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

Short Answer: Truthfully, we are not sure at all. We are actually pretty unsure of where/how the historical Jesus was executed and what happened after his death.

Long answer: In order to answer your specific question, we need to ask, if Jesus was crucified, what happened to his body? And, what do we historically know about the sequence of events that happened after his death.

This has been the subject of historiographical debates over the last two decades. Consensus wise, most Early Christian historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was most likely executed by the state, and because the Roman state's typical form for punishment was crucifixion, this is most likely what happened to him. The area near Golgotha is a place known to have done execution, but so were other areas around Jerusalem.

Many historians lean on the side of John Dominic Crossan who has argued that in all likelihood he was executed and thrown into a mass grave. This is outlined in Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee and I think it was The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant John Dominic Crossan's “The Dogs Beneath the Cross,” chap. 6 in Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. The reason for our uncertainty is that secondary characters of antiquity are increasingly difficult to find out key aspects of their life, especially when their biographers were not witnesses and lived decades after the character's death.

Your question about the Tomb is even more difficult because the story as described in the Gospels is troublesome. None of them pass our tests for historical certainty, including the Criterion of dissimilarity and Criterion of multiple attestation. What do I mean by this? The stories don't actually match up. This is a problem for historians since every single resurrection narrative are completely different. A good example can be found if you ask what did they find at the tomb the morning of the third day? In Mark 16:5 it's One Young Man in Matthew 28:5 it's One Angel, in Luke 24:4 it's Two men, in John 20:12 - they don't find anyone there the first time they visit the tomb. This goes for every other detail in these narratives. Historians like Crossan and Ehrman both have also argued that the purpose of Roman Execution was to desecrate the body of the person being punished, thus allowing it it a burial in a tomb is highly unlikely (but not implausible).

So about that church in particular, no, the likelihood that he was executed and buried near that church is unlikely because we know nothing reliable about his death. It was picked up as the cites of both places for non historical reasons in the 4th century.

Edit: corrected a book title.

>I think the evidence firmly points to the person of Jesus having existed and when you couple this with the fact that the apostles did not recant their faith, it makes a promising case that the Resurrection was genuine.

You need to develop a standard for evaluating claims. And the standard needs to be something you can honestly live with.

There are many, many supernatural claims out there. Mohammed, for example: There are Muslims who argue just as effectively for the veracity of Mohammed's miracles as do Christians with respect to Jesus' resurrection. The same goes for many other religions that we still live with today -- and countless more that have died off over the centuries.

If your belief in a supernatural event is satisfied by ancient second-hand accounts of uneducated people who've never been exposed to science, then you need to apply that belief even-handedly, without respect to your upbringing, cultural experiences, and so on. But, of course, if you do that, you'll find yourself believing in contradictory dogma.

There's a better option: Simply put, Jesus existed. He clearly had an impact. He was tried and executed for that impact. Myths about him (including his resurrection) also developed as a result of that impact. Human beings see patterns, conspiracies, miracles, divine intervention, and divine damnation where none exist. It's a constant in the human experience. We see it historically, with, for example, the myths about Jesus. We see it today, with myths about Q-Anon, crisis actors at Sandy Hook, Obama's birth certificates, and so on. There is something about our brains that invents realities that never existed.

The specific details -- the precise, exact manner in which this one specific miracle developed and grew, is a subject of some study (I'll cite one great book below) but we'll never know the exact truth of how this myth got started. However, the absence of absolute certainty as to development of a myth doesn't mean that you have to believe the myth. If you did, you'd be forced to believe in all kinds of contradictory nonsense.

For an empirical look at Jesus' life and the development of the myths around him, check out Bart Erhman's How Jesus Became God. Erhman is a highly-respected biblical scholar and author of a number of textbooks, a few of which I read ages ago when I was a Religious Studies university student.

It's been a constant evolution. There's been misinterpretations, outright lies due to greed (the whole paying to get into heaven shit), etc. What a lot of christians fail to understand is that Jesus' and Paul's teachings were more in line with Judaism than any christian denomination today.

Most of the new testament doesn't even say that Jesus was a deity. It just says he was a really great guy, e.g. the messiah. Messiah is just the greek version of the hebrew word mashiach. Mashiach, the original Hebrew, meant 'god's anointed one', and there have been several messiahs. King David was a messiah.

Paul was not a christian

How Jesus became god

Dude...

Mark 16 New International Version (NIV)

16

1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.

2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb

3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[a]

Ending at Mark 16:8 doesn't skip the resurrection.

You seem like you're on some Dan Brown bullshit kick at the moment. Maybe read an actual historian like Bart Ehrman? Try How Jesus Became God : the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.

Anything by Bart Erhman, including How Jesus Became God

I didn't leave God. I just slowly came to the realization that the bible wasn't true. About two years ago, I went to a series of talks led by Tim Keller (yes, that famous Christian pastor with NY Times bestselling books) discussing reasons for believing. I went with a friend fully intending on bolstering my faith. I think I went to most of the talks and it had the opposite effect. I realized that what Keller was using as evidence of the divine was nonexistent and flimsy at best. I also made the realization here that just because someone has a PhD. and is a so-called expert on a subject doesn't mean he is right about it.

Anyway some seekers groups spun off these talks and I joined one. Every week we would gather together and discuss all of the questions people have when it comes to God: the problem of evil, the problem of suffering, science and the bible, etc., etc. The group was led by Christians and, of course, the intent was to convert. (I just want to note here that I met some great people through this. I didn't have any traumatic experiences with other Christians unlike other people in this sub). Anyway, these discussions just raised more issues with the bible and got me thinking more and more about it. I just began to realize how absurd the claims of the bible were.

Finally, I started reading Bart Ehrman. He is a professor at UNC and a former bible-believing Christian, who went to seminary. I read one of his books [How Jesus Became God] (https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778192/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1502669542&sr=8-6&keywords=bart+ehrman) and it was eye-opening. I also started reading material from other skeptics. From that I learned that the Gospels do not agree with one another. In fact, they differ in the details of their stories. For instance, the Gospels disagree on how Judas died. Second, the stories in the Gospels were transmitted orally for years until they were finally written down in Greek. They were not written by eyewitnesses! As someone who's played the telephone game you know that stories change as they are relayed from one person to the next. I finally made the realization that the idea of Jesus grew until we have what we have today in the Christian church.

There are a lot of other things I am leaving out, but that's the gist. I urge you to do more research on this topic and read what non-Christians have to say about the bible. You might be surprised by what you learn. I know I was.

You can remove the ref= and everything after it on Amazon links to have a cleaner URL. Example:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778192/

> It was picked up as the cites of both places for non historical reasons in the 4th century.

What were the reasons? Was it political or religiously motivated?

To add to this, I've seen arguments made that the gospels portray Jesus (Yeshua), The Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh), and God (YHWH) as one and the same. They've explained further that this would not be a problem to the Hebraic mindset as opposed to our modern western minds that need a neat rational explanation for everything.

I've, also, seen arguments made by Bart Ehrman, in How Jesus Became God, that Jesus is simply a preacher that was, over time, glorified to the position of God by later followers.

On the other hand, I've heard arguments from N.T. Wright, in Jesus and the Victory of God, that Jesus is the prophet-messiah and the embodiment of YHWH as King.

Here are some other good books not included in the Bible.

https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=nodl_

https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778192/ref=mp_s_a_1_2_nodl?crid=9RMC18R4FOG4&keywords=misquoting+jesus+by+bart+ehrman&qid=1554250427&s=gateway&sprefix=bart+ehrman&sr=8-2

https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=mp_s_a_1_3_nodl?crid=35QQAVAV7QDZC&keywords=richard+dawkins&qid=1554250354&s=gateway&sprefix=richard+dawkins&sr=8-3

https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins-ebook/dp/B003JTHWJQ/ref=mp_s_a_1_2_nodl?crid=35QQAVAV7QDZC&keywords=richard+dawkins&qid=1554250354&s=gateway&sprefix=richard+dawkins&sr=8-2

https://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Isaac-Asimov-ebook/dp/B000FC1PWA/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?crid=12RC9CDG804CS&keywords=isaac+asimov&qid=1554250561&s=gateway&sprefix=isaac+asimov&sr=8-2

https://www.amazon.com/Gone-Girl-Gillian-Flynn/dp/0307588378/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?crid=3CFDSBUJ5BQBR&keywords=gone+girl&qid=1554250625&s=gateway&sprefix=gone+giel&sr=8-2

https://www.amazon.com/Green-Eggs-Ham-Dr-Seuss/dp/0394800168/ref=nodl_

Also, as a side-note I've also read The Historical Jesus which concludes that Jesus was thrown in a ditch like all other peasants.

And How Jesus Became God by atheist Bart Ehrman who sees the resurrection witness as nothing more that a public delusion comparable to some modern examples that he gives.

I highly recommend these as well. Though I disagree with them at some important points.

Whoa there! This might be an unpopular opinion, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, yes, I think it's more of a problem when people claim that the Bible is perfect and literally the word of God, that there are no contradictions, etc. It's really ugly the way people use it to justify all manner of bigotry. And I do have experience there -- I went to a Southern Baptist school for 7 years.

On the other hand! As an English major and just general lover of literature, I think much of the Bible is so beautiful! The myths, the poetry... Not to mention the history. Not even necessarily the history actually written in it (though there is something to some of it), but what we can learn about who wrote it and when and why (the answer is... complicated; I highly recommend How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman to anyone interested in that), what they believed, how they lived... Honestly, I find it much more interesting as a human work of literature than as a holy text.

I've had a similar obsession with the bible over the years. It made no sense to me when I was part of a church but everything opened up once I realized it's one of the best insights we have into the ancient mind and I find it fun to read now.

The top response to this post says the god of the Old Testament is the same as the god of the New but that's because they are looking at it only as a religious text. Looking at it as a historical document you can clearly see a progression over time from a Polytheistic War god at the beginning who demands blood sacrifices to a Monotheistic vengeful god of a chosen few. The New Testament is clearly written with Greek/Roman influences and a kinder god that was changed in ways to better fit and grow in that society.

If you haven't read it already, a good first book on the subject is Who Wrote the Bible by Friedman. I like The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein and Ehrmann's books are good too. There are dozens of other good overviews that show the Bible's progression from ancient campfire stories to the form we see today. After reading a few, I don't see how anyone can seriously believe the Bible is the unerring word of god.

I know I'll never convince my family members that Christianity is wrong so I've focused my efforts to get them to understand the bible was written by man. Even if we grant them that a god actually spoke to Moses and Jesus is his literal son neither man wrote the words in the book. Later men took the stories and wrote them down. The books of the Torah were finalized 600+ years after Moses is supposed to have lived. The Gospels were written 50 years after Jesus is said to have died. These writers were not gods and to say they were divinely inspired is a cop-out. They interpreted what they heard but these men were also products of their times. They practiced blood sacrifice and accepted slavery nor did they have a fraction of our understanding of the world. It's why you can't take the book literally.

There may be truths in the Bible but you have to look behind the words to find them.

Anything by Robert Price or Bart Ehrman for a secular academic understanding of the Bible. Great if you're into history and ancient cultures or want to understand how Christianity came about.

How God Became Jesus was an evangelical critique of Ehrman's How Jesus Became God.

How did the religion spread? How did Greek mythology spread? How did Islam spread? Electricity, the steam engine, even complex crop irrigation did not even exist yet! It spread because through a bunch of ancient, uneducated people.

Good book you should read, group of scholars did their actual homework on this: How Jesus Became God

TLDR; Jesus did exist, and was hung up on a cross. However, he was hung for treason and claiming to be king of Judea, which was a Roman state. Rome said "like hell you are". Back then hanging by cross was incredibly common and crosses lined the streets into the cities to warn potential criminals not to come in.

imagine if you brought some followers to your state government and declared you were the new king of your state, then when they asked you to leave you got all preachy and a bunch of idiots started following the idea. There are more civilized punishments now, and people wouldn't be stupid enough to follow you. Remember the Gutenberg printing press was still 1500 years away when this shit happened, so the ancient old world idiots started believing he was "divine." Then the Catholic Church got power and threatened people with death if they didn't believe it. As Spain conquered Mexico, for example, they killed those who didn't convert. Mexico is now mostly catholic. That's how it spread, with lots of death in the name of god.

One I was pondering last night while frantically redditing: Since Jesus probably was not buried in a tomb after his death, how did the empty tomb theory come about? It makes a great narrative and its purpose is clear, but what's the origin?

https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778192/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1537772749&sr=8-3&keywords=bart+ehrman

Honestly, you don't need a source though. Reading the bible without a modern bias is enough. In matthew, mark, luke, and paul, there is not only nothing even vaguely resembling calling him god, but no implication of any radical new views on god. People scrounge for unrelated things because there is nothing. And there are lines like calling him the first creation that explicitly rule it out. Him being an actual part of god seems to be an invention of the book of john, or a new theological trend from around its time. Known to have been written after the others.

> You are just not listening to me. That is not how 'evidence' works. Also, I have not heard historians comment on the veracity of Jesus' Resurrection. Do you have a credible source for this?

I am listening, the evidence you provided, the words of the Gospels, cannot be used to prove the miraculous claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I'd be glad to, probably the most accessible work that I've come across is that of Dr. Bart Ehrman. He has vast knowledge of the New Testament (in its original Greek), but has also written many books aimed at the layman. I would start here:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778192/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499392033&sr=8-1&keywords=bart+ehrman

Also, he has given many public lectures, here is a good one to start with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd7Lanms-gY

> Again, you are changing the subject / moving the goal posts. I am not talking about proving anything. I am demonstrating that my claim is falsifiable, and it is.

How am I moving the goal posts? Your claiming that a miracle can be proven historically, as what you're presenting as falsifiable evidence is the gospels. I am correctly pointing out that a miracle, specifically someone being raised from the dead, cannot be proven historically.

> You are conflating two different types of definition for miracles. Divine intervention could happen daily, and it would still fit the qualification of a miracle of divine intervention. See the first definition here.

I'm assuming you mean this one: "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." That is exactly what I am talking about. If it can't be explained scientifically, then it doesn't qualify as falsifiable evidence. You can choose to personally believe it, but you cannot claim it is scientifically viable evidence.

> You are mixing up easy ways of falsifying my world view verses the reason I think my world view is likely. Those two are not the same thing. You jumped to a huge conclusion that they were (and again, were changing the subject mid-conversation).

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm asking you for falsifiable evidence, not for "personal opinion on why your worldview is likely".

> Sure it is evidence, it is just very weak evidence. Someone saying they saw a burgler in the house next door is evidence there was one. It is not conclusive, but testimony is still evidence.

Of course, because that is commonplace and likely to have happened. There is nothing scientifically unlikely about a human being breaking into someone's house. If you testified in court that you believe your dead teacher broke into your house, you wouldn't be taken seriously.

> I think you are conflating generic evidence with empirical evidence (which you are associating with 'science'). They are not equivalent. Empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence available when talking about philosophy. Limiting yourself to empirical evidence is a false requirement you are putting up for yourself.

I'm not talking about philosophy. I'm talking about truth. Did Jesus really raise from the dead? No amount of philosophical reasoning can prove that point. Your evidence, words on a piece of paper, is no better than any other miraculous claim. There are thousands of documented miraculous events. How can you prove that yours is unique?

> What experiment is that that directly tests string theory? I think you are confusing being able to test something with the ability to conceive something indirectly based upon evidence available. There are many scientific hypotheses which are untestable.

Name one scientific hypothesis that is not testable. Why would any scientist make a hypothesis if he couldn't test it? Do you understand the scientific method? For the record, string theory makes predictions, and those predictions can be tested (and some scientists are even starting to devise ways to do so: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html).

> We were just talking about the Teleological Argument and the Fine Tuned Universe argument. These are clearly based upon scientific observation. Now your original claim that I am refuting here is that 'apologetic have nothing to do with science'. Please don't change the subject into whether or not they are falsifiable or testable. The subject is whether or not these arguments have anything to do with science.

If they aren't testable, they aren't scientific. If those two "arguments" were able to make predictions that were testable, they wouldn't be arguments any longer, they'd be theories. Again, you do not seem to understand the basics of the scientific method.

> All in all, I am not sure I want to continue this conversation. We have gone back and forth a lot, and you don't seem to understand much of what I am saying. You have the definition virtually every important word incorrect, and keep conflating things and changing subjects mid-stream. You also keep making assumptions about me that are incorrect. I don't think this debate is very productive.

See now, you got on me for calling you stubborn, yet you are falsely claiming I don't understand basic definitions. Please, if you take away anything from this: read and understand the scientific method. Second, give Bart Ehrman's book a read, it is fascinating.

EDIT: typos, also this video is a more relevant video from Ehrman: https://youtu.be/GhGLWSD-0N8?t=548. He discusses miracles in historical study.

I don't see any need to 'prove' anything. My position is that God is not susceptible to proof and that religion actually teaches this.

Atheists might deny God but asking for proof is intellectually dishonest. It's like if I play Baseball and you play Football and I keep asking you to prove Football exists by showing me a Footballer getting a Home Run.

In essence they are trying to force their rules on to you rather than trying to disprove your position by your own rules - which is what they should do if they are rational. No-one would ever construct a scientific model that tried to prove something by rules that don't apply to it.

Anyway, I digress. I never read atheist books any more as I find them insulting to my intelligence but I do read a lot of theology. Actually, most problems about God have been far better addressed by theologians than atheists.

David Bentley Hart is good on Atheist 'thought'. This is a good one:

Bart Erhman is good on alternate readings of Christian scripture.

This is good too - a discussion on how atheists see the world as material 'things' and assume God does not exist because He is not material. That's the whole point though... God is NO THING

If you want a logical proof though The Kalam Cosmological Argument is probably the nearest to it and I think no atheist really wants to discuss this.

It's an early Islamic 'proof' of God which has been take up by theologian William Lane Craig. He actually has repeatedly asked Dawkins for a public debate on this but Dawkins continually refuses.

The argument is simple

• Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
  
• The universe began to exist;
  
• therefore: the universe has a cause
  
  To falsify it the atheist would need to point to one example of an existent thing that has no cause (which actually would be God)
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

I just quickly refer you to some sides I randomly googled - Bible Contradictions, BibViz, Bible Inconsistencies there is a lot out there really. The problem is the Bible was written by a couple of different people who didn't know each other and that 50 some years after Jesus death. I have a good book tip for you about this - it's a book by a guy who was a devoted christian himself, so he knows where you are coming from, he even studied it - he learned how the bible came to be and how contradictionary it is - he became an atheist and didn't care about hell anymore: How Jesus Became God.

If I may ask this: Have you ever read the bible from beginning to end?

I recommend Bart Ehrman's books. He's a former fundy and a scholar of Christian history. How Jesus Became God goes right to the heart of Christian theology.