The Radical Jesus – Son of God

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2019

In several recent works, Bart Ehrman has argued that Jesus frequently taught about the coming of a figure called the Son of Man who was a divine figure, cosmic judge, and ruler of the kingdom of God. Although Jesus did not see himself as this Son of Man, his disciples mistakenly identified him as this figure as a result of their belief in Jesus’s resurrection. This article surveys the use of the title Son of Man by Jesus and Jewish literature and generally confirms Ehrman’s view of the meaning of the title. It further argues that the standard criteria of authenticity which Ehrman confidently employs in his works also confirm that Jesus identified himself as the Son of Man. Thus, the high Christology of early Christianity is not the result of “legend” as Ehrman claims but resulted from Jesus’s own divine claims.

The debate on Jesus's divine nature is as old as the New Testament text itself. The so-called "titles" ascribed to Jesus often take centre stage in this type of discussion. The aim with this study, however, is to show that Jesus is not an equivalent of . To argue my case convincingly, I will have to show that, textually, Jesus is a distinctly different literary character from that of . I will also need to show that Jesus never claimed to be . As an introduction, I will briefly sketch the Jewish-Hellenistic background and possible meanings of the term . I will then deal with all those references traditionally used to argue that Jesus is equivalent to . This will be followed by concluding remarks.

The expression " Son of Man " is Jesus " preferred title in the Gospels. The meaning of the phrase and Jesus " probable motive for using the title constitute the basis for this study. The work explores some instances in the Gospels where the phrase is used in relation to Jesus and identifies a common pattern; attempt an explanation of the meaning of the term as expressive of the mediatory role Jesus performs as the one who unites God and the world and therefore the heart and centre of human salvation. The concluding statements highlight the importance of the title in the light of Jesus " mission to save and the obligations it imposes consequently on Christians as imitators of Christ.

Verbum Vitae 42/2, 2024

The flourishing research on the historical Jesus, which has been growing for several centuries, cannot stay without influence on systematic theology. One of the fundamental problems remains whether and to what extent it is possible to reconcile the image of Jesus emerging from historical research with the Christian dogma of the incarnation. This article attempts to answer the question of how belief in the deity of Jesus can be reconciled with the historical approach to him and to his life. The deity of Christ will be presented as a theme not independent of, but closely related to, the historical picture of Jesus. The first part will examine three approaches to the question of the relationship between the historical reconstruction of the person of Jesus and the belief in his deity. The second part will show what kind of belief in the divinity of Jesus is incompatible with the historical-critical approach to the Gospel texts and the life of Jesus. Finally, the third part will attempt to show which understanding of the divinity of Christ is compatible with the historical-critical approach. Belief in the incarnation of God in Jesus seems always possible, even in times of critical historical consciousness. The results of historical research on the person of Jesus not only do not refute such a belief, but also help to find its proper meaning.

This essay examines a particular chapter of Roger Haight’s acclaimed and controversial work, Jesus, Symbol of God (JSG). A past-president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, Haight is no amateur theologian, but this book resulted in an investigation and subsequent decision that he no longer teach in a Catholic Theological Faculty. This essay will examine chapter fifteen of Haight’s work. To do so, it will be necessary to briefly recount the methodological steps within Haight’s overall argument in his book so that we can more closely consider each argument in this chapter. After presenting Haight’s argument, I shall then explain the condemnation from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and conclude with some observations. It should be stated from the beginning that Haight is a respected theologian and an obedient Jesuit who has not sought to defy the CDF in their responsibility of safeguarding orthodoxy. The motivations for his writing this work were simply to imagine a possible future teaching, given today’s pluralist and post-modern worldview. In writing from America, arguably closer to such intellectual currents than perhaps Rome is, a reading of Haight’s work and an understanding of the errors in his thinking are an invaluable aid to enabling one to theologise correctly and responsibly today.

Starting from the contemporary dominant values of tolerance, dialogue, and political correctness, this article analyses Jesus' speech and teachings in the synoptic gospels in the light of these values. First, the article analyses Jesus' speech about love, and then the focus is on Jesus' harsh language and teaching. After that the article analyses reactions of different people and groups on his language and teaching. Based on this analysis, in the final section the article compares Jesus of the gospels with the distorted portray of Jesus that is sometimes present in contemporary Christianity. The conclusion that is made is that contemporary Western culture has distorted the image of Jesus from the gospels and has created modern Jesus which in his speech and teachings reflects today's dominant values. However, Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, and we should be very careful to follow not some " contemporary Jesus, " but Jesus of the gospels.

The thesis of this paper is that John’s Gospel significantly documents the Son of Man as a Christological title and, more specifically, makes apocalyptic connections to Jesus’ self-designation.

Scholarship steered critical intellectual search about Jesus which makes the universal believe on Jesus as being hundred percent Divine and hundred percent man to be subjected to academic scrutiny. Some modern critical scholars challenged the divinity of Jesus using historical-critical methods. This study intends to examine the Biblical depictions of Jesus in New Testament perspective which is reliable and authentic portraits of Jesus, the basis for faith, spiritual development, and theological scholarship. We live in the world of complex conditions and factors of philosophical idea, critical intelligence, historical insight, and religious emotion without deep theological perspective. The greatest achievement of theology is understanding The Historical Jesus in New Testament Perspective by Abimiku, Sunday Adigizi 2 of Jesus himself: both have proved to be fountain-heads for wide collective discussions of ancient and modern attitudes to religion and theology, nationalism and race, gender and the family (Smith, 1990; Kelley, 2002; Moxnes, 2003). Hence there is need to contribute to the ongoing scholarship on the historical reassessment of Jesus using relevant New Testament text.

This essay seeks to understand the use of the title ‘Son of God’ in relation to Jesus of Nazareth, as described in St Mark’s gospel. The essay therefore naturally consists of three major parts: after considering some preliminary questions I shall firstly investigate what the author of Mark meant by the use of such a title; secondly, what Jesus understood by that title; and thirdly, what the readers of the Marcan tradition understood by it. In considering the first part, we shall examine the instances of where the Evangelist uses ‘Son of God’ to describe Jesus, as well as those passages in where this is inferred, and assess what author is trying to mean. The second part shall examine Jesus’ use and understanding of titles generally, and this one in particular. Finally we shall consider how such a term would be understood by those to whom it was first addressed. This follows a classic hermeneutical pattern where the author, the reader and the text is analysed. The essay shall conclude with a brief summary and after all the foregoing analysis, attempt to answer the question ‘what does the title Son of God mean? And how was it understood?’