This is a well-documented essay and the degree of Jesus’ divinity has made great fodder for religious debate for more than 1,000 years, for sure.
Interestingly, just learned recently that Adolf Hitler’s platform would agree on this 100%, because his personally customized “Positive Christianity” platform also rejected the divinity of Jesus (which ran the risk of upstaging Adolf, otherwise).
Historically, it seems that typically atheist/nihilist fascists who have a need to build out their followers start recruiting religious communities at a certain point, and then sometimes convert (e.g. Mussolini, Hitler) or feign similar beliefs to avoid alienating/pander to that demographic.
So, the question that comes to mind is, if there have been living examples of far-right/fascists that were Athiests (e.g. Mussolini, Hitler, Curtis Yarvin) Ancient Romans (e.g., Caesar et al), Jewish/Zionists (Stephen Miller/Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, etc.) and even maybe Hindu Nationalists (“Modi?”) in addition to the current infiltration by Fourth Political Theorist/Alexandr Dugin friendly Christo-Fascists ( Speaker Mike Johnson, Pete Hegseth, Karoline Leavitt, Gen. Michael Flynn, JD Vance, Vance Boelter, Putin, Orban, etc.), does resolving Jesus’ divinity in any direction serve to mitigate the presence of so-called “Republican” fascists (i.e. Fourth Political Theory Russo-adjacent Dark Enlightenment / MAGA disciples)?
The MAGA movement zealots have consistently been rebuked by the most senior leadership of America’s largest Episcopal and Catholic Churches in this country for failing to demonstrate that they are walking in Jesus’ footsteps in any meaningful way at all, regardless of where anyone stands on the divinity question.
If they all started calling themselves atheists or Jewish or Martian or Hindu tomorrow, would it make them any less fascist?
You raise a crucial fucking point. While textual analysis stands on its own scholarly merit, we must acknowledge how anti-divinity arguments have been weaponized by authoritarians seeking to diminish Christ's moral authority. Hitler's "Positive Christianity" stripped Jesus of divine status precisely to subordinate Christian ethics to state ideology.
The real test isn't Christological doctrine but praxis: do people follow Jesus's commands like ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν (agapate tous echthrous hymōn) "love your enemies"? Modern fascists fail this test regardless of their theological positions. Your historical parallel deserves serious consideration.
This was 🏆. The Father who sent His Son, Jesus Christ, descendants of the Jewish faith, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and Son are adored and glorified. He has spoken through many prophets and should be informing us not only of the words of the Father and the Son, but how we can be forgiving of all and sisters/brothers to many. Unfortunately, we have heard the stories of those disciples who were fed to the lions, burned upside down, buried alive, tossed into bridges and alienated from many. Many many. ❤️✌️
The Church traded a living, breathing prophet for a cosmic superhero because prophets are inconvenient. You can ignore a god on a throne, but you can’t ignore a barefoot Jew telling rich men to give their shit away.
And yes—the texts themselves whisper that he was human, frail, angry, tired, afraid, and wildly alive. That’s what made him sacred. Not his bloodline. Not magic tricks. Not some metaphysical cheat code. The beauty is that divinity leaked through the human, not in spite of it.
So no argument here. The real blasphemy isn’t saying Jesus was just a man. It’s turning him into a mascot for empire, patriarchy, and whitewashed nonsense.
1. You really think Jesus himself didn’t think he was divine? What is your reading of when Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I am.”? My reading is that he’s claiming to be the same being that appeared in the burning bush. (and that explains why those who heard him say those words then immediately tried to stone him)
2. But if you are right, what does this accomplish? My issue with conservative Christians isn’t that they believe he’s divine (as do I ), but that although they are Christians (meaning that they believe in Christ), they aren’t disciples (meaning that they follow his teachings).
3. Even if Jesus was divine, nobody is disputing that he was born of Mary — so he was definitely at least half human. The question is about his paternity.
1. “Before Abraham was, I am” is not a mic-drop claim to cosmic superiority. It is a statement spoken from the level of conscious presence, the deep ground of being where time collapses. This isn't Jesus claiming to be the burning bush in disguise. It is a glimpse into what happens when a human being fully surrenders their separate self and speaks from the eternal. The people tried to stone him because that kind of presence destabilizes the whole system built on separation.
2. What it accomplishes is this. If Jesus is fully human and awake, then the path he walked is open to us. Not as fans watching a divine performance, but as participants in a living transformation. It shifts the center of gravity from belief to practice. You no longer get to admire him from a pew. You have to let his life confront your own.
3. The question of "half human" turns the mystery into math. He was not a mixture. He was a whole human, fully given to the indwelling presence of God. Not genetically divine. Spiritually transparent. The miracle is not that God became man, but that a man became fully aligned with the divine flow and stayed faithful to it even through death.
Matthew 1:16 calls Joseph Jesus's father; Luke's genealogy traces through Joseph. The virgin birth narratives contradict multiple passages affirming Jesus as σπέρμα Δαυίδ (sperma Dauid) "seed of David" and ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ κατὰ σάρκα (ek spermatos Dauid kata sarka) "from David's seed according to flesh."
For the Second Question: Understanding Jesus's humanity validates his genuine suffering, moral example, and complete identification with human experience. A truly divine being cannot authentically model human struggle, temptation, or death. As ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos), Jesus becomes the perfect human example rather than an impossible divine standard.
"Half-divine" is philosophical nonsense—divinity is absolute, not fractional. Greek theology knew no "demi-gods" in monotheistic Judaism. The texts consistently use ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) and ἀνήρ (anēr) without qualification. Divine nature is ἀπαθής (apathēs)—incapable of suffering, change, or death. You can't be "partially omniscient" or "somewhat omnipotent."
Do you have a greek or hebrew fluency? It would REALLY help this conversation if you did.
To your first Question: The Greek ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi) is simply "I am/exist"—standard Greek, not the Hebrew divine name יהוה (YHVH). Jesus means "I existed before Abraham," claiming pre-existence as God's chosen agent, not divinity. The Septuagint uses ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (egō eimi ho ōn) for God's name.
Technically, Jesus never rose from the dead. He was seen post-mortem as a ghost, as relayed in the story of his encounter out of the tomb with the three Marys: "Do not touch me for I am not of this world." Christianity is a haunting.
Like any other book that needs translation...the Toraj and Quran, writings are Misinterpreted. REAL Christians believe what you said but also say he was the son of God. The real Jesus spread love and hope for all. Conservative Jesus told the poor to fuck off. Hercules was the son of Zeus and he died too. Maga Christians say Jesus rose on the 3rd day and will rise again. Personally I need proof. I'm not religious but I do go to church on occasion but for spiritual reasons only. I do feel better when I leave the church.
Of course, reincarnation ( which was removed from writings during 3rd century) explains everything. Isn't reincarnation eternal life?
This is a well-documented essay and the degree of Jesus’ divinity has made great fodder for religious debate for more than 1,000 years, for sure.
Interestingly, just learned recently that Adolf Hitler’s platform would agree on this 100%, because his personally customized “Positive Christianity” platform also rejected the divinity of Jesus (which ran the risk of upstaging Adolf, otherwise).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
Historically, it seems that typically atheist/nihilist fascists who have a need to build out their followers start recruiting religious communities at a certain point, and then sometimes convert (e.g. Mussolini, Hitler) or feign similar beliefs to avoid alienating/pander to that demographic.
So, the question that comes to mind is, if there have been living examples of far-right/fascists that were Athiests (e.g. Mussolini, Hitler, Curtis Yarvin) Ancient Romans (e.g., Caesar et al), Jewish/Zionists (Stephen Miller/Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, etc.) and even maybe Hindu Nationalists (“Modi?”) in addition to the current infiltration by Fourth Political Theorist/Alexandr Dugin friendly Christo-Fascists ( Speaker Mike Johnson, Pete Hegseth, Karoline Leavitt, Gen. Michael Flynn, JD Vance, Vance Boelter, Putin, Orban, etc.), does resolving Jesus’ divinity in any direction serve to mitigate the presence of so-called “Republican” fascists (i.e. Fourth Political Theory Russo-adjacent Dark Enlightenment / MAGA disciples)?
The MAGA movement zealots have consistently been rebuked by the most senior leadership of America’s largest Episcopal and Catholic Churches in this country for failing to demonstrate that they are walking in Jesus’ footsteps in any meaningful way at all, regardless of where anyone stands on the divinity question.
If they all started calling themselves atheists or Jewish or Martian or Hindu tomorrow, would it make them any less fascist?
You raise a crucial fucking point. While textual analysis stands on its own scholarly merit, we must acknowledge how anti-divinity arguments have been weaponized by authoritarians seeking to diminish Christ's moral authority. Hitler's "Positive Christianity" stripped Jesus of divine status precisely to subordinate Christian ethics to state ideology.
The real test isn't Christological doctrine but praxis: do people follow Jesus's commands like ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν (agapate tous echthrous hymōn) "love your enemies"? Modern fascists fail this test regardless of their theological positions. Your historical parallel deserves serious consideration.
This was 🏆. The Father who sent His Son, Jesus Christ, descendants of the Jewish faith, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and Son are adored and glorified. He has spoken through many prophets and should be informing us not only of the words of the Father and the Son, but how we can be forgiving of all and sisters/brothers to many. Unfortunately, we have heard the stories of those disciples who were fed to the lions, burned upside down, buried alive, tossed into bridges and alienated from many. Many many. ❤️✌️
As a lapsed catholic with all of the pre Vatican 2 guilt heaped upon me, I love this interpretation and analysis.
We do our best , thank you
Wendy, you’re not wrong.
The Church traded a living, breathing prophet for a cosmic superhero because prophets are inconvenient. You can ignore a god on a throne, but you can’t ignore a barefoot Jew telling rich men to give their shit away.
And yes—the texts themselves whisper that he was human, frail, angry, tired, afraid, and wildly alive. That’s what made him sacred. Not his bloodline. Not magic tricks. Not some metaphysical cheat code. The beauty is that divinity leaked through the human, not in spite of it.
So no argument here. The real blasphemy isn’t saying Jesus was just a man. It’s turning him into a mascot for empire, patriarchy, and whitewashed nonsense.
Keep swinging the hammer.
Some idols deserve to break.
1. You really think Jesus himself didn’t think he was divine? What is your reading of when Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I am.”? My reading is that he’s claiming to be the same being that appeared in the burning bush. (and that explains why those who heard him say those words then immediately tried to stone him)
2. But if you are right, what does this accomplish? My issue with conservative Christians isn’t that they believe he’s divine (as do I ), but that although they are Christians (meaning that they believe in Christ), they aren’t disciples (meaning that they follow his teachings).
3. Even if Jesus was divine, nobody is disputing that he was born of Mary — so he was definitely at least half human. The question is about his paternity.
1. “Before Abraham was, I am” is not a mic-drop claim to cosmic superiority. It is a statement spoken from the level of conscious presence, the deep ground of being where time collapses. This isn't Jesus claiming to be the burning bush in disguise. It is a glimpse into what happens when a human being fully surrenders their separate self and speaks from the eternal. The people tried to stone him because that kind of presence destabilizes the whole system built on separation.
2. What it accomplishes is this. If Jesus is fully human and awake, then the path he walked is open to us. Not as fans watching a divine performance, but as participants in a living transformation. It shifts the center of gravity from belief to practice. You no longer get to admire him from a pew. You have to let his life confront your own.
3. The question of "half human" turns the mystery into math. He was not a mixture. He was a whole human, fully given to the indwelling presence of God. Not genetically divine. Spiritually transparent. The miracle is not that God became man, but that a man became fully aligned with the divine flow and stayed faithful to it even through death.
To the Third Question:
Matthew 1:16 calls Joseph Jesus's father; Luke's genealogy traces through Joseph. The virgin birth narratives contradict multiple passages affirming Jesus as σπέρμα Δαυίδ (sperma Dauid) "seed of David" and ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ κατὰ σάρκα (ek spermatos Dauid kata sarka) "from David's seed according to flesh."
I was always told both sides were of David (Mary and Joseph)… 🤔
For the Second Question: Understanding Jesus's humanity validates his genuine suffering, moral example, and complete identification with human experience. A truly divine being cannot authentically model human struggle, temptation, or death. As ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos), Jesus becomes the perfect human example rather than an impossible divine standard.
And he couldn’t have been half-human, half-God?
Bullshit.
"Half-divine" is philosophical nonsense—divinity is absolute, not fractional. Greek theology knew no "demi-gods" in monotheistic Judaism. The texts consistently use ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) and ἀνήρ (anēr) without qualification. Divine nature is ἀπαθής (apathēs)—incapable of suffering, change, or death. You can't be "partially omniscient" or "somewhat omnipotent."
Do you have a greek or hebrew fluency? It would REALLY help this conversation if you did.
Alas, the only language I speak fluently is English. But your explanation is clear enough. Thank you.
You are certainly welcome. Happy to help you learn a language if you want I know a few.
To your first Question: The Greek ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi) is simply "I am/exist"—standard Greek, not the Hebrew divine name יהוה (YHVH). Jesus means "I existed before Abraham," claiming pre-existence as God's chosen agent, not divinity. The Septuagint uses ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (egō eimi ho ōn) for God's name.
OK, thank you.
You are welcome.
Technically, Jesus never rose from the dead. He was seen post-mortem as a ghost, as relayed in the story of his encounter out of the tomb with the three Marys: "Do not touch me for I am not of this world." Christianity is a haunting.
Oh? Then why did he need to eat in Luke 24?
Luke was written a couple hundred years after Jesus died. Maybe Luke was a chow hound.
Like any other book that needs translation...the Toraj and Quran, writings are Misinterpreted. REAL Christians believe what you said but also say he was the son of God. The real Jesus spread love and hope for all. Conservative Jesus told the poor to fuck off. Hercules was the son of Zeus and he died too. Maga Christians say Jesus rose on the 3rd day and will rise again. Personally I need proof. I'm not religious but I do go to church on occasion but for spiritual reasons only. I do feel better when I leave the church.
I'm Jewish, and I approve your message. Well done!