You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 4:30 p.m.

In the Pews: The divinity of Jesus, part 2

By Darcy Crain-Polly

Last week the video blog answered a question from one of our viewers regarding the divinity of Jesus. This is one of those questions and issues that needs to move from inside the seminary walls to inside the modern Christian's life if it is one that is going to be worth answering at all. Could it be that an issue that was so paramount in the forming of early Christianity, and remains paramount in academia, is a fading issue in the lives of those who identify as Christian today? What difference does it make?

Tune in for the final part of this two-part question. We're looking for new questions to answer next week, so please consider sending yours to inthepews@fcccannarbor.org. Thanks!

Darcy Crain-Polly
Associate Minister,
First Congregational Church of Ann Arbor

Comments

W. Vida

Fri, Nov 5, 2010 : 12:27 p.m.

Hi Bill, Pam is right that we have gotten off topic. There is a ton of evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I would love to go through it with you outside of the context of this site. Please contact me over at my blog and we can go through the evidence in great detail (just post a comment): http://religionannarbor.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/a-jewish-messiah-not-a-pagan-myth/

Bill Wilson

Fri, Nov 5, 2010 : 9:51 a.m.

In light of Jesus' divinity, what makes the scriptures alive and meaningful today? WOW, So Pam, I do agree, the subject is best returned to its original story line. But is Tony aware of the fact that you've just offically declared Jesus to be devine? I'm glad I captured a screenshot of that.

Bill Wilson

Fri, Nov 5, 2010 : 9:28 a.m.

The reason that the overwhelming majority of scholars accept that Jesus existed is that we have 4 full biographies written within a couple generations, you have 13 letters detailing much of his life in the works of Paul (all written within a generation), you have a full movement that is recognizable within a generation. W Vida, Your evidence reminded me of a man I once saw in court. After a long-winded explanation as to why he had broken some traffic law, the judge asked him if he could "verify" his story. His answer? Man: "Yes your honor, I herby verify my story." After we all stopped laughing, the Judge told him pretty much what I will tell you: The mere fact that someone wrote something is not, in of itself, evidence of its veracity. Jesus is not standing before us. We're all aware of the fact that the four narratives you cite are the basis for the belief in Jesus. But no serious scholar would cite the narrative as evidence of the veracity of the narrative. Now, let me dig-down deeper for you. We don't have the actual "original" narratives. What we have, are copies of copies, and heavily edited copies at that, as each narrative was rewritten to conform to the pre-conceived notions of the Catholic church during the various Ecumenical councils. And, these copies, were not written in Aramaic, as one would expect. Rather, the language and nuances are predominantly those of a Greek. Whatsmore, Paul's (from memory, I believe it's the person who claimed to be Paul) writings make it pretty clear that he had never visited the region. His descriptions of the geography (the placement of villages and rivers) are riddled with errors. Someone who actually lived there would not have made mistakes like these. I could continue, but as I noted, you'll need to do your own work.

bedrog

Fri, Nov 5, 2010 : 5:59 a.m.

billog..unbelievable.!! you are indeed a miracle, per my previous.

W. Vida

Thu, Nov 4, 2010 : 10:50 p.m.

Hi Bill Wilson, The reason that the overwhelming majority of scholars accept that Jesus existed is that we have 4 full biographies written within a couple generations, you have 13 letters detailing much of his life in the works of Paul (all written within a generation), you have a full movement that is recognizable within a generation. For an ancient figure, this is overwhelming amount of detail. It is especially amazing given that it is talking about a middle class Jewish carpenter from a remote part of the empire. We don't have this kind of information on any of the Roman Senate and we arguably have more evidence for Jesus existing than many of the Roman emperors. I am mystified how someone could take all of this and proclaim that there is insufficient evidence of his *existence*. I understand those who admit he existed but doubt his miracles. I don't understand how one could maintain he never existed at all.

Bill Wilson

Thu, Nov 4, 2010 : 8:14 p.m.

billogfellow..re your claim of josephus flavius being the earliest mention of jesus: ummm. josephus wrote in the aftermath of the Romans' destruction of jerusalem/masada in the late 1st century ad. There are these little things called 'gospels'that are a tad earlier and whose authors, as contemporaries of the historical jesus/yohoshua bar yosef, wrote after his death..., whereas most essene writings were actually earlier and wouldnt have mentioned him since his big act was yet to come. Wrong again. The events of Masada occurred aroung the period of 70 CE, and Josephus's writings on the subject were a result of eye witnesses relating the story to him: namely, a woman (one of 2) who hid and escaped the tragedy with her children. The gospels, according to scholar's best guess, were first recorded about this same time. As to the Dead Sea Scrolls being far older writings, some were. But many dealt with the events of the times, and Jesus is not mentioned. Surely, someone who could walk on water and bring the dead to life would have rated at least a line or two.

bedrog

Thu, Nov 4, 2010 : 7:43 p.m.

billogfellow..re your claim of josephus flavius being the earliest mention of jesus: ummm. josephus wrote in the aftermath of the Romans' destruction of jerusalem/masada in the late 1st century ad. There are these little things called 'gospels'that are a tad earlier and whose authors, as contemporaries of the historical jesus/yohoshua bar yosef, wrote after his death..., whereas most essene writings were actually earlier and wouldnt have mentioned him since his big act was yet to come. While it is perfectly plausible that jesus would have been well aware of essenic prophesies,and may well have patterned some of his actions on them to seem to be their fulfillment ( israel is a small place and its an easy walk from jerusalem and its pharisees and sadducees to the dead sea hermitages for an in-shape carpenter!!) that's not what you are saying in your absolutist fashion ( seemingly based on grossly misinterpretedand unrelated factoids ). I am neither christian or remotely a believer in 'miracles'/ divine messiahs ( although i have studied --and published-- on such folks in professional journals). But there is indeed something 'paranormal' about your absolute shamelessness in pontificating about things you clearly know so little about..which is sort of a miracle,( but not in a good way..)

Bill Wilson

Thu, Nov 4, 2010 : 6:44 p.m.

It always strikes me as interesting that while we appeal to the "consensus of scholars" on issues ranging from evolution to climate, we then are going to reject the "consensus of scholars" and take the extreme and untenable position that Jesus did not exist. Very few scholars would even begin to make this claim. It is fringe at best in academia. W. Vida, Very few will comment: with no historical evidence of a subject's exsistance, what is there to comment about? Your assertions are not new to me. What I find interesting is when I push the person making these statements as to what the actual physical references to Jesus are, the answer always seems to be something like: "Well... Billy Graham wrote a book about Jesus. I have a copy." That's not evidence.

Bill Wilson

Thu, Nov 4, 2010 : 5:42 p.m.

re 'bill wilson' and his cuneiform sumerians as the total basis of both old and new testaments ( millenia later and quite a ways distant)....yes, some stories in genesis have a parallel in the sumerian 'epic of gilgamesh' ( e.g an adam -like character in enkidu and a noah-like character in utnapishtim), and genesis patriarchs like abraham are depicted as migrating from the sumerian region.... but otherwise what an unsubstantiated and overreaching statement. "No historian would argue otherwise".. bosh! I am going to help you a little, but then you'll need to go and do your own work: Nope, not some: every story in the Bible and Torah takes their origin from Sumer. Yes: these stories were scribed on cuneiform tablets in Sumeria (the oldest language know to us), and we possess not just these tablets, but copies of copies, and more are being found every day. Nope: the only reference to Jesus from that actual time period is found in the writings of Josephus, and microscopic examination has revealed that the passages in questions were added later by another hand. The greatest body of untouched writings that we have from that time period, the Dead Sea Scrolls, do not mention Jesus at all. Read that last line again. The very people who lived during the time period of Jesus's (sic) life, the people who would have seen the miracles and heard of this spiritual revolution, do not mention him at all. Lastly, the Dead Sea Scrolls do prove one major point: Until they were found, most historians believed that Josephus had invented the Essenes. The existance of their writings proved beyond doubt that they were very real (some historians say they were more than 10k of them). What is the relevance? Many (in fact, most) of the ideas the Bible attributes to Jesus were in fact, Essenian, and they would have been well known to the people living during that time period. They wouldn't have been considered revolutionary or radical at all: the people would have heard it all before. If believing in Jesus, or the Bible, or the Torah is important to you, then by all means, do it. But history does not support your beliefs. Oh, and Bedrag, feel free to call me Longfellow if you like.

bedrog

Thu, Nov 4, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.

re 'bill wilson' and his cuneiform sumerians as the total basis of both old and new testaments ( millenia later and quite a ways distant)....yes, some stories in genesis have a parallel in the sumerian 'epic of gilgamesh' ( e.g an adam -like character in enkidu and a noah-like character in utnapishtim), and genesis patriarchs like abraham are depicted as migrating from the sumerian region.... but otherwise what an unsubstantiated and overreaching statement. "No historian would argue otherwise".. bosh! That's much like reading LONGFELLOW on Hiawatha and claiming that its no different than actual iroquois mythologies (which is where the figure of hiawatha actually occurs, unlike where the poet set him). The actual "truth' of the divinity and exploits of mythological/biblical/ koranic etc figures are quite a different matter. But let's keep it real on the source documents at least, per 'halflife' who does know whereof he/she speaks.

W. Vida

Thu, Nov 4, 2010 : 12:09 a.m.

uawisok, David, The interesting thing is that the historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus are actually one and the same. When we study the scriptures we find that they are reliable and make sense within the first century Palestinian world. Of course, as post-Enlightenment observers we struggle with the miracles but even those can be evaluated historically and shown to be credible. Check out this article on the Resurrection by Oxford New Testament scholar, NT Wright, http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

W. Vida

Thu, Nov 4, 2010 : 12:02 a.m.

Hi Bill, It always strikes me as interesting that while we appeal to the "consensus of scholars" on issues ranging from evolution to climate, we then are going to reject the "consensus of scholars" and take the extreme and untenable position that Jesus did not exist. Very few scholars would even begin to make this claim. It is fringe at best in academia. There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed.

David Briegel

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 11:23 p.m.

uawisok is the only one here that makes any sense for me. I believe he existed, but as to the "rest of the story".... Jesus would be ashamed of all the things that have been done in his name. Imagine Jesus saying, Blessed are the Banksters and The Perpetual War Profiteers as so many who profess his faith do unflinchingly? "The bible is a reinterpreted, regurgitated piece of classic patriarchal misogynistic mythmaking that says exactly what the leaders of the church re-wrote it to say". Anon

sbbuilder

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 9:13 p.m.

Thank you Mr Wilson You've just eloquently refuted 2000 years of church history, and about 4000 years of Jewish history. You are quite a unique individual. In all those years, nobody else was able to figure that out, but you did. Amazing. You must have volumes of history texts stacked to the ceiling. You must be fluent in Latin, Aramaic, Attic Greek, and a few others like Babylonian. You must have acquired multiple doctorates from the most prestigious universities. Because, my friend, there are very few people who would have been able to come to the same conclusion as readily. Countless millions, even billions of people have professed their faith in Christ. All must have been duped. You can always try the 'If you are real...' scenario. If you are sincere, you may be very pleasantly surprised. Pax

halflight

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 9:07 p.m.

Bill Wilson wrote: Jesus never existed. Actually, most scholars believe he did exist; the conflict is over what he did and said. All of the stories in the Bible, and the Torah, originated in cuneiform tablets scribed in Sumeria. Untrue. While some argue that sections of Genesis (creation, flood story, Job) are similar to Sumerian and other near eastern myths, and were thus derived from them, the vast majority of the Old Testament appears to be an original document composed by Jews in Hebrew, not cuneiform. While there are different theories as to when it was written, there's scholarly consensus that the latest date for the Pentateuch is @ 600 B.C., with the latest of the prophets reaching final form in the 2nd century B.C. Except for a few Aramaic quotes in the Gospels, the New Testament was composed in Koine Greek by diaspora Jews and gentiles in Palestine and Asia Minor between 50-150 A.D. There is no evidence that either the Old Testament or the New Testament was originally written in cuneiform. It's always been interesting to me that those who espouse their views on christianity and judiasm seem to have the least knowledge on the subject. Indeed.

Bill Wilson

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 7:30 p.m.

ua, Jesus never existed. All of the stories in the Bible, and the Torah, originated in cuneiform tablets scribed in Sumeria. No historian would argue otherwise.

uawisok

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 6:55 p.m.

First Jesus never commanded followers to create an organization with heirarchy, by-laws, catechisms etc., in his name. My beleif is If Jesus sat in any pew today whether Protestant or Catholic he would become as angry as he is said to have been in the Temple bazzars turning over the tables of the money changers. He would be scolding todays "christian leaders" as he did the Pharasis of his time. I still beleive in Jesus and his teachings, but what is called "His Church" I can say "get thee behind me!!

Bill Wilson

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 6:16 p.m.

It's always been interesting to me that those who espouse their views on christianity and judiasm seem to have the least knowledge on the subject.

Michigan Reader

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 6:11 p.m.

Believeing (sp?) in the divinity of Jesus is essential to obeying the first three commandments. So, yeah, it better be inside the modern Christian's life.

A22Ypsi

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 4:45 p.m.

Amen, MsWebster, from another A2 Catholic. I wouldn't have bothered to become a Christian if they'd told me they don't believe in Christ either!

W. Vida

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 4:42 p.m.

Terms have to be defined or they lose meaning. The term "Christian" means a lot of things to a lot of people. So let's define it and then answer the question as to whether or not one can be a Christian and not believe in the Divinity of Christ (or the Virgin Birth etc). I think the historic meaning of the word is most helpful. For most of church history, Christians have been defined by three Creeds: The Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Nicene Creed. These creeds were intended as boundaries that would defined the faith. All major church traditions still employ the Creeds for this same reason (although some have forgotten what the point of the Creeds were). If we are going to use the word 'Christian' in the historical sense (which is what I think most people are getting at when they use the word), one cannot be a Christian and not believe in the Divinity of Christ (or the Virgin Birth for that matter). The Creeds clearly define these things.

MsWebster

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 4:24 p.m.

Christians cannot deny nor equivocate on the matter of Christ's divinity. If they doubt Christ is the son of God, from all eternity, they are not Christians because they do not believe the main tenet of Christianity. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 463: Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of Christian faith: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God."85 Such is the joyous conviction of the Church from her beginning whenever she sings "the mystery of our religion": "He was manifested in the flesh." The video states twice that Paul did not directly address the issue of Christ's divinity. This is not true. Note: From the New Testament: Phil. 2:6-7 - Jesus was in the form of God, but instead of asserting His equality with God, emptied Himself for us. Col. 2:9 - in Jesus Christ the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. He is the whole and entire fullness of the indivisible God in the flesh. Rom. 9:5 - Jesus Christ is God over all, blessed forever. Let there be no doubt, Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. Read the bible, read the Fathers of the Church, read the Catechism.