Is Jesus really God? Did he actually claim to be God?

[McCulloch]

If Jesus claimed to be God, he either was, or wasn't. There is no third option. If he was who he claimed to be, then a lot of mystery is solved. I can't think of any issue that could be more pertinent to the discussion of origins.

Did the character of Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually claim to be God?
Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

[Braveheart]

I Guess we'll never know. However the Gospels are the most accurate accounts of His life that we know of. Why then would Jesus have been tortured and then killed so brutally?

[Goat]

I Guess we'll never know. However the Gospels are the most accurate accounts of His life that we know of. Why then would Jesus have been tortured and then killed so brutally?

Good question. During that period of time there supposedly were 20,000 Jews that were tortured then killed so brutally. Does that mean they were all Gods?

[McCulloch]

I guess we'll never know. However the Gospels are the most accurate accounts of His life that we know of.

My mother-in-law tells my wife that she is her favorite daughter. This would mean a whole lot more if she wasn't her only daughter. The Gospels are not just the most accurate accounts of Jesus' life, they are the only accounts of Jesus' life. Their accuracy cannot be assessed by other accounts of his life, because the other accounts do not exist.

However, the Gospel accounts can be assessed for accuracy against known historical information (the census of Quirinius), scientific information (the star of Bethlehem as described in Matthew is physically impossible), geographical information (errors made by Mark in chapter 11) and contemporary accounts (none of the writers of his period took any notice of his miracles or of the alleged crowds which gathered to hear him preach).

Why then would Jesus have been tortured and then killed so brutally?

Crucifixion was in use among the Romans from about the second century BCE to the fourth century CE. Crucifixion was often performed to terrorize and dissuade its witnesses from perpetrating crimes punishable by it. Now, the Romans had no motive to interfere in what would have been seen by them as an internal squabble between different Jewish sects. Nor would they have sided against the one who said, "Give unto Caesar." If Jesus was crucified, it would have been because he was seen to be a threat to Roman authority, like the approximately 6,000 followers of Spartacus' rebellion.

[bjs]

Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

Of course it is possible. Anything is possible.

Personally, Im not a fan of conspiracy theories. The idea that someone (or some group) came along later and massively changed the Gospels and other oral and written traditions, fabricating or completely rewriting several stories to depict Jesus claiming to be divine but not having Jesus explicitly and directly state the claim, seems unreasonable to me.

If I were to be an atheist then I would have to think that Jesus told vicious and monstrous lies throughout his ministry. Obviously, since I am a Christian, I find that proposition less likely than the proposition that he was telling that truth " that he actually was God in the flesh.

However, the idea that he lied seems more reasonable than the idea that there was a massive conspiracy to complete rewrite the history of Jesus, perpetrated by someone unknown group at an unknown time and covered up better than any conspiracy in history.

[Goat]

Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

Of course it is possible. Anything is possible.

Personally, Im not a fan of conspiracy theories. The idea that someone (or some group) came along later and massively changed the Gospels and other oral and written traditions, fabricating or completely rewriting several stories to depict Jesus claiming to be divine but not having Jesus explicitly and directly state the claim, seems unreasonable to me.

That is of course, not what the issue is. It isn't a conspiracy theory at all, but rather, people used creative license to put what they thought Jesus should say into a story, to give that story weight. That wasn't a desire to deceive, but rather the style of writing of the day. As for making him declare he was divine, well, that was the style of the day too. Augustus after all declared Julius to be God, hearded by a Star rising in the east (known as the comet of 34 bce), and declared himself Son of God, Savior of the Roman empire) (using the word savior) It wasn't a deceit, but rather the style of the time.

[McCulloch]

Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

Of course it is possible. Anything is possible.

OK, how about whether it is probable. Four guys who may not have even met this Jesus, write books trying to convince their readers that Jesus is the Messiah of God. They are writing decades after the events themselves, from a war torn land where a much hated foreign military power is trampling on everything that is sacred. They really want to present their messiah candidate as being powerful, wise, knowledgeable, pious, righteous, empathetic and the complete fulfillment of their own prophetic literature. Given the circumstances, I think that it is unlikely that they would not put words in their character's mouth.

Personally, Im not a fan of conspiracy theories. The idea that someone (or some group) came along later and massively changed the Gospels and other oral and written traditions, fabricating or completely rewriting several stories to depict Jesus claiming to be divine but not having Jesus explicitly and directly state the claim, seems unreasonable to me.

Hence the first question for debate. Just how directly and explicitly did the Jesus depicted in the Gospels claim to be God? The simple fact that from the beginning and even until now, there are Christians who question that claim, indicates to me that his claim is less explicit than you might have wished it to be and certainly more ambiguous than classic Christian theology would present it.

If I were to be an atheist then I would have to think that Jesus told vicious and monstrous lies throughout his ministry.

If Jesus was not God himself, what specific statements recorded in the Gospels would be vicious and monstrous lies?

However, the idea that he lied seems more reasonable than the idea that there was a massive conspiracy to complete rewrite the history of Jesus, perpetrated by someone unknown group at an unknown time and covered up better than any conspiracy in history.

Really?
It is a matter of historical record, just how fiercely the orthodox Christians persecuted and tried to eliminate all other positions, once they achieved power. Adoptionism was declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century. The theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250"336) concerning the precise nature of the Son of God as being a subordinate entity to God the Father was deemed a heresy by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, was exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre, and then, after Arius' death, pronounced a heresy again at the First Council of Constantinople of 381. Indeed, the doctrine that Jesus was God developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.

[1213]

If Jesus claimed to be God, he either was, or wasn't. There is no third option. If he was who he claimed to be, then a lot of mystery is solved. I can't think of any issue that could be more pertinent to the discussion of origins.

Did the character of Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually claim to be God?
Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

I think he didnt. According to Jesus, there is only one God that is greater than him.

I think it is not likely that Gospel writers put wrong words to Jesus mouth. In my opinion words that are claimed to be Jesus words are so consistent that they can really be from one source.

[Flail]

If Jesus claimed to be God, he either was, or wasn't. There is no third option. If he was who he claimed to be, then a lot of mystery is solved. I can't think of any issue that could be more pertinent to the discussion of origins.

Did the character of Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually claim to be God?
Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

I think he didnt. According to Jesus, there is only one God that is greater than him.

I think it is not likely that Gospel writers put wrong words to Jesus mouth. In my opinion words that are claimed to be Jesus words are so consistent that they can really be from one source.

Although I don't necessarily agree that the words attributed to Jesus are consistent, I am familiar with many works of fiction that are internally consistent; and I am familiar with many works of fiction presented in a series or in sequel, or which are anthologized and likewise demonstrate consistency. After all, isn't consistency one hallmark of compelling fiction? Dickens was famous for it; as is Rowling.

[bjs]

Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

Of course it is possible. Anything is possible.

OK, how about whether it is probable. Four guys who may not have even met this Jesus, write books trying to convince their readers that Jesus is the Messiah of God. They are writing decades after the events themselves, from a war torn land where a much hated foreign military power is trampling on everything that is sacred. They really want to present their messiah candidate as being powerful, wise, knowledgeable, pious, righteous, empathetic and the complete fulfillment of their own prophetic literature. Given the circumstances, I think that it is unlikely that they would not put words in their character's mouth.

I suppose that if we want to move past possible and on to plausible then the place to start is some evidence in favor of this theory. Certainly it is possible that the Gospels do not reflect the words of Jesus, but is there any evidence to make this theory plausible? Is there any evidence that the do not accurately reflect the words of Christ?

Two of the Gospel writers (Luke 1:1-3, John 21:24) claim that accuracy was important to them. Is there any evidence to show that this claim was false (more than just that it is possible that it is false)?

If I were to be an atheist then I would have to think that Jesus told vicious and monstrous lies throughout his ministry.

If Jesus was not God himself, what specific statements recorded in the Gospels would be vicious and monstrous lies?

Jesus claimed to be the only one worthy of being called teacher (Matthew 23:10), to be the only one who truly knows the Father (John 6:46), to be the only way to the Father (John 14:16), to be able to forgive other peoples sins (Mark 2:10), to be worthy of being worshiped (Matthew 28:9), to have moral authority over tradition and the law of the Lord (Matthew 5:21), and to be worthy of devotion greater than a person should give to his earthy father or mother (Matthew 10:37). These would all be horrendous claims from anyone who is not God.

However, the idea that he lied seems more reasonable than the idea that there was a massive conspiracy to complete rewrite the history of Jesus, perpetrated by someone unknown group at an unknown time and covered up better than any conspiracy in history.

Really?
It is a matter of historical record, just how fiercely the orthodox Christians persecuted and tried to eliminate all other positions, once they achieved power. Adoptionism was declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century. The theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250"336) concerning the precise nature of the Son of God as being a subordinate entity to God the Father was deemed a heresy by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, was exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre, and then, after Arius' death, pronounced a heresy again at the First Council of Constantinople of 381. Indeed, the doctrine that Jesus was God developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.

It is true that there was a time when church leaders tried to stamp out traditions outside of orthodox Christianity. However, that took place too late in history to justify saying that Gospels were changed. It would not be until the beginning of the fourth century that church leaders had the power to oppose other points of view, and it would not be until the end of the fourth century that they aggressively tried to remove competing viewpoints.

By that point it was already too late. We have fragments of the Gospels from before that. We also have many second and third century leaders who quoted the Gospels directly and who also wrote about the divinity of Christ.

Christian doctrine developed slowly, but the Gospels themselves were well established early on and used as an accepted authority by the time we get to the fourth century.