Owen,
I suppose many believe in the divinity of Jesus because of his attitude and teachings as set out in the Bible. Of course, from that alone one might conclude that he was a great man and philosopher but not divine. The problem is that the same sources that tell us all about his great "love" teachings and behavior also tell us about his hard sayings -- that he and the Father are one, that no one comes to God except through him, that we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life. If he is not divine, then he was a megalomaniac who was also very self-sacrificing, forgiving, loving, and engaging -- a very puzzling combination.
In considering the issue of his divinity, I look to the historicity or lack of historicity of his resurrection. Even Paul admits in 1 Corinthians 15 that the entire Christian faith depends on this issue. If Jesus in fact rose from the dead, that miracle would certainly authenticate his outrageous claims. Admittedly, there is no video available of his death and resurrection, and if it had all happen this year and it had been recorded on video, that STILL wouldn't be irrefutable proof. We would still suspect Hollywood deception or perhaps an incredible performance by a master illusionist.
So how can we judge the resurrection claim?
I think there is little doubt that the Eleven (after Judas defected) truly believed that they had encountered Jesus alive after his death on several occasions, that he ate and drank with them and that they touched him. They also claimed they saw him ascend into heaven.
These men were in a unique position to KNOW whether the resurrection really happened or whether they stole the body and fabricated a "resurrection" in order to keep the Jesus legend going, make themselves into people of power and influence, or whatever. Most of these men died as martyrs. I don't know about you, but if I had been a part of some Passover plot and fraud, I would have recanted loudly about the time they sharped the ax or got out the cross (torture stake, if you prefer) and nails. Nixon's Watergate conspirators, powerful men of influence, cracked and confessed their lies under far less provocation than Jesus' disciples endured.
The Romans and Pharisees could have stopped the spreading resurrection "heresy" by taking Jesus' body out of the tomb and parading it through Jerusalem. Yet they didn't. If Jesus' body had been tossed into a common grave, they still could have dug up the remains. Why didn't they?
Absent a genuine resurrection, why did so many Jews of that day convert so quickly to the religion of a man who failed completely to meet their expectations of a conquering warrior-Messiah? Why would they convert to follow a dead Messiah who had just deeply disappointed the nation and been crucified by the hated nation they expected a true Messiah to overthrow? Why would they so easily and quickly abandon belief in crucial aspects of the Jewish faith such as righteousness being earned by keeping the law of Moses, observing the Saturday sabbath, honoring only YHWH as divine, etc.?
Absent the resurrection of Jesus, why did converts start a practice called communion which celebrated -- not the teachings or life of Jesus -- but the gruesome manner of his death? Why did they carve crosses into their hiding places (as archaelogists have recently uncovered) if Jesus was murdered on one and never really conquered the grave?
Why would Saul of Tarsus suddenly go from being a persecutor of -- as he believed -- the resurrectionist heretics to being the primary proclaimer of personal encounters with the same resurrected Christ? Why did he go through the deprivations and conflict and martyrdom? Did he falsify his supposed encounters with the risen Christ? Why? Wasn't he already a rising star among the Pharisees? Why make himself their enemy to promote something he knew was a fraud?
Does all of this argumentation provide irrefutable PROOF that Jesus really was a divine being who rose from the dead? No, but I think it is evidence that deserves serious consideration.
