But this is just the sort of issue we have to treat seriously from a historical perspective. Suppose it is somewhat plausible that a Jesus figure could claim to be divine and it later taken in some exclusive sense today. Well we live in an age in which it's common for people to talk about union with the divine, when God is less personal and more cosmic. But when you consider Jesus' claims in light of first century Judaism, you have a different picture all together. The Jews were strict monotheists. Yahweh was God, and Yahweh alone. There's a reason that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for saying that God was His Father. Such a claim today is not only non-controversial, it's obvious. It's why Oprah can say, "We're all God's children" and why you are looked at like you just sprouted a second head if you claims someone is NOT God's child.Proinsias wrote:That a really remarkable chap had an experience of the divine and with those around him interpreted it within the context of theology & religion available is about as far as I can go.
Just imagine going into a deeply Islamic nation--perhaps Saudia Arabia or Iran--and walking around talking as if you are Allah. They would have the same reaction the Jews had to Jesus--kill the blasphemer!
So this isn't just a matter of some Jew thinking He was divine and people misunderstanding what He was saying. This Jew believed that He was Yahweh in the flesh, that He was the Messiah predicted by His Scriptures, that whether or not a person spent eternity in Heaven or Hell hinged on whether or not they believed His claims about Himself. And not only him, but His disciples believed the same things.
Now here's the real question, because it isn't enough to just marvel at fact of the belief. You have to ask, from a historical perspective, how do we account for the origin of the belief? Maybe Jesus was a lunatic. So what about His twelve disciples and the roughly hundred others with Him right after His death? Where did THEY--these orthodox, monotheistic Jews--get that idea? And how did they maintain it after Jesus was killed in the most shameful way possible (and bear in mind, first century Israel was a shame based culture, not a guilt based one as the West is)? In N.T. Wright's terms, how do you account for the mutation in their theology? Historically, what event explains their firm conviction that Jesus was God in the flesh?
The resurrection certainly explains it. And that's just it. Nothing else can. You add Jesus' conviction that He was God with the reality of His resurrection (which they had witnessed because He appeared to them) and you have sufficient condition to fundamentally change their theology.
So just writing Jesus off as a misunderstood Jew preaching some form of eastern mysticism whereby He had an experience of unity with the Godhead doesn't work from a purely historical perspective. That is it is not a serious hypothesis because it doesn't work in that setting.