The Claim: "Jesus was just a man and his divinity was added later"

[Zadeth]

I often see this claim, that the deity of Jesus was added post-death and created by X or Y in an attempt to gain something or control people. Is there any merit to the statement, or can it easily be refuted?

One piece of ‘evidence’ I see being thrown about is Mark 16:9-20 being added later, and with it being about his resurrection.

 

[dshix]

I often see this claim, that the deity of Jesus was added post-death and created by X or Y in an attempt to gain something or control people. Is there any merit to the statement, or can it easily be refuted?

One piece of ‘evidence’ I see being thrown about is Mark 16:9-20 being added later, and with it being about his resurrection.

The claim is not congruous with the majority of historical information available regarding Jesus’ life, miracles, and actions.

It looks like the people you are speaking to doubt the authenticity of the Bible as a historical source, and the authenticity of other secular works written by authors of the time.

Perhaps your first step is to do research on the proofs for the legitimacy of those documents.

 

[Zadeth]

The claim is not congruous with the majority of historical information available regarding Jesus’ life, miracles, and actions.

It looks like the people you are speaking to doubt the authenticity of the Bible as a historical source, and the authenticity of other secular works written by authors of the time.

Perhaps your first step is to do research on the proofs for the legitimacy of those documents.

Thank you for your response. Would you be able to provide some of this information you say is available? I would not know where to begin to look.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I often see this claim, that the deity of Jesus was added post-death and created by X or Y in an attempt to gain something or control people. Is there any merit to the statement, or can it easily be refuted?

One piece of ‘evidence’ I see being thrown about is Mark 16:9-20 being added later, and with it being about his resurrection.

The deity of Jesus is never called into question in the Bible. What is shown is that the Apostles could be a little dim-witted at times. Certainly they did not expect Jesus to be raised from the dead. Why would they? It was Jesus who raised people from the dead, healed them, and worked other miracles. Now Jesus had been crucified. Remember Jesus’ question to Philip? It does nothing to negate Jesus’ deity; it illustrates how difficult it is to recognize God, to hold onto faith, etc.

As for the ending of Mark: gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html

 

[BartholomewB]

That sounds to me like Unitarianism, or at least one variety of Unitarianism, of which there are many:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I often see this claim, that the deity of Jesus was added post-death and created by X or Y in an attempt to gain something or control people. Is there any merit to the statement, or can it easily be refuted?

One piece of ‘evidence’ I see being thrown about is Mark 16:9-20 being added later, and with it being about his resurrection.

They are making the assertion, and as such it is their job to present evidence for the assertion. I can claim anything I want, and I can say whatever I want to justify those claims. If there’s no evidence, then my claims are erroneous, or at teh very least they are baseless.

People who make claims like this are starting with a presupposition, namely, that supernatural occurrences are not possible. With that predetermined “fact” in mind, they set about claiming that anything that does not gel with this “obvious fact,” is untrue and was therefore added in later. The problem with this position is that it is logically incoherent. It starts with an assumption and makes up facts to fit that assumption, rather than starting with the given evidence and working from it. In essence, the person making this claim starts with the answers, and works backwards to the question, rather than starting with a question, and attempting to discern the answer.

As for the validity of the claim, we have writings dating back to the end of the first century which allude to Christ’s life, death and resurrection. These were written in a time when the eye witnesses were still alive, and facts could be checked. A person could travel to Jerusalem and ask for themselves what happened, or they could seek out Mary and ask her about her son. They could go to the people that were fed, and the people that were cured, and see the results for themselves. When people questioned the writings that would eventually become the Bible (and make no mistake, they questioned them from the start), they had plenty of resources they could turn to to determine how factual a statement was. These were not stupid, gullible people.

If Christ had not risen, there are two possibilities. Either the Apostles stole his body and lied about it for personal gain, or his body was still in the tomb and they were making up stories about him being risen. (A third possibility is that the Jewish or Roman authorities stole Christ’s body, but that is covered by the answer to the second claim.)

For the first claim, had the Apostles stolen Christ’s body and knew what they were speaking were lies, why would they have allowed themselves to be killed in such horrific ways to uphold a lie that was no longer benefiting them? Say what you want about their motivations, if you’re being skinned alive, boiled in oil, crucified upside down, or any one of the other horrendous ways they died, you’re going to talk. You do not suffer like that for something you know to be false. Instead, it is recorded that many of them went to their deaths singing, praising God, and blessing their murderers.

For the second claim, had Christ’s body not been taken, or had it been taken by the Jewish or Roman authorities (both of whom had a vested interest in stamping out the new cult of Jesus Christ), all they would have had to have done is bring out his body and toss it in front of them, and the whole matter would have been settled. “Look, there is your ‘God,’ a carcass on the floor. Now stop spouting this nonsense about resurrection.” There would have been no denying the reality, and, as I stated above, they would not have suffered as they did for something they knew to be a lie.

Instead, we see men who, once cowards, were now filled with a zeal unlike any known in the ancient world. They were filled with a conviction and a knowledge that allow them, the men who had cowered in the upper room behind a locked door, afraid for their lives, to stand up and boldly proclaim “Christ, the Lord, is risen!” They proclaimed publicly, and they healed publicly. They brought conversion to untold thousands in a matter of a few short years, and they did so all while it was legally permissible for any Roman citizen to kill them on the spot for their “heretical” refusal to acknowledge the divinity of Caesar.

People who claim that these things were added in later to bolster the Christian faith are not speaking from history, nor are they allowing reality to influence their preconceptions. In short, ignore them.

 

[pianistclare]

They are making the assertion, and as such it is their job to present evidence for the assertion. I can claim anything I want, and I can say whatever I want to justify those claims. If there’s no evidence, then my claims are erroneous, or at teh very least they are baseless.People who make claims like this are starting with a presupposition, namely, that supernatural occurrences are not possible. With that predetermined “fact” in mind, they set about claiming that anything that does not gel with this “obvious fact,” is untrue and was therefore added in later. The problem with this position is that it is logically incoherent. It starts with an assumption and makes up facts to fit that assumption, rather than starting with the given evidence and working from it. In essence, the person making this claim starts with the answers, and works backwards to the question, rather than starting with a question, and attempting to discern the answer.

As for the validity of the claim, we have writings dating back to the end of the first century which allude to Christ’s life, death and resurrection. These were written in a time when the eye witnesses were still alive, and facts could be checked. A person could travel to Jerusalem and ask for themselves what happened, or they could seek out Mary and ask her about her son. They could go to the people that were fed, and the people that were cured, and see the results for themselves. When people questioned the writings that would eventually become the Bible (and make no mistake, they questioned them from the start), they had plenty of resources they could turn to to determine how factual a statement was. These were not stupid, gullible people.

If Christ had not risen, there are two possibilities. Either the Apostles stole his body and lied about it for personal gain, or his body was still in the tomb and they were making up stories about him being risen. (A third possibility is that the Jewish or Roman authorities stole Christ’s body, but that is covered by the answer to the second claim.)

For the first claim, had the Apostles stolen Christ’s body and knew what they were speaking were lies, why would they have allowed themselves to be killed in such horrific ways to uphold a lie that was no longer benefiting them? Say what you want about their motivations, if you’re being skinned alive, boiled in oil, crucified upside down, or any one of the other horrendous ways they died, you’re going to talk. You do not suffer like that for something you know to be false. Instead, it is recorded that many of them went to their deaths singing, praising God, and blessing their murderers.

For the second claim, had Christ’s body not been taken, or had it been taken by the Jewish or Roman authorities (both of whom had a vested interest in stamping out the new cult of Jesus Christ), all they would have had to have done is bring out his body and toss it in front of them, and the whole matter would have been settled. “Look, there is your ‘God,’ a carcass on the floor. Now stop spouting this nonsense about resurrection.” There would have been no denying the reality, and, as I stated above, they would not have suffered as they did for something they knew to be a lie.

Instead, we see men who, once cowards, were now filled with a zeal unlike any known in the ancient world. They were filled with a conviction and a knowledge that allow them, the men who had cowered in the upper room behind a locked door, afraid for their lives, to stand up and boldly proclaim “Christ, the Lord, is risen!” They proclaimed publicly, and they healed publicly. They brought conversion to untold thousands in a matter of a few short years, and they did so all while it was legally permissible for any Roman citizen to kill them on the spot for their “heretical” refusal to acknowledge the divinity of Caesar.

People who claim that these things were added in later to bolster the Christian faith are not speaking from history, nor are they allowing reality to influence their preconceptions. In short, ignore them.

Exactly.

 

[Mumbles140]

I often see this claim, that the deity of Jesus was added post-death and created by X or Y in an attempt to gain something or control people. Is there any merit to the statement, or can it easily be refuted?

One piece of ‘evidence’ I see being thrown about is Mark 16:9-20 being added later, and with it being about his resurrection.

The blood of the martyrs. All but 1 of the apostles was executed for belief in Christianity, and for almost 300 years thereafter, any Christian was at risk of persecution in the Roman Empire. By the time the Church was an established entity in Roman life, it was hundreds of years after the founding, so what would be gained other than a very public torture and death?

Think about Paul - he was not one of the apostles. In fact, he severely persecuted Christians, and seemed rather content in his life. Then he has an experience with Our Lord (after His death) and now becomes one of those whom he previously persecuted. Logically, this makes no sense if Christ was just a man.

 

[Dorothy]

The evil one never sleeps in tempting doubt about the truths of our faith.

We have the remedy. Prayer and the sacraments!

 

[pocaracas]

The claim in the OP is clearly not your standard christian claim… not the catholic claim, for sure, nor the orthodox claim. These were responsible for bringing together the several books that today comprise the bible, so it would be strange to find within it any clear hints pointing away from the view of these two groups.

I’ve been reading Bart Ehrman’s Lost Christianities (not finished, yet) and in it feature some other gospels and some other peoples which we know of mostly due to the criticism found in works of orthodox writers, such as Tertullian.
It seems that, at that time (1st ~4th centuries) several different views of the Christ figure popped up in different groups of people… some seem to have been defended up to the 8th century, as a gospel of Peter (“clearly false”) has been discovered with the remains of an 8th century priest.

I can’t remember the names of all of these peoples, so I’ll be purposefully vague.
Some of these groups did claim that Jesus was just a man, son of Mary and Joseph, who had gained the favor of god (the god of Abraham) and thus become holy, or prophet.
Others claimed that the man Jesus was occupied by the Holy Spirit, thus becoming the Christ… Near death, the Holy Spirit leaves Jesus (hence some famous last words) and he’s back at being just a man and dies. It’s the Holy Spirit that then shows up to everyone a few days later.

It’s curious to note the parallels of some of these views with those kept by jews and muslims, concerning Jesus.

The view of J.C. people have nowadays is just the one that gained the most traction among believers… or the one that had the best and most convincing speakers… Just imagine how different the world would be if some other had become the dominant view…

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t agree. There are many people–top biblical scholars–who research this question with no bias or presupposition in mind and are open to where the facts will take them…and they still end up concluding there is no solid evidence to show divinity.

What you describe here, I think, actually supports the reason why his divinity is in question for many.
If Mary and all these hundreds of people who were fed or cured or saw miracles could have been so easily located and talked to…and, as you said, were without mistake questioned from the start…why is there no mention at all about it or quote from one person in any other source outside Christian writings?
Tacitus and Josephus give Jesus brief mentions 60-70 years after he died, but Tacitus does not mention divinity/miracles…and as you know, Josephus’ mentions in those regard is in question.

I think if the gospel writers were indeed fact-checking, they wouldn’t have got one of their most important facts wrong–the day Jesus was crucified. John has him dying the day before Passover, Mark has him dying the day after Passover–each at different times of the day.

I’m curious where you get the information that people were, “no mistake, questioned from the start”?

Well, there is another possibility that is a very valid one.
As many scholars will say, it is extremely against Roman custom that the body of someone who was crucified would be given to someone for a decent burial afterwards.
The whole point of crucifying someone was to add to the indignity by leaving the body on the cross…and also, to act as a warning to others to not commit crimes.
Many believe the story of Joseph of A. burying Jesus body was created/evolved in the decades after Jesus died.

From what I have read, we don’t have any solid record as to how most of the apostles died and many of the details you describe here evolved as later legends.
But if you know of reliable records for all this, please post some links.

Again, there is another possibility here.
If the apostles did die suffering for their beliefs…it still doesn’t mean their beliefs were true. Many people die for their religious beliefs, true or not, good or not–because they believe them with all their hearts and minds.
I’m thinking of the guys who flew the planes into the World Trade Center at this moment…

If you study the gospels in chronological order–as you know, they were written appox 40-65 years after Jesus died–you can actually see how the beliefs of who Jesus was and how his followers’ perceptions of him changed along the way the later and later the gospel was written.

.

 

[Wesrock]

I think if the gospel writers were indeed fact-checking, they wouldn’t have got one of their most important facts wrong–the day Jesus was crucified. John has him dying the day before Passover, Mark has him dying the day after Passover–each at different times of the day.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-explain-the-passover-discrepancy

Well, there is another possibility that is a very valid one.
As many scholars will say, it is extremely against Roman custom that the body of someone who was crucified would be given to someone for a decent burial afterwards.
The whole point of crucifying someone was to add to the indignity by leaving the body on the cross…and also, to act as a warning to others to not commit crimes.
Many believe the story of Joseph of A. burying Jesus body was created/evolved in the decades after Jesus died.

317Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. - Josephus, Jewish War 4.317

The Jews had very strict burial rights which the Romans were known to at least sometimes allow for, even after crucifixion. It should be noted that a wealthy man with the Sanhedrin personally petitioned Pilate over Jesus’ burial. Jesus wasn’t just a common Jew, but was a well known rabbi of the period, at least. This wouldn’t be surprising even just from a secular viewpoint.

If you study the gospels in chronological order–as you know, they were written appox 40-65 years after Jesus died–you can actually see how the beliefs of who Jesus was and how his followers’ perceptions of him changed along the way the later and later the gospel was written.

It’s not unreasonable to consider that the synoptics were written within 15-35 years after Jesus’ death. Even John may have been, though it is most likely about 60 or so years after that that one was written.

 

[pocaracas]

If Mary and all these hundreds of people who were fed or cured or saw miracles could have been so easily located and talked to…and, as you said, were without mistake questioned from the start…why is there no mention at all about it or quote from one person in any other source outside Christian writings?

I would think that, if anyone was to believe the accounts from eye-witnesses enough to pen them, then that writing would become a christian one.
So, in our eyes, those would be christian writings… Believers of today think that the ones that exist were such writings.

 

[BartholomewB]

I think if the gospel writers were indeed fact-checking, they wouldn’t have got one of their most important facts wrong–the day Jesus was crucified. John has him dying the day before Passover, Mark has him dying the day after Passover–each at different times of the day.

I don’t think there is a real contradiction between John and the Synoptics on the date of the Last Supper. Here’s something I posted on this forum a few weeks ago. I hope I’m not in breach of CAF rules by repeating it here.

What follows is a very brief outline of a chapter in a book by Joachim Jeremias. I find his argument very convincing and I can no longer see any reason for casting doubt on the Synoptics’ timing. Jeremias shows that John, too, was describing a Passover seder, despite what he says about the priests’ reasons for not entering the palace (Jn 18:28). In at least five other places John describes what can only be a Passover meal:

**1. An evening meal beginning after dark.―**This was something that happened only on special occasions, such as a wedding or a circumcision, and also the Passover seder, as laid down in Tractate Zebahim (Sacrifices) 5:8.

John 13:30, and it was night.
Mk 14:17, Mt 26:20, When evening came, …
1 Cor. 11:23, On the night he was betrayed, …

**2. They were reclining, not sitting.―**Also only on special occasions, including the Passover seder. Tractate Berakot (Benedictions), five references.

John 13:23, One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him … Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, …
Mk 14:18, While they were reclining at the table, …
Mt 26:20, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve.

**3. All were ritually clean. **

John 13:10, Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet.”

**4. “What you are about to do, do quickly” (John 13:27-29).―**Some of the Twelve thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the feast, or to give something to the poor. Nobody asked Jesus what Judas was going out to do. “Quickly” could mean “before the stores shut.” If it was 13 Nisan, there would be no such hurry.

**5. Jesus does not return to spend the night at Bethany.―**The night of Passover had to be spent within the Jerusalem city limits, which included the western slope of the Mount of Olives.

John 18:1, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley [to] an olive grove.
Mk 14:26, Mt 26:3409, They went out to the Mount of Olives.
Lk 22:39, Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives and his disciples followed him.

Source: Joachim Jeremias, *The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, *pp. 44-55. Jeremias lists several further arguments, all pointing in the same direction. I have picked out the five I find most convincing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I often see this claim, that the deity of Jesus was added post-death and created by X or Y in an attempt to gain something or control people. Is there any merit to the statement, or can it easily be refuted?

One piece of ‘evidence’ I see being thrown about is Mark 16:9-20 being added later, and with it being about his resurrection.

“He is risen!” (Mk 16:6)

If Mark did not know of the resurrection, why did he put these words into the mouth of the young man who greeted the women who arrived at the tomb?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I often see this claim, that the deity of Jesus was added post-death and created by X or Y in an attempt to gain something or control people. Is there any merit to the statement, or can it easily be refuted?

One piece of ‘evidence’ I see being thrown about is Mark 16:9-20 being added later, and with it being about his resurrection.

There are three motives to consider:

1. Sex
2. Money
3. Power

Can you see the apostles or any of their disciples gaining 1. or 2. as a result of preaching the gospel? :nope:

And how about 3.?

When the early church was being harassed, imprisoned, and martyred in the coliseum, who were the Church leaders in control of ANYTHING?

So, what did any of them gain besides a martyrs’ death?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for your response. Would you be able to provide some of this information you say is available? I would not know where to begin to look.

Josephus (AD 93-94)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

Tacitus (AD 116)

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer’s clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals of Imperial Rome, 15:44)

Mara bar Serapion (ca. AD 73)

“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)

Lucian of Samosata (c. AD 150)

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their noble rites, and was crucified on that account…You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they were converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13)

The Talmud (c. AD 175)

“On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged” (The Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a).

 

[Lily_Bernans]

That sounds to me like Unitarianism, or at least one variety of Unitarianism, of which there are many:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

The claim that Jesus was merely a human is Adoptionism, one of the heresies that led to the first Council of Nicaea. There were those, who, in trying to reconcile the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus claimed that Jesus was merely another human, but one who led an exemplary moral life. For that reason, he was “adopted” by God, and the Logos came to dwell within him, although it did not become a part of Jesus’ inherent nature. The bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata was one of the first, and most bizarre, of the Adoptionists. Adoptionism did not catch on as well as Docetism, though, which, as I’m sure you know, is also an early heresy.

There is a book called Christological Controversies, available from Amazon, that lays all of this out. It is not expensive at all, but can be a little advanced at times. Not beyond any intelligent, thinking person, though.