Jesus name baptism

[metis]

Either they actually observed their hero's resurrection, or they lied about the event to stir up stories.  If they are telling the truth, then there may be credence to the deification of Jesus.  I believe the disciples certainly believed in the deification of Jesus, but the question is when. 

I really don't want to get into the resurrection thing for a couple of reasons, but I will say, as Howie implied, there may be a "middle ground" even here.  Now whether this "middle ground" is correct or not is another question.  Let me just say that it's probably not the physical resurrection that's most important event for a Christian to believe.
   
 

 

And you are certainly right, miracles are not indisputable proof of divinity, although I think it certainly attests to being an instrument of divinity. 

But which "divinity"?  Think gnarly.



Shalom,
Vern

[Thorolf]

I don't think the existence of human failings is a particularly good argument for the notion that these humans possibly did not consider Jesus to be God.

Can God die? If not, when the person you had been following around believing to be God incarnate suddenly up and dies, wouldn't you wonder if you were right?

You then realize that people want to kill YOU for your association with this person. Wouldn't you run? Wouldn't you be tempted to deny Him?

Jesus was dead. If you heard that his body was no longer in the tomb, wouldn't you doubt that He came back to live and walked out? Surely there must be some other - more "reasonable" explanation.

Don't deify the Apostles. They were FAR from perfect.

Their imperfections is a pretty sketchy argument against the concept that they really did consider Jesus to be God.

[metis]

Their imperfections is a pretty sketchy argument against the concept that they really did consider Jesus to be God.

What is "sketchy" to one person is another's belief.  I simply do not believe we can be certain exactly when they believed Jesus to be somehow one and the same as God, but their "imperfections" implies they had at least doubts.  And the "doubts" are mentioned. 

Therefore, I will not assume that they had Jesus deified prior to his crucifixion, but I'm not going to assume they didn't.  And we have to remember that being a messiah or a prophet is not the same as being a deity.  But if I were to have to gamble, my guess is on that they did it after he was martyred for reasons previously mentioned.

BTW, one final point.  What they believed is not necessarily what the truth may have been.  They may have not believed him to be God and maybe he was, or they may have believed him to be God but maybe he wasn't.  However, what does become important is that the belief in Jesus being God eventually did prevail, so the belief, whether it came earlier or later, became the reality.

Shalom,
Vern 

Just an addition:  The apostles were also "running" before the crucifixion and around Jesus' arraignment with Pilate. 

[julrich]

the term deity means something different in the greek and jewish context.  the greek idea of a god-man has no place in the hebrew idea of a singular inscrutable master of the universe.  So jesus can be a deity in the hellenistic sense and not in the jewish or muslim sense. 

jules

[metis]

the term deity means something different in the greek and jewish context.  the greek idea of a god-man has no place in the hebrew idea of a singular inscrutable master of the universe.  So jesus can be a deity in the hellenistic sense and not in the jewish or muslim sense. 

Yes, and that's a good point.  What some have to realize is that the Judaism of Jesus' day also included the oral law, which was to be later written into the Mishnah and then the Talmud.  The oral law considered God to be One and not corporeal.  Now whether this is a correct belief or not isn't the point, but what is important is that the concept of God taking the body of a human or animal wasn't acceptable.

I think Paul would have had a very difficult time selling God-on-earth to Jews, but to many gentiles, that wouldn't be a problem.  And then with Paul's Greek education...

My feeling, which I cannot prove by any means, is that the verses saying Jesus and God are "one" may have been interpreted by the Jewish followers as being that they were on the same page, but not the same body.  So, in that sense, one could believe they are "one".

Shalom,
Vern 

[Thorolf]

But taking the form of, say, a burning bush is peachy keen?

I think the objection may be based more on a lack of clarity regarding the intricacies of various beliefs on the nature of Jesus than an actual difference between the "greek" and hebrew concepts. Personally, I don't really see much distinction between my concept of Jesus and a singular inscrutable master of the universe.

[Acumen]

But taking the form of, say, a burning bush is peachy keen?

Or better yet, the notion of angels (which are not quite God, and yet superior to men).  But I suppose the concept of a god-man must have caused a shell-shock and total bewilderment to the Jewish mind.

[metis]

But taking the form of, say, a burning bush is peachy keen?

Was God the bush or the flames?  Or maybe it was an extension of his power indicating His presence? 

Personally, I don't really see much distinction between my concept of Jesus and a singular inscrutable master of the universe.

Not a problem.



Shalom,
Vern