I came not to send peace, but a sword.”) Some messiah claimants went even further by actively confronting the established authority and sowing dissent (Jesus’ expulsion of the money-changers from the temple comes to mind). The Romans were prone to express their displeasure at these types of activities by executing the messiah claimants, several other examples of which Josephus does tell us about. Had Josephus genuinely written about Jesus he would have been compelled to denounce him, not only because of his orthodox Jewish beliefs but because he had to stay in accord with Roman views or risk being imprisoned or worse. It is all but impossible that he could have written even the “reduced” Testimonium.
[Character Limit. To Be Continued.]
[Continued From Above.]
And from the low credibility of the Trial of Jesus, even more doubt is cast against the following events as depicted in the Gospels.
Execution, removal of the body from the death site to a private grave/tomb, and burial claim of the Gospel narratives.... From....
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, by Bart D. Ehrman, HarperOne (March 25, 2014)
From Chapter 4. The Resurrection of Jesus: What We Cannot Know: The Resurrection: What We Cannot Know
[A link to the full argument I posted a couple years ago - warning it is a wall of text]
The Too Effing long;Won't Read: Unless a cause can be made against the burden of proof for Divine Intervention regarding the resurrection narrative, it is more likely that the Roman criminal Jesus was left to rot after death via crucifixion for the birds and other carrion feeding animals and/or the remains buried in a common unmarked grave. The allowance of removal of the body immediately after death was extremely rare and the circumstances of the death of Jesus, and his family, does not correlate with the historical record of those special excaptions. Additionally, if the body was released immediately (unlikely) Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to have provided a tome and burial of Jesus as this represents a contradiction of the resurrection narrative.
The necessary event to support the argument from "An Empty Tomb," i.e., the putting of the dead body of Jesus in a tomb is highly questionable and rather unsupported by the Roman policies and practices of the day. And this non-credible event continues the decrease in the reliability and confidence of the Resurrection claim and narrative.
- The empty tomb.
The above discussion casts significant unanswered doubts that the Jesus character would have even been placed in an empty tomb to begin with. A disastrous point of contention that undermines the entire "Then how do you explain the empty tomb?" fallacy of reverse burden of proof that apologists pull to support the Gospel narratives as historical and true.
But what of the Gospel narrative of the Empty Tomb - well, there are a great many discrepancies of the Gospel narratives concerning the discovery of the Empty Tomb. And given that there is significance evidence that the later Gospel writers were aware of, and had copies of, the earlier Gospels, the scope and magnitude of these discrepancies completely eclipse the pivotal and essential role of the Empty Tomb in the Resurrection claim and narrative.
And thus, the testimony of the canon Gospels themselves further reduce the reliability and confidence of the Biblical Resurrection claim and narrative, and thus, reduces the credibility of the historicity of Jesus claim.
OP, should I continue?
> For a non-exhaustive overview of ancient, non-Christian primary sources supporting the historical existence of Jesus, see, for example: Tacitus, Annals, 15.44; Josephus, Antiquities, 18.63; Josephus, Antiquities, 20.200; Pliny the Younger, “Pliny to the Emperor Trajan”, Letters, 10.96; Suetonius, “Lives of the Twelve Caesars," Claudius, 25.4; Lucian of Samosata, The Death of Peregrinus; and Mara bar Serapion, “Letter to Son from Prison.” While debate is to be had concerning certain aspects of usefulness for some of these sources, collectively they paint a clear and highly convincing picture of a Jewish man named Jesus who truly lived during the AD first century, as researchers agree virtually unanimously.
I am aware of the claims of the following historians/histories that are usually called upon to show extra-Biblical support of the historical existence of Jesus.
- Flavius Josephus
- The Testimonium Flavianum
- “him called Christ”
- Suetonius
- Pliny the Younger
- Tacitus
- Mara Bar-Serapion
- Lucian of Samosata
- The Jewish Talmud
- Thallus
- Phlegon
I am unfamiliar with "Claudius, 25.4" - do you have a link to citation and write up you prefer so that I may examine the assertion? Did I miss any others you referenced?
And against these claims of extra-Biblical support to the partial historicity of the Jesus character (none of these references support, or even begin to approach, a case for FULL historicity) - collectively these sources DO NOT paint a clear and highly convincing picture of a Jewish man named Jesus who truly lived during the AD first century, and DOES NOT support that "researchers agree virtually unanimously."
And what is the text of these historians you mentioned?
sources: The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus, by Earl Doherty, January 1, 2005 and Choking on the Camel, by Ebon Musings/Daylight Atheism
- Flavius Josephus
Of all the ancient historians claimed to bear witness to the existence of Jesus, Josephus is without a doubt the one cited most frequently by Christians. He was a respected Jewish historian who worked for the Romans under the patronage of Emperor Vespasian; born around 37 CE, he is also the closest to the time of Jesus of all the historians cited by apologists. His two major surviving works are titled The Antiquities of the Jews, a detailed history of the Jewish people based largely on biblical records, and The Jewish War, a history of the disastrous Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation of Jerusalem around 70 CE.
Antiquities, book 18, chapter 3, contains the most infamous reference to Jesus to be found in the work of any historian. Few passages have ignited as much debate as this one, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, whose full text appears below:
>> “Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day.”
To anyone unfamiliar with the debates swirling around this passage, it might appear to provide startling corroboration of the Gospel stories in virtually every detail. In fact, it seems too fantastic to be true. And indeed, this is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of critical scholars today. No one argues other than that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at least in part, a forgery, a later interpolation into Josephus’ work. We can be certain of this for several reasons. One is that the enthusiastic endorsement of Jesus’ miracles could only have been written by a Christian, and Josephus was not a Christian. He was an orthodox Jew and remained so his entire life. The church father Origen, who quoted freely from Josephus, wrote that he was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ”. Furthermore, in The Jewish War, Josephus specifically states his belief that the Roman emperor Vespasian was the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies – which is what got him his job in the first place.
So, imagine we remove the obvious Christian interpolations – phrases such as “if it be lawful to call him a man”, “he was the Christ”, and “he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold”. Could we let the rest remain, preserving a “reduced” Testimonium in which Josephus testifies to the simple existence of Jesus as a teacher and wise man without touting him as a messiah or a miracle-worker?
This is the position taken by most Christian scholars today, but it too is flawed. For one thing, even the “reduced” Testimonium still praises Jesus highly. This is very unlikely. Elsewhere Josephus does mention other self-proclaimed messiahs of the time, such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas the magician, but he has nothing but evil to say about them. He scorns them as deceivers and deluders, labels them “false prophets”, “impostors” and “cheats”, blames them for wars and famines that afflicted the Jews, and more. This is entirely understandable, since Josephus was writing under Roman patronage, and the Romans did not look highly on the self-proclaimed messiahs of the time since many of them preached about overturning the established order, i.e., Roman rule. (“The meek shall inherit the earth” would have fallen squarely into this category, as would “I came not to send peace, but a sword.”) Some messiah claimants went even further by actively confronting the established authority and sowing dissent (Jesus’ expulsion of the money-changers from the temple comes to mind). The Romans were prone to express their displeasure at these types of activities by executing the messiah claimants, several other examples of which Josephus does tell us about. Had Josephus genuinely written about Jesus he would have been compelled to denounce him, not only because of his orthodox Jewish beliefs but because he had to stay in accord with Roman views or risk being imprisoned or worse. It is all but impossible that he could have written even the “reduced” Testimonium.
[Character Limit. To Be Continued.]
You bet. I've found this book very enlightening.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184
You bet. I've found this book very enlightening.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184
Sorry for the late reply - and thanks for asking about my own journey - I actually put myself through a lot of unnecessary stress & anxiety when I was younger and trying to read the gospels.
So much emphasis on 'getting ready for the kingdom' & 'denying yourself' but I could never get any satisfactory answer on what that even meant - especially for a introverted 14 year old. For me it was a real source of frustration.
20 years later and i started reading the academics that studied the New Testament through the textual critical method - such as Bart Erhman's 'How Jesus became God'
https://www.amazon.com.au/How-Jesus-Became-Bart-Ehrman/dp/0061778184
Or even Dale Martins course from Yale University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQaOlxhg8xg
My personal view from reading the textual critics is that Jesus divinity was just something that developed as a legend - it's a fusion of 1st century Judaism blended with neoplatonic hellenic judaism. Concepts that christians are familiar with - like the Devil, Hell, Heaven, Souls, Salvation, Original Sin etc... do not exist in Judaism. In fact you can read the Old Testament and those concepts are not found at all. So if Jesus was reading the Old Testament he certainly wasn't talking about Satan, or external Souls being tortured in Hell etc...
Everything in the old testament basically applies to this life - sins or disobedience to Yahweh was only something that applied to Jews - not Gentiles. And god would always punish sins physically - never spiritually. There's no afterlife where the dead are raised and punished or rewarded. You can read the Old Testament (Tanakh) & see this for yourself.
Most of those things were concepts that originate from Neoplatonism or Greek paganism - so what makes me suspicious about christianity is it introduces so many new themes & theological & philosophical concepts that have no trace in judaism but were present in various forms in Zoroastrianism, Egyptian or Greek philosophy or religion.
| Item | Current | Lowest | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish… | $53.59 | $53.59 | 4.5/5.0 |
^Item Info | Bot Info | Trigger
https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184/ref=nodl_
Don’t worry. He’s an atheist. 😉
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061778184/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_KYVPWFZTPNYMF2HS8BMR
Ex Catholic, long time agnostic & rudderless ship here. I have to say that if someone accepts the model of an Abrahamic monotheistic belief then Islam is- even from a completely academic, secular and coldly analytical perspective- emotionally, physically, socially & logically the purest expression of that monotheism by a country mile. Even a rudimentary and historical & non-Quranic study of Christianity shows us clearly that it was intended as a school of rabbinical philosophy intended to reform contemporary Judaism and return it to keeping Gods Law as laid down in the Torah. “ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matthew 5:17 It was the machinations of St Paul that turned it into the religion we see today. When St Paul returned from the seat of Empire I think the conversation with St James went something like this: “ Hey Jimmy, I’ve been Rome and I’ve got an absolute ark-load of new converts. Ah-don’t stress it now, but I’ve had to innovate a little to close the sale, so there is a teeeny tiny minor caveat though…” James: “ Wut? WHADDYA MEAN THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE CIRCUMCISED?? WHY DID YOU TELLEM THEY CAN EAT FLIPPIN’ PORK ????” In all seriousness I feel sorry on some level for Jesus/Isa pbuh because the religion founded in his name should more accurately be called Paulianity. Indeed theologians often refer to it as ‘Pauline Christianity’. When we begin to look at the early church councils (Nicea, Trent etc) it’s depressingly obvious that the document that made the final cut for the Christian version of the Holy Book and interpretation of Divine Law is clearly the work of man, not God. If anyone’s interested in further exploring these concepts I can thoroughly recommend the book ‘How Jesus Became God” by Bart D Ehrman and also the YouTube channel Blogging Theology by a fella called Paul Williams(?) He does some really good book reviews- turned me on to a biography of the Prophet pbuh called ‘Muhammad’ by Martin Lings. Worth a read for the beautiful language and writing structure alone.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Jesus-Became-Bart-Ehrman/dp/0061778184/ref=nodl_
https://youtube.com/c/BloggingTheology
Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0946621330/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_navT_a_13QHXCRSG33QQT6D2ANA
I’m really surprised at the breadth of answers here. Biblical scholar, UNC professor, and agnostic Bart Ehrman argues that Jesus most likely did not claim to be God in the vein of “I and the father are one,” since Mark is most likely the earliest gospel and the others are bastardizations of it. John, by contrast, wrote his gospel with the express intent of proving Jesus’s divinity for his own reasons. Reading the gospel accounts side by side and looking for differences can be pretty revealing.
Check out this YouTube series with Ehrman talking about his book on the topic, “How Jesus Became God” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IPAKsGbqcg
Link to the book https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184
> did Jesus ever claim to be God?
That's a complicated question.
You might be interested in these lectures on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IPAKsGbqcg
He also wrote a book about it:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184
V. interesting to me, the many varieties of humankind's tendency to worship. Bart Ehrman covers a lot of this ground in his explanation for how Jesus became God.
> expanding my view and having my views challenged
Two books that come to mind -- which are accessible to a layperson like yourself -- that will help you better understand the historical context of early Christianity and how it spread:
How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman
Paul: A Very Short Introduction by E.P. Sanders
Read How Jesus Became God. It gives you a good perspective on the early church.
First, atheists are not required to be experts on Christianity, so you may find answers more to your liking in a history sub.
Second, many people have written about this so check wikipedia or read a book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Before-Gospels-Christians-Remembered
Read <em>How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee</em> by Bart Ehrman if you are sincerely curious and not just attempting dawa. Bart Ehrman is a very respected scholar who has written a number of books for non-scholars and since you are from a Muslim background, all of his works in general will address the question of the textual history and development of Christian beliefs and scriptures (its "corruption"). He is now an agnostic atheist, so none of his books for a general audience will be trying to convert you to Christianity or hide uncomfortable facts about Christianity.
I agree to a point, and I doubt any denominations outright teach that there is no afterlife for anyone. But some individual Christians do believe we just die... they call themselves Christian but they just pick and choose what they believe. They're "Christian" in that they think it's the basis for their morality... Sermon on the Mount, and all that.
>The entire point of Christianity is that Jesus is god
Usually, but not always. The Socinians believed that Jesus was not exactly God, but rather himself created. Isaac Newton also was not a trinitarian, and many other Christians have had the same views. Herman's book How Jesus Became God looks very closely at what it meant through the years for Jesus to "be" God. Though it seems like such a simple thing to say, the words hide a great deal of complexity and variation of belief.
It started as a missionary. I was in a heavily Christian place and it became very uncomfortable for me to ask perfectly good Christians to be baptized the correct way or they couldn't be saved. It seemed odd God would care. Care enough to send them to Hell. Care enough to have me there instead of at university playing sports, meeting girls.
The transition from uncomfortable Mormon -> vague Christian -> Atheist took about two years and a lot of reading. How Jesus Became God and If God is Dead is Everything Permitted? were particularly helpful.
^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?
Essential reading (though it presumes Jesus was a real person): How Jesus Became God, by Bart Ehrman
Yes, some believed he was God incarnate. Others did not, hence the Council of Nicea to codify the Church's position. You're only quoting from sources that are aligned to your view. I would really recommend you give this a read. Very interesting: http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184
You're right, the "jesus is god" thing sorta evolved.
http://smile.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184
>Nonsense. Where's the evidence for any of that?
Books, man. Read books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Accepted_historic_facts
Why would John be made up? How does having Jesus be baptized and sins forgiven help sell the idea that Jesus was a sinless man? Based on the argument from embarrassment, this is about as good of evidence as one can get for this time period with a non-super famous person.
>There is no evidence whatsoever for what the fictional characters in this myth did or did not think.
Look at the progression of the gospel stories. Jesus starts out as a normalish man in Mark, and by John he is the son of God. As time went on, Jesus stories described him more and more god-like.
>The Romans kept excellent records...
Show me these records.
>That's an extremely gracious estimate of the time involved...
No it's not. It's widely accepted (for good reasons) that the gospels were written 30-60 years (or "several decades") after Jesus died.
>There is no evidence whatsoever that this is how the history of the myth itself played out.
Oh really? What do you know that one of the most respected NT historians in the world doesn't?
Honestly, you should think about the Dunning Kruger Effect... because it really seems like you have no idea what you are talking about. I mean, I read what you have written, and I am just truly shocked. It's obvious you have zero knowledge of this topic.
Popular alternatives to How Jesus Became God: The E...
