Reddit Reddit reviews How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee

We found 32 Reddit comments about How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Christian Books & Bibles
Christian Church History
Christian Ministry & Church Leadership
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
Used Book in Good Condition
Check price on Amazon

32 Reddit comments about How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee:

u/TooManyInLitter · 43 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

[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.]
u/stickman393 · 14 pointsr/atheism

"if you think about it".

Please don't. Instead, do some actual research. There are many good texts out there about the origins of the Jesus mythology.

I enjoyed this one:

u/unsubinator · 13 pointsr/TrueChristian

>in the opinion of modern scholars

In the opinion of some modern scholars. The opinions to which you give voice are hardly universal and they're trending toward a minority among contemporary scholars. Such views were much more widely held at the beginning of the 20th Century, for instance, than they are today.

Among the scholars to which you can refer to good scholarship and a less Modernist point of view are N.T. Wright and Scott Hahn. Both are (as far as I know) well regarded scholars of the Bible. There are others but those are the two that spring to mind.

>the disciples didn't really believe Jesus was God (if he existed)

I think this is false on the face of it, and even Bart Ehrman concludes that it was their belief in the resurrection that convinced Jesus' disciples that Jesus was God in the years immediately following the crucifixion. See here for a radio interview with Ehrman about his book, How Jesus Became God.

Ehrman courted the disfavor of his atheist admirers in one of his other recent books, where he took aim at the Jesus mythicists, arguing that Jesus was definitely an historical character.

Again, I would refer you to N.T. Wright and his works on the historicity of the Bible.

> the Bible is a collage of stolen myths

Once again, this is just flatly false and is only believed by the most extreme "scholars" in the Jesus Mythicist camp (as far as I know).

>My second question: is there a term for someone who studies Biblical topics in general? As in one who studies ancient near-east cultures, comparative mythology, languages, Biblical source documents, Jewish literature, archaeology, and other "Biblical Humanities"? That's what I like.

I don't know about a "term", but check out Scott Hahn, the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, this book (if you can find it), and especially (for this question), I would recommend John Walton and his books, The Lost World of Genesis One and Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible.

u/mothman83 · 12 pointsr/TrueAtheism

No it is not. This view is generally seen as discredited.

Having said that there are many many MANY figures in mideastern mythology that were killed and resurrected. So while it is not at all accurate to say that this aspect of the jesus story was merely plagiarized from egyptian mythology, it WOULD be accurate to say that the theme of being killed and then resurrected was a common theme in mideastern mythology at the time. jesus was hardly the only godman to arise in the first century A.D

I would deeply recommend EVERYTHING by Bart Ehrman but especially in this particular case How Jesus became God, the exhaltation of a jewish prophet in which Dr Ehrman discusses how one of the literally DOZENS of apocalyptic preachers wandering around Jerusalem in 30 A.D had a mythology of divinity attached to him later on. Suffice to say that it was common for, for example, emperors to become " gods" after their deaths. Jesus was hardly the only person to become a god after death in the roman empire in the first century.

( Fun Fact: If jesus came back to Earth today the number one thing that would shock him would be that... the EARTH STILL EXISTED. Jesus was convinced that the earth would be destroyed within a human lifetime.the bible expressly attributes this belief to jesus in Matthew 16:28 Sure Christian apolgists now spin this as some kind of methaphor, but when you place jesus within his hsitorical context and realize that apocalyptic beliefs where everywhere in israel in the first century ad and that there where maybe twenty other guys preaching the imminent destruction of the world right there in the same city, then it becomes clear that jesus meant it literally. Anyone listening to him at the time( if he indeed said these words) would have ABSOLUTELY thought he meant them literally.

Tl;Dr: using the bible itself and the historical context of his time and place, Jesus was certain that the world would end at the latest 1900 years ago. )

u/Knodiferous · 11 pointsr/TrueAtheism

There is nothing, because there is fucking nothing, nothing, nothing at all, period, zip, zero zilch. There's no books about a guy named jesus who lived at that time. There's no books about jesus that aren't based on the bible. Nothing was written about jesus while he was alive. He is not mentioned.

Nobody can prove jesus existed. Nobody can prove he didn't. Nobody can prove he was based on a real character. Nobody can prove a fucking single thing, period, at all, period. End of conversation.

Many historians agree that the character written about in the books of the new testament probably grew from legends and fables based on a real itinerant apocalyptic preacher. They come to these conclusions based on comparative analysis of the books of the new testament, and their conclusions are not solid, but are merely what they think is most likely.

If you want some scholarship, this book might be interesting

u/Quadell · 8 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

The trouble is, there wasn't any orthodox strain of Christianity at the time. Orthodoxy was invented later. In the 2nd century there were lots of (relatively small) Jesus groups presenting a wide array of beliefs that only started to resolve themselves into an orthodox creed after Constantine.

If you want to learn about what early Christian groups were like, and how orthodox ideas formed, you could try Snyder's Ante Pacem, Davidson's Birth of the Church, or Ehrman's How Jesus Became God. Davidson prefers to present orthodox ideas as appearing relatively early, while Ehrman emphasizes the late arrivals, and I haven't actually read Ante Pacem yet (though it's been recommended to me by multiple people).

u/UnableFaithlessness · 8 pointsr/DebateReligion

> So this hinges on what your definition of “God” is. If God is a collection of attributes (the entire collection being termed his “nature”, or his “God-ness”) and Jesus shares completely in all that particular collection of attributes then we can properly call him “God”. If the Father shares equally in all those attributes of “God-ness” then he is also “God”. These attributes are such things as being creator, uncreated, unlimited, eternal, almighty, lord, etc.

That's impossible. One of those attributes is indivisible unity: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" (Deut. 6:4). There cannot be a separate person that is also God.

Jesus is very clearly depicted as a separate person in the CNT (e.x. by praying to God, by saying that God has forsaken him, etc.). This means Jesus does not participate in the divine attribute of indivisible unity - and thus cannot be God.

A being that shares in some of the divine attributes but not all of them cannot be called "God."

>Firstly, I argue that there are attributes which the “Persons” of God have which we do not consider part of the core collection of attributes which we understand to constitute “God-ness”. These are separate attributes to that “nature” of God, and therefore, as separate attributes, we ascribe them not to the “nature” of “God”, but to the “nature” of one of the "Persons".

That would be well argued if indivisible unity weren't a core attribute of the "nature" of "God." The whole idea of separate "Persons" that participate in God requires abandoning that core theological claim.

At most charitable to the CNT: Jesus was some kind of angelic being. This is what Bart Ehrman argued the earliest Christians believed (see How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from the Galilee). Ehrman even argues that Paul believed this.

u/ikonoclasm · 6 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Read How Jesus Became God. That's the history of early Christianity, how Jesus went from a preacher to the figurehead of Christianity. It's not what most people would think.

u/WalkingHumble · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Firstly, I wanted to thank you for your interest and hope that you find the answers to your questions. If not, there's plenty of people on this sub that would be happy to help.

In terms of shedding light, there are a number of non-canonical accounts of Jesus, even early ones that were not included into the canon. Many give vastly different accounts of Jesus' nature and teachings, which ultimately is one of the reasons they became rejected, along with dating of when they were written, who by, integrity of the teachings, etc. I think the Didache is a little misrepresented though, many of our early Church fathers were not only aware of it, but clearly reference it.

Ultimately, though our early accounts of Jesus do offer a divine incarnation from the get go, our earliest Gospel, Mark includes many such references as do our earliest writings, the epistles of Paul, hence why the notion of Jesus as merely a human is widely rejected (though there some who self-identify as Christian and might accept a human-only Jesus, this wouldn't be considered orthodox though).

If looking into the historical evidence and various accounts of Jesus as human as well as further reading material you might be better poking your head into /r/AcademicBiblical. You could also look into the companion books How Jesus became God and How God became Jesus to get a good grasp for arguments on both sides.

Peace be upon you!

u/austinfitzhume · 3 pointsr/exmormon
u/bunker_man · 3 pointsr/im14andthisisdeep

Early church fathers from the year 150 aren't really relevant, since by that time plenty of people did think jesus was god. That might seem close to the time of christ, but for an unorganized early religion, a century is a long time.

As far as those quotes, you took them directly from a propaganda site that is trying to convince you of something. Most aren't real historical evidence that he was seen as god. I'll skip the john verses since the book of john was written later after theological changes, but the others in order:

>“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[a] (which means “God with us”).

Nothing about this says he is god. The idea that someone represents someone's presence is a common religious trope.

>28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood.[b]

This is misleading when taken out of context, since in the verses before this he was talking about jesus. So "he" here just refers to jesus again. It only looks like "he" means god when taken out of context.

>Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

You run into an error here when reading translations by people who are reading their theology into it. Remember that in the original language this would have been more ambiguous punctuation-wiise. The original language says ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν. And here, the final part can be read as "god who is over all be praised." It only looks like jesus is being called god if you assume that it is one continuous line.

>24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

This says that christ embodies the power of god. But that is not a statement that he is god. Again, a figure embodying the properties or authority of another is a common trope in religion. Especially via greek influence.

>4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

This ties to the above. You should be starting to see a pattern now. Saying that someone represents the authority of god doesn't mean they are god themself. You should notice something else here. None of these verses are saying he literally -is- god. They all say he indirectly represents or embodies the nature of god. So you can actually start to see what happened just from this. The earliest written texts don't say he is god. But they ascribe him special importance of representing god's natures manifested to humanity. Over time, later people were clearly worshiping jesus, and the original meaning was obscured so the idea that he was literally god was seen as necessary to preserve the claim of monotheism.

>who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

And this verse is very damning. Because it clearly ascribes him an embodiment of god's properties, yet also makes it clear that he is not equal to god, nor did he say he was. Note that your later view that it would be odd for it to word things this way or conflate god and man can't be read into a text that was radical for the time, and before those theologies even existed.

>15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

This one is even more damning because it explicitly calls jesus a created being. "creation" might be ambiguous to later readers, but it clearly delineates created things. And this shows how many of these early christians saw him. Many thought that he was a unique created being who is second only to god, and kind of divine in his own right. But even here there is no implication of him being equal to god. Only that he is a medium through which god's powers manifest.

>13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ

This is another one people twist based on punctuation. If you are reading it in a language without punctuation you can think it is delineating god and jesus as one, when in actuality it is listing two beings.

>3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Note here the son and god are being delineated as two different things.

>Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God, and our Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Again, punctuation ambiguity. If you list two names together like this you can read it as if it is two names for one being.

But again notice something here. 1: none of these verses clearly and unambiguously say jesus is god. 2: There is no indication of any new radical understanding of god as a multi-person thing. 3: jesus is presented as a bridge between man and god. Why would he need to be represented in this way if he was god himself? 4: the book of john is the first beginnings of him seemingly conflated with the father, but even there he is not presented as equal. The book of john was also written after these other texts. The early ones take great pains to try to say he was the messiah. Why then do none of them come out and say he is god? Indirect things you can vaguely interpret as saying that don't really count, since they wouldn't have presumed the audience knew who jesus was. So they would need to be clear.

Only in the gospel of john is Jesus depicted as God. In the other gospels, and the writings of paul he is not. And this isn't something that slipped their minds either. They didn't say so because they didn't think so, and him being so wasn't the content of christianity at the time.

Note that even in john, there is no trinitarianism. Jesus is considered a lesser sub aspect of god, who is kind of god, but not the fullness of god.

Note that at different times jesus says the father is superior. Disavows omniscience. Says that he is capable of learning. Is called the first creation. Says he is not all good like the father. Calls the father his own god, specifying a lower position, and disavowing full godhood, etc. To the majority of biblical writers Jesus is not god at all. In john he is depicted as kind of god in an emanationist way. He is not the godhead, but an intermediary lesser part of god in between god and humanity.

But here's a book:

This is really not controversial among historians at all. There is no evidence that any christians saw jesus as literally the same being as the father for quite a lot of decades after his death. Trinitarianism as an idea only shows up around 120 ad, and the first writings on it very definitely were proto versions of the later idea.

u/gamegyro56 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Well, the birth narratives and trial dialogues are narrative devices and aren't historical (Is 7:14 also isn't about a virgin. You didn't say that, but in case you don't know).

I'm pretty sure the Samaritan woman thing is from John, and again, John preserves less historical information about Jesus than other gospels. It was also written a lot later than Mark or Matthew.

For more information, you can read this book by Bart Ehrman, or this book by John Dominic Crossan. Crossan's book is brilliant, but it is pretty dense. I think he says that Jesus being the Messiah is the post-Easter Jesus.

You could also ask /r/AcademicBiblical for more resources. Even if some people there might not personally hold to the view, they can probably direct you to scholars that do (and those that don't).

u/U53R-N4M3 · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

What is yours and other academic's take on Bart Ehrman's book: "How Jesus Became God :The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee"

What book would you recommend if I wanted a historically accurate version of Jesus's life and the foundations of Christianity?

u/AprilLudgateDwyer · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Agreed. According to Bart Erhman -- the scholar who wrote the textbook on early Christianity that Yale uses -- the "human sacrifice" angle was likely a retrofitted philosophy after it started being apparent that Jesus wasn't coming back in their lifetimes to free Judea, raise shadow ppl from the dirt, etc.

Many early Christians were satisfied that his big miracle was his spiritual resurrection. (To modernize that a bit, the first man to realize his self outside of spacetime.)

u/w_v · 2 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

To claim that the disciples' visions were of a true miracle would fall outside the scope of what historians can say about the past. So I guess my question is: What do you mean by mass hallucination theory?

I mean, barring evidence of purposeful deception, all miraculous visions are, by definition, non-veridical when analyzed within a historical context (non-veridical being a less loaded term for hallucination.)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines it as...

> “an experience which seems exactly like a veridical perception of an ordinary object but where there is no such object there to be perceived. Like illusions, hallucinations in this sense do not necessarily involve deception.”

Using this definition it's totally possible to talk about the real visions the disciples had of an unreal event. This is how Ehrman chose to approach the topic in his book: How Jesus Became God.

As far as problems with this approach, I guess it boils down to whether or not you think these visions had anything to do with the origin of Christianity. What's certaintly not up for (historical) debate is whether these visions were of an actual miracle—Bayesian apologetics notwithstanding.


If you're interested in visions of the recently deceased outside of an academicbiblical context, there's plenty of scholarship on bereavement visions. The author provides a generous list of suggested readings at the end.

u/tuigdoilgheas · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I'm also going through all those old Will Durant history books for a nice refresher, as audiobooks, peppered liberally with readings from its sources when I'm not plugged in and listening.

u/BeakOfTheFinch · 1 pointr/atheism

Bart Ehrman covers the Jesus/Horus connection in his latest book. I could be the has footnotes. I'm listening to the audiobook so I can't check.

My understanding is that Zeitgeist trampled all over the truth, but some I'd the Horus/Jesus connections are still true.

u/LadyAtheist · 1 pointr/atheism

Essential reading (though it presumes Jesus was a real person): How Jesus Became God, by Bart Ehrman

u/chocolatemeringue · 1 pointr/Philippines

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" did not address the question of whether Jesus is god or not, but discusses how that came to be.)

u/SunAtEight · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Read How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee 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.

u/opinionmill · 1 pointr/exjw

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.

u/enenamas · 1 pointr/Christianity

> did Jesus ever claim to be God?

That's a complicated question.

You might be interested in these lectures on the subject.

He also wrote a book about it:

u/willun · 1 pointr/australia

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.

u/cyclops1771 · 1 pointr/worldbuilding

Read Chapter 1 of Bart Ehrman's book "How Jesus became God." It gives a good understanding of how religion and gods were perceived in a polytheistic world.

u/agnosgnosia · 1 pointr/atheism

I'd also recommend one of Bart Ehrman's new books, "How Jesus Became God". There's also the youtube version.

Does Jesus even say he was god? Sounds like a silly question, but bear with me.

Probably all of Jesus' sayings are lifted from cynic philosphers. So it wasn't divine wisdom, it was just the wisdom of very real people, who weren't even christian.

Also, the last 12 verses of Mark weren't in the original version because the 4 oldest copies that scholars have of Mark, don't have that in there. Secondly, they have a different writing style and verbiage, as analyzed by experts. I don't have any links for that, but you seem resourceful and can probably turn that up.

"Who Wrote the Old Testament?" by Richard Elliot Friedman goes over a history of trying to figure out the authorship of the Pentateuch. Most of the authors, no one knows who the authors were, but we know it wasn't Moses. There are however some fairly good arguments for thinking the Deuteronomy author was Jeremiah. There's oftentimes some confusion about terms like "Who's on first?". Is "Who's on first" a question or declarative? If 'Who' is a person's name, it's a declarative, but it sure sounds like a question. Likewise, does saying 'son of god' mean that a person is a deity? Or is it just saying they are a child of god like we all are? Google 'children of god' and you'll see countless links referring to any human being as a child of god. They're not saying they are deities on the same level as god. Does calling someone messiah mean they are god? Not to people in the new testament. That meant something completely different, which Ehrman goes over in his book.

Does someone claiming they are god mean they are god? If someone says yes, then they would have to concede that A.J. Miller, a.k.a. Australian Jesus (yes this guy claims to be Jesus reincarnate) is god. He does in fact claim to be god.

"But Jesus did miracles and rose from the dead. That's proof that he's god.".
No, there are claims that he did that. Ask yourself, if some homeless person came up to you and claimed they rose from the dead and that their scars were proof of this, would you accept this? Hopefully not. It just pushes the claims to the authors of the gospels.

Paul, Mark, Luke and Matthew don't claim that Jesus was god. John most likely does, but the others don't. Why? Because there was no expectation of the messiah being divine. The messiah was just supposed to be someone who would restore Israel to statehood and rule under god's law, much like David.

u/Tuna_Surprise · 1 pointr/exmormon

I got zero Mormon theology in me. Well respected biblical scholars agree - it all came later.

There would have been zero need for a the council of Nicea if it weren’t a big topic for the prior 300 years.

u/BaalsOfSteel · 1 pointr/Christianity

> 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

u/ZakieChan · 0 pointsr/atheism

>Nonsense. Where's the evidence for any of that?

Books, man. Read books.

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.