Did Jesus Think He Was God?

[Jax Agnesson]

Approaching the Christian Holy Week, I am reminded of two of the stories from the Passion narrative that were significant in my own move away from formal Christianity.

In Gethsemane, on the night of his arrest, Jesus prayed " . . .Not my will, but thine, be done."
And at the moment of his death, he cried out 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)
Neither of these stories is easy to reconcile with the idea that Jesus believed himself to be God.
How do Christians deal with this?

[Haven]

In my (Catholic) teens, perplexed by the prayer in Gethsemane, and the 'lama sabachthani'

The lama sabachthani was likely a quote of Psalm 22, and so not meant to be taken literally.

[EduChris]

...Either Jesus knew that he was God, and that his Father hadn't forsaken him at all, or he did not know he was God, and was genuinely suffering the despair of a dying man, fearing he had been abandoned by God...

Jesus believed (he did not "know," in the sense of fully comprehending all the implications) that he was God (in the person of the Son). And Jesus was indeed forsaken (temporarily) by God (Father and Spirit). And Jesus was genuinely suffering the despair of a dying man, fearing he had been abandoned by God (Father and Spirit).

...Was he genuinely crying out to God in the belief that he had been abandoned, or was he 'performing a ritual' complete with references to Psalms? I'm wondering which you believe?...

Both. Jesus was genuinely crying out to God (Father and Spirit); Jesus truly felt abandoned by God (Father and Spirit) precisely because he was actually being forsaken at that moment. And he chose to grasp by faith the momentary despair and the eventual triumph of Psalm 22.

...do you believe Jesus, towards the end, 'fully comprehended' that he was god, 'knew' he was God, 'believed' he was god, 'doubted' that he was God, or what?

I think Jesus did not fully comprehend his ontological status until after he physically died on the cross. Up until that time, he believed what God (Father and Spirit) told him, without fully comprehending the implications.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 42 by EduChris]
Thank you, EduChris, for making plain what you, a well-educated and intelligent Christian, actually believe in regard to the crucifixion of Jesus.
You write that

Jesus was genuinely crying out to God (Father and Spirit); Jesus truly felt abandoned by God (Father and Spirit) precisely because he was actually being forsaken at that moment.

I had not heard the 'abandonment' idea clearly expressed until some time after I had left the Catholic Church and was exploring broader Christianity. I must say I was horrified when an evangelical Christian proposed this idea to me.
I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that God wanted sacrifice and suffering so much that he required his own Son to die a terrible death.
That the Father turned away in disgust, when the Son 'took upon Himself' the world's sins, seemed then (and it still seems now) a lack of compassion so profound I was appalled by it.
I have known many ordinary humans with more compassion than that.

Long before I ceased to 'believe in' God, I had decided the Christian concept of God was cruel, primitive, and bound up completely with a compulsive attraction to suffering as a moral good in itself.

It has been a useful exchange of ideas, EduChris. Once again, thank you.

[Jax Agnesson]

In my (Catholic) teens, perplexed by the prayer in Gethsemane, and the 'lama sabachthani'

The lama sabachthani was likely a quote of Psalm 22, and so not meant to be taken literally.

Reading the passion narrative as literature, I can see the intention in this. It's a neat reference.
But it very strongly suggests that the author(s) were not presenting the Jesus character as identical with God, nor as a being equal to God.

[EduChris]

...the idea that God wanted sacrifice and suffering so much that he required his own Son to die a terrible death...

Don't know how you came up with this idea. God doesn't want anyone to suffer.

...That the Father turned away in disgust, when the Son 'took upon Himself' the world's sins...

Disgust?!? No. Unimaginable grief, shock, and horror? Yes.

...the Christian concept of God was cruel, primitive, and bound up completely with a compulsive attraction to suffering as a moral good in itself...

Again, I have no idea where you come up with such notions. The Christian God certainly does not view suffering as "a moral good in itself."

[Jax Agnesson]

...the idea that God wanted sacrifice and suffering so much that he required his own Son to die a terrible death...

Don't know how you came up with this idea.

That God the Father required the crucifixion of Jesus is strongly suggested by the words of Jesus, addressing his Father directly. 'Not my will, but thine, be done.'
If I am allowed to take the OT as evidence for the nature of the God the Christians worship, I get the idea that God wants people to suffer from, for example, the story that He commanded a series of genocides in Canaan, caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, watched his faithful servant Job suffering one tragic loss after another, (and took a bet on the outcome!). . . .need I go on?
Oh yes, I need. Back to the NT for a moment. There's the small matter of Matt 25:41.

"41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

So how can you, a well-informed Christian, say you 'don't know how (I) come up with' the idea that God wants people to suffer? That everlasting fire just spontaneously 'prepared' itself, did it?

God doesn't want anyone to suffer.

How do you know this? On what evidence? (Note for this purpose I am accepting the NT as evidence of the character of the God worshipped by the Christians. But I will consider 'real-world' evidence too, if you can produce any.)

...That the Father turned away in disgust, when the Son 'took upon Himself' the world's sins...

Disgust?!? No. Unimaginable grief, shock, and horror? Yes.

OK. Let's go with your words. A human father, if he sees his son found guilty of the most heinous crimes, covered in shame and the whole world's contempt, will no doubt feel grief, and shock, and horror. But he can still look upon the young man with compassion, and with love. A human father is still at least capable of not turning his eyes away from the wretched man. Your God is supposed to be infinitely everything good, isn't He? Is compassion for sinners good?
Another small point: God the omniscient Father couldn't have been 'shocked'.
Don't know how you came up with this idea, EduChris.

...the Christian concept of God was cruel, primitive, and bound up completely with a compulsive attraction to suffering as a moral good in itself...

Again, I have no idea where you come up with such notions.

See the above list for starters. If you need more, ask me. Or ask the inhabitants of any self-flagellating order of nuns or monks. Do you not know about the Catholic idea of 'mortifying the flesh'? Or ask any decent Presbyterian, (if you can find one! )

The Christian God certainly does not view suffering as "a moral good in itself."

How do you know this?

[99percentatheism]

Approaching the Christian Holy Week, I am reminded of two of the stories from the Passion narrative that were significant in my own move away from formal Christianity.

In Gethsemane, on the night of his arrest, Jesus prayed " . . .Not my will, but thine, be done."
And at the moment of his death, he cried out 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)
Neither of these stories is easy to reconcile with the idea that Jesus believed himself to be God.

How do Christians deal with this?

Why do you even need to ask this question after 2000-plus years of Christians believing that Jesus is God?

Are you under the impression that anyone can change what Jesus is if some passages in scripture are hard to understand in english at face value?

Even in the world of the Catacombs Jesus is described as The Alpha and The Omega. The beginning and the end of all things.

The Alpha and the Omega are the first and the last letters of the Greek alphabet. They signify that Christ is the beginning and the end of all things.

- http://www.catacombe.roma.it/en/simbologia.php

Why are Christians subjected to all of this questioning so many millenia after the original persecutions?

[Jax Agnesson]

Why do you even need to ask this question after 2000-plus years of Christians believing that Jesus is God?

Because I haven't been around for 2000 years. I have only been asking this question for about 50 years, and even that only occasionally, in between the zillion other things that have taken my interest, attracted my attention, or merely swam into my ken.

Are you under the impression that anyone can change what Jesus is if some passages in scripture are hard to understand in english at face value?

Of course not. You probably know I'm an atheist (it's declared, in small blue letters, under my name). For me Jesus is a character in a series of culturally and politically/historically very influential old tales. i think the Jesus stories are probably historically based, but probably also considerably fictionalised.
Let's consider an analogy, from a work we can both agree is definitely fiction: we might discuss the character of Heathcliffe. What sort of man was he? What did he want? what did he believe, about Kathy? The primary evidence can only be got from the book 'Wuthering Heights'. Secondary evidence can be taken from people who have studied Bronte's other works; who know something of the mores and values of the society the author lived in, etc, etc. But any conclusion that runs against the evidence the author presented in the book must be dismissed as just wrong. And of course no literary analysis can change the 'truth' of Heathcliffe's character; at best a new reading can only influence our assessment of the man.
Now, let's see if we can apply that same reasoning to a figure we both agree definitely was historical; for example, what sort of a man was Winston Churchill, really?
There are plenty of written sources, including very substantial works by the man himself. There are films and recordings of his speeches, there is a huge mass of historical evidence for the events that resulted (at least in part) from his policies.
Still, what ever we come to believe about the man would have no bearing whatsoever on what sort of a man he actually was. That is settled, past, fixed and can't be changed.. Agreed?

So no. It should be obvious to you that I would not be trying to alter the past. Whatever Jesus was, he was. And that's that.
My question is about what Jesus actually believed, regarding his relationship to his Heavenly Father.
So, why am I, an atheist, asking the question at all?
Well, I am concerned to understand the theist mindset generally, and the Christian mindset in particular. ISTM that it would be odd if the adherents of a religion professed a theology directly opposed to the theology of their founder and chief prophet. So I ask whether Jesus believed what most of his followers believe, in respect to the central claim of their religion; ie that Jesus was God.

Why are Christians subjected to all of this questioning so many millenia after the original persecutions?

This is a debating forum. Nobody is forced to participate. It is a well designed and maintained forum. A reader can see the main subject of each thread before deciding whether to read further or not. A reader who chooses to open a thread can read and consider what has been written by the parties to that particular debate before deciding whether or not to contribute.
It is entirely a voluntary activity.
Are you characterising any of this as 'persecution'?

[99percentatheism]

Jax Agnesson

Why do you even need to ask this question after 2000-plus years of Christians believing that Jesus is God?

Because I haven't been around for 2000 years. I have only been asking this question for about 50 years, and even that only occasionally, in between the zillion other things that have taken my interest, attracted my attention, or merely swam into my ken.

When I was an atheist, I can't remember the Gospel taking up even a day of my time. It only affected me when some of my so-called Christian friends couldn't shoot hoops 'cuz they had to go to Church on one of the three-days a year they went.

I can't understand why atheists are so enthralled by having to go after Christians and Christianity. If it is a myth, just nod and move on.

Are you under the impression that anyone can change what Jesus is if some passages in scripture are hard to understand in english at face value?

Of course not. You probably know I'm an atheist (it's declared, in small blue letters, under my name).

I judge people by their positions and actions what the are and believe. The reference to atheist in blue is a declaration of group involvement. It doesn't have to be a declaration of choise and adherance. My blue word "Christian" under my name would not mean I am connected to the "other" religions that claim they are Christian based.

For me Jesus is a character in a series of culturally and politically/historically very influential old tales.

That sounds rather accurate. I can agree with that picture.

i think the Jesus stories are probably historically based, but probably also considerably fictionalised.

We Christians call the fictionalization: heresy. False teachings by false Teachers. Lies by liars. Etc., etc..

Let's consider an analogy, from a work we can both agree is definitely fiction:

We are in agreement that there are people that have invented fiction in the Gospel reports. John Dominic Crossan and John Spong spring quickly to mind.

. . . we might discuss the character of Heathcliffe. What sort of man was he? What did he want? what did he believe, about Kathy? The primary evidence can only be got from the book 'Wuthering Heights'. Secondary evidence can be taken from people who have studied Bronte's other works; who know something of the mores and values of the society the author lived in, etc, etc. But any conclusion that runs against the evidence the author presented in the book must be dismissed as just wrong. And of course no literary analysis can change the 'truth' of Heathcliffe's character; at best a new reading can only influence our assessment of the man.

Now, let's see if we can apply that same reasoning to a figure we both agree definitely was historical; for example, what sort of a man was Winston Churchill, really?

There are plenty of written sources, including very substantial works by the man himself. There are films and recordings of his speeches, there is a huge mass of historical evidence for the events that resulted (at least in part) from his policies.
Still, what ever we come to believe about the man would have no bearing whatsoever on what sort of a man he actually was. That is settled, past, fixed and can't be changed.. Agreed?

So no. It should be obvious to you that I would not be trying to alter the past. Whatever Jesus was, he was. And that's that.

So far, so good. There's written accounts that are immutable connected to real life accounts. I'm cool with that.

My question is about what Jesus actually believed, regarding his relationship to his Heavenly Father.

The Trinity you mean? Jesus appears to preach that He and the Father are One. This enraged the Sanhedrin members in a way that shows that Jesus is equating himself to God. Something far different than just a prophet.

So, why am I, an atheist, asking the question at all?

If I answered that directly I would get banned. But hopefully this conversation can be steered away from the jabs and denigration typically entertained when an atheist "asks questions" about Jesus. Often this does get deraled by the word "myth" being placed within the Gospels.

Well, I am concerned to understand the theist mindset generally, and the Christian mindset in particular.

Jesus is God or he is a hapless fool. He is The Savior of mankind or he is twisted sociopath, not only enjoyting his own grueling demise but thoroughly satisfied with the horro he knows his students will have to endure at the same hands as his tormentors.

Only God is the Savior of mankind. In both the Old Testament and thre New. Only God is the way, the truth and the life. A narrow road is a narrow road. Jesus left us no alternate theology. Zippo.

There, a theological tidbit from a Christian to an atheist.

ISTM that it would be odd if the adherents of a religion professed a theology directly opposed to the theology of their founder and chief prophet. So I ask whether Jesus believed what most of his followers believe, in respect to the central claim of their religion; ie that Jesus was God.

Christians know it is a complicated matter. Anti-Christians ofettimes seek the easy answer: Mockery. I enjot more than anything else the intricate and academic view taken by the impressive minds of Christians thoughout the ages since God became flesh and dwelt among us.

Why are Christians subjected to all of this questioning so many millenia after the original persecutions?

This is a debating forum. Nobody is forced to participate.

It appears more to be a bash fest and mockery forum. I have yet to see many impresive threads. Just standard infidels dot org fare.

It is a well designed and maintained forum.

Now that IS debateable.

A reader can see the main subject of each thread before deciding whether to read further or not. A reader who chooses to open a thread can read and consider what has been written by the parties to that particular debate before deciding whether or not to contribute.
It is entirely a voluntary activity.

Which shows that hurt and vitriol is basically called debate here.

Are you characterising any of this as 'persecution'?

100% yes. And I have made that acusation many, many, many, times.

But I don't claim that charge here and now.

[EduChris]

...take the OT as evidence for the nature of the God the Christians worship...

Ezekiel 18:23

...Back to the NT for a moment. There's the small matter of Matt 25:41..."41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."...That everlasting fire just spontaneously 'prepared' itself, did it?...

There is no need to accept any doctrine of "eternal conscious torment" being inflicted upon people against their will. Some Christians do accept this, of course, but from the standpoint of biblical exegesis, there is no need to do so. Interpretation all boils down to this: "What sort of a God do we have?" If God is love, as the Bible claims, then we may safely dispense with any interpretations that run afoul of the primary fact that God is love.

God doesn't want anyone to suffer.

How do you know this? On what evidence?...

1 John 4:8

...A human father is still at least capable of not turning his eyes away from the wretched man. Your God is supposed to be infinitely everything good, isn't He? Is compassion for sinners good?...

Compassion for sinners is a good thing, but it has nothing to do with one's ability to keep gazing at a monstrous atrocity being perpetrated on one's own beloved son. Would I be able to keep gazing on such horror? Would it be a good thing for me to keep my eyes affixed on the scene? And if I were the one suffering, would I even want my parents (or my children) to see it? At any rate, we are dealing with an emotional revulsion which is not subject to rules about what is or is not "good."

...God the omniscient Father couldn't have been 'shocked'...

"Omniscience" means simply this: "not arbitrarily limited in the capacity to process and handle information." It doesn't mean that one will (or can) know ahead of time what one's visceral reaction will be to a never-before-experienced horror.

...ask the inhabitants of any self-flagellating order of nuns or monks. Do you not know about the Catholic idea of 'mortifying the flesh'?...

Since when is biblical interpretation decided by self-flagellators?

The Christian God certainly does not view suffering as "a moral good in itself."

How do you know this?

Suffering is never good in itself; the Christian view is that suffering will occur precisely because "the world as it is" is not "the world as it should be." Given that suffering will occur in this world, it is better to do whatever we can to extract whatever good we can from whatever suffering we encounter.