I was raised Christian and lost my faith around 1990. We were told that Jesus was "Lord" what does that mean? We were also told that he was the "Messiah" What is that? Son of God, saviour, the Christ and god? I did not lose my faith because of the complex nomenclature regarding Jesus of Nazareth but if I would have been educated in some of these things as a kid, I would have ditched it earlier. All my own work? No, that would be Bart Ehrman a NT Scholar. So, who was Jesus?
I don't think Jesus said any of those things. (Full disclosure: I grew up RC, and let it go when I was in my teens.) AFAIK, he didn't make any claims about himself, he saw himself as just a guy who had learned the path to God. It was his followers (and, notably, detractors) who put words in his mouth about his chumminess with God. I think one of the best stories about who Jesus was is "Jesus Christ Superstar". Watch it and see how Jesus taught, and how he became first a savior then a martyr. One of the best songs is King Herod's: Jesus, I am overjoyed To meet You face to face You've been getting quite a name All around the place Healing cripples Raising from the dead And now I understand You're God At least that's what You've said So You are the Christ You're the great Jesus Christ Prove to me that You're divine Change my water into wine And Jesus is adamant in his response: "That's what you call me."
Agree. Consensus seems to be that Jesus was an apocalyptic pious Jew. A case for him thinking he was the Messiah (King- anointed one) which is why he was executed by the Romans. The exalted claims came later with the only actual claims from Jesus in John, written 60-65 years after his death. Put on his lips by the author of John
Yes that is one of the 'I am" sayings. So not only is Jesus saying he was around before Abraham but he is using phrase and name Yhwh used to tell Moses who he was. Like I said none of this is my own observation, this is 300 years worth of modern scholarship. Luckily we have excellent modern scholars who write general reader books on the subject! Guys like Israel Finkelstein, Francesca Stavrakopoulou and Bart Ehrman.
So those divine claims are only in John. In Mark the author focuses on the ministry but in Luke and Matthew they have a birth narrative and then John who puts Jesus with god at the beginning. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word WAS god." Jesus is the word that created the world. Quite a transition.
Indeed, St. John's gospel has a lot more theological ideas in it than the synoptic gospels, including far more explicit claims of divinity for Jesus. As I recall, in the synoptic gospels he tends to refer to himself rather mysteriously as the "Son of Man". (I don't believe I've ever heard a convincing explanation for that what signifies.) All three synoptic gospels do however claim explicitly that the Jesus was the "Son of God", if not actually divine, in their accounts of the Transfiguration.
That is the crux of the matter, the claim from some scholars is the Gospel writers thought he was god in some sense but Jesus the man did not and the divine claims were put on his lips.
This is more complicated and I am not sure I understand it. "Son of man" could simply mean "me" a saying for the time. However the more complicated interpretation is from the prophetic sayings from Jesus regarding the establishment of god's kingdom on earth. "When the son of man comes in power." The claim is when Jesus uses those phrases he is not talking about himself. The difference between the two appears to be grammatical and a little bit subtle. A lot of debate on it and the consensus is by no means settled from what I have read.
"Lost Link"? I decided that I was an agnostic when I was 12 and have seen no significant reason to change from "I don't know." However I presume that if there is an intelligent God then whatever is going on is more complicated than what the conventional religions are saying. That book brings up the subject of "avatars" commonly meaning "returning deity". The characters Enoch and Melchizedek are accused of being previous avatars in the text. The KJV says peculiar things about them, like Enoch did not die but was no longer here because God "translated" him. What does that mean? How do you translate a human being? Then the KJV says that Melchizedek did not have a mother. That would be a good trick. So JC was supposedly the next avatar in line. Of course this would all mean that since 2000 years have passed the next avatar is about due.
"Post" It was a typo. I am an atheist but I do not claim to know there is no god, no one can so I am also agnostic but see that as an unnecessary add on.
Who Jesus is/was is subjective, highly. I think he is God, I pretty sure. Bart Ehrman is not reliable based on recent debates I've seen him in. But we can discuss. EDIT: Sorry for not having a stab at replying to the subject question but here it is: Jesus didn't know who he was. Subjective. He knew exactly who he/it was after the resurrection.
