When did Jesus become God?

[Binkie The Clown]

When Bart Ehrman was a young Evangelical Christian, he wanted to know how God became a man, but now, as an agnostic and historian of early Christianity, he wants to know how a man became God.

When and why did Jesus' followers start saying "Jesus as God" and what did they mean by that? His new book is called How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.
---SNIP---
If Jesus had not been declared God by his followers, his followers would've remained a sect within Judaism — a small Jewish sect, and if that was the case it would not have attracted a large number of gentiles. If they hadn't attracted a large number of gentiles, there wouldn't have been this steady rate of conversion over the first three centuries to Christianity; it would've been a small Jewish sect.

More at NPR.org

[cbayer]

1. What did you think of the article?

[longship]

2. Bookmarked for later.

Meanwhile, R&K.

Ehrman has an interesting argument. Although I do not entirely agree with his argument that Jesus actually existed, he is certainly a credible source on early Christianity.

Will read later.

[hrmjustin]

3. The church teaches Jesus became God 50 days after Easter on the Feast of Pentecost.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Wasn't he always God? In principio erat verbum.

And the word became God, and the word was God. And the word became flesh and dwelt among us. The question is when he was recognized as God.

[hrmjustin]

14. The church teaches that the Word always existed.

But took the form of a man 2000 years ago.

And became fully God on Pentecost.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Why at Pentecost, and not Ascension?

I find Christian theology kind of confusing.

[hrmjustin]

17. Good question.

I can't answer it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. There are 10 days between Ascension and Pentecost.

What's Jesus doing for that time after he ascended but before becoming God? Was he taking some sort of celestial orientation course? (Sorry, I don't mean to be flip; I'm just confused).

But anyhow, Happy Easter.

Back in the day when I sang in the choir at an Episcopal cathedral we did Easter vigil, which is a really cool service.

[hrmjustin]

21. A beautiful hymn!

Again I have no idea.

[okasha]

34. Recuperating? Debriefing?

Not meaning to be flip, either, but spirit beings probably need a little time to kick back, too.

[bvf]

18. It's a living. n/t.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. My understanding was that Jesus was always God.

God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), God the Holy Ghost.

YMMV.

[Major Nikon]

44. Actually the only direct evidence of the holy trinity in the canonical gospels was a forgery

The holy trinity is really nothing more than theological conjecture formulated more out of convenience than evidence.

Any mention of a holy trinity doesn't appear in the bible until hundreds of years AFTER the canonical gospels were reduced to paper as a deliberate mistranslation, which is heresy.

The forged text appears in 1 John 5: 7-8 in the King James Version. Newer translations either omit the forgery completely, or add a footnote as to the forgery. The Catholic church realized the problem hundreds of years ago, but they don't mention it much these days.

1 John 5: 7-8King James Version (KJV)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5: 7-8English Standard Version (ESV)

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

[Hoppy]

5. Caligula became a god. Why don't we worship him?

[cbayer]

6. As the article points out, all of the roman emperors were being called god.

You can worship anyone you choose.

[Monotheist]

7. reply title... huh?

At the first council of Nicea in 325 AD under Constantine I, who was a Pagan.

In fact all of the early Christians are converts in one form or another, but it was the learned Greek Hellenist who spread Christianity.

Pagans witnessed the persecutions of the first Christians such as St Stephen the protomartyr in Antioch. Christianity spread from here in Antioch first and all the Christian artwork depicted at Antioch of said persecutions was created by Pagans.

[edhopper]

8. Tuesday

Around 2:30 pm.

[bvf]

19. LOL! I always thought it was

more like around tea time.

[freedomrock1970]

40. I thought it was 4:20

[pinto]

9. Interesting excerpts. Not sure I buy, or get the "political" assumptions, the author implies.

[pinto]

12. To follow up - Jesus was Jewish and spoke to a largely Jewish population. In that context.

I may likely be missing something, but the proposition that Jesus made a calculated approach to local Gentiles seems a stretch to me.

[ismnotwasm]

10. Elaine Pagels has an interesting take on that

In her "The Gospel of St. Thomas"

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/386559.Beyond_Belief

[hrmjustin]

11. I love her.

[ismnotwasm]

25. Me too

I love the story of her crisis of faith and her way back to it. The last book I read, I think it was "Beyond Belief" she clearly had gained internal clarity. For me as a non believer, she redeems Christianity for me in the best possible way. I'm able to have good conversations with two of my daughters who have embraced Christianity (different routes) and support them in their faith.

[hrmjustin]

26. I have had the pleasure of meeting her at several Episcopal Church functions.

[ismnotwasm]

29. Squeee!!

Omg, I'm such a fan-- you lucky fellow you!

[hrmjustin]

30. lol. thanks.

[hrmjustin]

27. .

[bvf]

16. I stopped reading once I got to this:

"Miracles may have happened in the past, but they're not part of history."

In this day and age, it's stupefying that people still make a living saying shit like this, much less other people going, "Hmm..., interesting point."

[Warpy]

22. I've always had a feeling that huckster Paul had something to do with it

because kicking him upstairs to become a god was the Roman way to reward larger than life hero figures. Paul was different because he slammed the door after him, keeping the Jewish sect a little more palatable to the Jews within it.

Paul had his eyes on the prize and that was all the disaffected, disillusioned and alienated people all over the Empire, from slaves through artisans and merchants. Turning the itinerant preacher who had a different way of looking at the world than just strict legalism into a god would appeal to all those people better than a mortal messiah who stayed mortal.

Certainly it was an integral part of the dogma by the time the gospels got written down, especially John.

Not that it makes any difference at all now. As soon as you start examining anyone's dogma about their religion's originator, the stories break down quickly into masses of contradictions and tall tales that applied to other regional figures of about the same time. People who believe all this know better than to start asking uncomfortable questions, that's not what faith is about.

[bvf]

24. This ^

"As soon as you start examining anyone's dogma about their religion's originator, the stories break down quickly into masses of contradictions and tall tales that applied to other regional figures of about the same time. People who believe all this know better than to start asking uncomfortable questions, that's not what faith is about."

Perfectly put.

[guillaumeb]

23. Interesting that a historian can conclude that Jesus being called God was/is the reason

for the success of Christianity. Why then did this not work for other religions that called their founder God? Take Mithras, for example. The son of a virgin birth, preached essentially the same message as Jesus, also a popular god among the Romans at roughly the same time as historical Jesus.
For more:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=main

As to the Jesus/God question, the answer depends on your conception of God. If a God is infinite, there can be infinite manifestations of the Godhead. The Trinity is one way of conveying this idea. Thus Jesus is both Creator and human simultaneously.

Jesus called himself "the son of man" in the Gospels. He demonstrated and emphasized his humanness. He ate, worked, married if you believe the gnostic gospels, and died.

But unlike Mithras, the message of Jesus lived on.

[okasha]

38. One of the reasons Mithraism didn't survive

is that it was exclusively a religion for men. Another is that a large number of those men were in the Roman army. When the Empire fell and its soldiers disbanded or died, Mithraism fell with it.

[guillaumeb]

41. I would modify that statement.

Even though Mithraism was very popular among Roman soldiers, the beliefs do not specifically exclude female participation. The Priesthood was male, but the same can be said of Christianity.What prevented the message of Mithras from spreading beyond the Legionnaires? Mithras was venerated from approximately 100-400CE. Plenty of time for the belief system to spread beyond the confines of the Legion.

[johnnypneumatic]

28. I bought this book

but haven't read it yet. I read his previous book "Did Jesus Exist" and several others. Interesting stuff, and I agree with him on most things, though he often tells what scholars believe but doesn't give enough details on why, or what facts led them to that conclusion.

[Binkie The Clown]

31. Did Jesus even exist?

My hypothesis is that Jesus, as depicted in the Bible, did not exist.

Can anyone falsify that hypothesis?

So far, nobody has.

[johnnypneumatic]

35. as far as I could tell

from reading Ehrman, a person probably did exist with an aramaic name that later through time was transliterated through several languages and became "Jesus" in english, but there is no remaining evidence (if there ever was) and no way to know for sure what he did or what actually happened. Ehrman makes circumstantial arguments on why certain parts of the story, such as the crucifixion are probably true, but nothing can be proved. The best remaining evidence are the letters of Paul (although he only regards 6 or 7 of the 13 to be written by him), and the growing numbers of Christians, most probably due to Paul's efforts to travel around and establish churches. Of course, Paul came around after Jesus had made his exit, and so never met him. And the written gospels came later still.

[cbayer]

42. See, that's the thing, When you present a hypothesis, it is up to you

to test it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Can you falsify the hypothesis that Jesus did exist?

IMO, neither hypothesis will ever be proven true.

[Binkie The Clown]

43. I accept your challenge on one condition

Show me how such a falsification would work.

You falsify my claim that Erebus is the God of the Underworld.

I look forward to reading your falsification of my claim that Erebus is God of the Underworld. After all, according to your post the burden is on the non-believer to falsify the believer. So I am a believer in Erebus (for the purposes of this discussion). Your turn. Falsify my claim.

Be warned, however: If you succeed in falsifying my claim, I'll just use your proof and switch out "Jesus" for "Erebus" to falsify your claim because if your falsification works one way, it works both ways. And if it doesn't work, then the burden of proof is on the one making the claim that fairy tales are true.

[cbayer]

46. I have zero interest in either substantiating or falsifying any of these claims. None.

That is why you won't see me making broad, definitive statements about what religion is or is not.

You, otoh, make very definitive statements and it is up to you to back them up.

The burden is on the person making the definitive statement, whether they be a a believer of not. You are in that position.

You can't call something a "fairy tale" unless you have evidence that it's not true.

No badly you want it to be true, it's just your belief, based on some kind of faith.

[Binkie The Clown]

47. "I have no interest"

is code for "I'm hopelessly stumped by your question and don't know what to say."

I can say Humpty Dumpty is a fairy tale. If you disagree it's up to you to prove your belief in fairy tales.

And nowhere did I make a "definitive statement." I proposed an hypothesis and invited a falsification. You declined to attempt to falsify my hypothesis.

It's not a matter of me badly wanting something to be true. I've already said that I don't have any beliefs one way or the other. I've simply proposed an hypothesis and invited a falsification.

I can say anything is a fairy tale. If I'm wrong, somebody can falsify that hypothesis. I can say "anteaters are fairy tales" and you can refute that claim by showing me an anteater. That's how it works.

If I hypothesize that "A" does not exist, you can refute my hypothesis by producing an instance of "A".
If you hypothesize that "A" does exist, and I say it does not, there is NO way for me to prove that it does not exist, but there is a simple way for you to prove that it does. I can search under every rock looking for Jesus, and still not find him, and you can always claim that I haven't yet looked under the right rock. What you are doing, trying to shift the burden to me, show a complete lack of understanding of how formal logic works. If you calim that something is real it is not up to me to prove it is false. It's up to you to prove that it's true.

You claim Jesus was real. I hypothesize that he was not. I cannot possibly prove my hypothesis. You, on the other hand, have the burden of proof to demonstrate that my hypothesis is wrong. You have failed to accept that simple consequence of making a positive claim.

So instead of coping out with "I have no interest" why just admit that you cannot prove anything about the existence of this supposed Biblical Jesus.

[cbayer]

48. I cannot prove anything about the existence of this supposed Biblical Jesus.

Does that mean you win?

[Binkie The Clown]

49. Not at all. There is no win and lose. There is only truth, and a process of getting closer to truth.

My hypothesis remains unchallenged. Someday maybe somebody will invent a time machine and use it to falsify my hypothesis. In the mean time it's just an hypothesis. Nothing more.

My approach as an atheist/agnostic is "I don't know. Show me something convincing." So far nobody has shown me anything convincing, but I'm open to changing my mind if something convincing comes along.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Slight difference. Claims about jesus are purportedly about a real historical figure in the flesh.

Erebus was not ever such a thing, even allegedly. He's a supernatural figure that occupies supernatural territory.

The middle east clearly exists. Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem, etc, clearly exist, and archaeological evidence establishes they existed during the period jesus was alleged to live. jesus was alleged to be a real human in real meatspace, not a supernatural being in some other dimension/state of being.

So one hypothesis is eminently falsifiable.

Establishing that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person is not the domain of Religion at all, even if he is an important figure to religion(s).

[zipplewrath]

51. Nobody probably will

Your hypothesis isn't particularly radical, and quite honestly a fair number of biblical scholars would probably agree with you. But that isn't particularly earth shattering. The bible doesn't really do much of a job depicting a person but more so a philosophy. The person of Jesus assuredly was lost long ago, in part because it was relatively unimportant.

But this is true of almost any major historical figure. Lincoln, JFK, heck Henry the VIII were probably not the people that we think they were. We know of them because of events in which they participated, but the older the figure, the less we really know about them as people.

What is probably true however is that there was SOMEONE that was used as the initial basis. Since there were people wandering around claiming to be contemporaries, it would have been useful to describe someone that other people would have been aware. How much of that original person was used, and how much of other people were incorporated into the full description may never be known.

[OnyxCollie]

32. So, Jesus is God AND Santa Claus?

Boggles the mind.

[bvf]

36. Also the easter bunny,

a unicorn, leprechaun, fairy, nine-eyed goat--you name it.

[Binkie The Clown]

37. Don't forget Paul Bunyon, and Babe the blue ox. n/t

[Major Nikon]

45. Just don't tell me the tooth fairy isn't real

I got paid, gottdammit.

[MisterP]

33. here's a primer before starting

http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/

[Arugula Latte]

50. I wonder how the universe got along for the previous 13.799999999999999999999999999999 billion years

before Jesus came along and turned into god. I mean, how lucky for us that we live in the tiny, tiny, tiny slice of time after JC arrived, huh? And what did all those other billions of billions of planets do without Jesus until then, I wonder.

[Gore1FL]

53. Are you there God?