Was Jesus Really God? 5 Bold Arguments Scholars Can’t Ignore

Introduction by Karen Armstrong

“Good evening. Before we begin, let us remember that religious belief is not merely about doctrine—it is about meaning, mystery, and ultimately, compassion. For over two thousand years, Jesus of Nazareth has stood at the heart of one of the world’s most transformative spiritual traditions. But who exactly was he? Was he a prophet? A radical teacher? A divine incarnation?

Today, we gather not to strip away reverence, but to engage sincerely with questions that thoughtful people have asked for centuries. From the deserts of first-century Palestine to the councils of emperors and the mystical visions of modern seekers, the identity of Jesus has evolved, challenged, and inspired.

Let us approach this discussion not with the rigidity of dogma, but with the humility that truth often reveals itself in layers. We are here to listen—to the historians, to the mystics, and perhaps most importantly, to the silences in between.”

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event.) 

Topic 1: Jesus Never Explicitly Said “I Am God”

Moderated by Karen Armstrong, featuring:

• Bart D. Ehrman
• Elaine Pagels
• Geza Vermes
• Reza Aslan
• John Dominic Crossan

Karen Armstrong (moderator):
Thank you all for joining this important conversation. For centuries, Christians have declared Jesus to be divine—God in the flesh. And yet, when we return to the texts themselves, a question emerges: Did Jesus ever actually claim to be God? Let’s start there. What does the evidence suggest?

Elaine Pagels:
From the Gnostic texts and even canonical ones, there’s an overwhelming silence on any clear self-declaration of divinity. What we do see is Jesus teaching in parables, embodying wisdom, and calling people to a deeper reality. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, presents him more as an enlightened guide than a deity. This invites a very different interpretation—one based on inner transformation, not metaphysical assertions.

Reza Aslan:
Exactly. Jesus was operating in a Jewish world with strict monotheism. Calling oneself God would have been blasphemy, and there's no credible evidence he did that. The idea that he was divine comes later—through Paul’s epistles and the Gospel of John, which was written decades after Jesus’ death. The synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—don’t show Jesus making divine claims. He speaks of God, not as himself, but as someone distinct.

John Dominic Crossan:
Right. The earliest layers of tradition reveal a man concerned with justice, poverty, and nonviolence—not with metaphysical identity. "Son of Man" and "Son of God" were titles with layered meanings at the time. They didn’t necessarily imply divinity. What we see is a prophet within the Jewish prophetic tradition, not someone proclaiming “I am God.”

Geza Vermes:
I would emphasize that Jesus referred to himself as the “Son of Man” more than any other title. This is a term used in apocalyptic Jewish literature to speak of a heavenly figure who executes judgment, but it was not synonymous with being God. Moreover, Jesus’ constant prayer and submission to God’s will reveals a subordinate, servant role—not an identity with the divine.

Bart D. Ehrman:
I agree with everyone here. What’s striking is that in the Gospel of Mark—the earliest gospel—Jesus is never called God, not even by himself. Later Gospels, especially John, begin to reflect a theological evolution. But that development took decades. The divinization of Jesus is a historical process, not something Jesus declared himself.

Karen Armstrong:
Thank you. So if we accept that Jesus didn’t explicitly claim to be God, the next question arises: Why then did later Christians begin to treat him as divine? What historical or theological forces pushed this shift?

Bart D. Ehrman:
It was partly about power and partly about meaning. Early Christians needed to explain how a crucified man could be the promised Messiah. Elevating Jesus to divine status allowed them to make sense of his death and resurrection. Paul’s theology played a huge role—he emphasized Christ’s exaltation. Then as Christianity spread into the Greco-Roman world, divine-men figures were not uncommon. Elevating Jesus helped Gentiles relate to the movement.

Geza Vermes:
And let’s not forget the political environment. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, Judaism was undergoing a crisis. Christianity, branching off, found strength in offering a universal savior, not just a national one. Declaring Jesus divine gave theological stability and competitive edge in a pluralistic religious market.

Elaine Pagels:
The consolidation of power also played a role. When bishops and emperors started aligning, they had strong incentives to enforce orthodoxy. Declaring Jesus as God was a way to create boundaries—who’s in, who’s out. Groups that saw Jesus differently—like the Gnostics—were branded heretical. But their writings show a rich, symbolic view of Jesus that was once part of the conversation.

John Dominic Crossan:
I’d argue that the Jesus movement was originally about liberation—spiritual, social, and political. The divinization of Jesus came when the movement became an institution. Once Christianity moved from the margins to the center of power, theological claims hardened. Making Jesus divine elevated his authority—but perhaps at the cost of losing his original radical message.

Reza Aslan:
I’d add that memory works like a river—it flows, expands, and changes course. Oral traditions about Jesus were being shaped by communities under persecution, and their needs changed over time. Declaring Jesus divine made theological and psychological sense to them. It gave hope, but it wasn’t necessarily what Jesus intended.

Karen Armstrong:
So, we see a Jesus shaped by memory, politics, theology, and cultural adaptation. Let me ask this final question: If Jesus were standing here today and asked us directly, “Who do you say that I am?”—what would your personal response be, based on your study and experience?

John Dominic Crossan:
I’d say, “You are a prophet of justice and peace, who showed us how to resist empire with love.”

Elaine Pagels:
“You are a revealer of hidden truths, a mirror to the divine spark within all of us.”

Bart D. Ehrman:
“You were a devout Jew, misunderstood in your time and reshaped by history—but still a figure of immense spiritual importance.”

Reza Aslan:
“You were a man who sought to liberate others through faith, compassion, and courage—not a god, but a revolutionary.”

Geza Vermes:
“I would say you were a Galilean healer and teacher—deeply faithful, deeply human—and for that, you were extraordinary.”

Karen Armstrong:
Thank you all. Today’s discussion doesn’t close the question, nor should it. What it does is illuminate the profound complexity of a man whose legacy continues to inspire, divide, and awaken. Whether we call him prophet, teacher, or divine, perhaps the greater question is whether we embody what he stood for: compassion, truth, and justice.

Topic 2: Jesus Distinguishes Himself From God

Moderator: Karen Armstrong
Guests:

• James D. Tabor
• Thomas Sheehan
• Karen Armstrong (as moderator only)
• Maurice Casey
• Dale C. Allison Jr.
• John Dominic Crossan (returning guest for this overlapping theme)

Karen Armstrong (moderator):
We continue today by looking at one of the most intriguing patterns in the New Testament: Jesus often speaks to God, about God, and in submission to God. He prays, obeys, and even says “the Father is greater than I.” If Jesus and God are the same, why is there this consistent language of distinction? Let’s begin here—what does this tell us about Jesus’ self-understanding?

Maurice Casey:
This distinction is key. Jesus’ Aramaic words and worldview show that he never saw himself as equal to God. His use of “Abba” was intimate, yes, but not divine. It signaled closeness, not identity. His prayers, especially in Gethsemane, make it impossible to claim ontological unity. That’s a later doctrinal overlay.

John Dominic Crossan:
It’s helpful to remember that Jesus functioned like a prophet. Prophets speak for God, but do not become God. When Jesus says, “not my will, but yours be done,” it’s a human will yielding to divine direction. This is dramatic distinction, not divine theater.

Dale C. Allison Jr.:
Even in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says no one knows the hour of the end—not even the Son. That kind of ignorance doesn’t fit with the traditional concept of omniscient deity. You can only make that work theologically by separating “Jesus the man” from “Jesus the God,” which wasn’t how first-century Jews thought.

James D. Tabor:
I’d add that in the Gospel of John, often considered the most “divine” portrait, Jesus still says “I can do nothing on my own.” That’s remarkable. If he were truly God in human form, we wouldn’t expect such dependent, subordinate language. He clearly sees himself as an agent of God, not God himself.

Thomas Sheehan:
Exactly. What we find is a man deeply conscious of his mission, not his metaphysical nature. Christianity developed the idea of dual nature—fully God and fully man—but Jesus’ own words don’t reflect that. He lived from God, for God, and toward God, but not as God.

Karen Armstrong:
Thank you all. Given these distinctions between Jesus and God in his own speech, let me ask you this: Why do you think this distinction was either blurred or downplayed in later theology?

John Dominic Crossan:
Because the church was moving from a movement to an institution. Theologians in power needed authority. Making Jesus divine gave them unshakable grounding. A divine Jesus speaks not just as prophet—but as lawgiver. It changed the stakes.

Dale C. Allison Jr.:
There’s also a pastoral dimension. People needed to believe God understood their suffering. A divine Jesus who became human gave comfort. The suffering God became a theological necessity in the wake of Roman oppression and personal despair.

Maurice Casey:
But we must be honest—it was a rhetorical and political move as well. The Gentile world was filled with divine men: emperors, philosophers, miracle workers. Making Jesus divine helped Christianity compete in that landscape.

Thomas Sheehan:
The theology didn’t just evolve—it hardened. Once the idea of Jesus as God was institutionalized, questioning it became heresy. That killed theological flexibility. The Jesus of history got lost in the Christ of faith.

James D. Tabor:
I agree. We have to see Jesus through his Jewish lens. In that world, there was one God, and to confuse any human being with that God—even a Messiah—was dangerous. Early believers may have blurred the line for good reasons, but it was never Jesus who did so.

Karen Armstrong:
That leads us to a very human, very personal question: If Jesus was always pointing to God rather than himself, what should modern seekers take away from that? What does that say about the path he was offering?

Maurice Casey:
He was showing the way to God, not as God. That difference matters. His life was a model of obedience and surrender, a deeply Jewish path of trust in the divine.

James D. Tabor:
Yes. He wasn’t calling us to worship him—but to follow him. That’s a huge distinction. He wanted disciples, not adorers.

Thomas Sheehan:
The mysticism of Jesus lies not in his divine essence but in his divine awareness. He was in tune with the sacred. He invites us into that same awareness—not to see him as a god, but as a gateway.

Dale C. Allison Jr.:
Jesus’ strength was in connection—to the divine, to people, to justice. We should imitate that, not build altars to it.

John Dominic Crossan:
I would say: the distinction between Jesus and God is not a demotion—it’s an invitation. If he was fully human, then we too are capable of reflecting God’s will on Earth. And maybe that’s the more radical, empowering idea.

Karen Armstrong:
Profound reflections. What today’s conversation shows is that distinction is not denial—it’s depth. A Jesus who prays, pleads, and yields to God offers us something more accessible, perhaps more transformative, than a distant deity. He points us not to himself—but to the source beyond him.

Topic 3: Early Christian Diversity of Belief

Moderator: Karen Armstrong
Guests:

• Elaine Pagels
• Walter Bauer
• Helmut Koester
• Robert M. Price
• Bart D. Ehrman (returning guest)

Karen Armstrong (moderator):
In the earliest centuries after Jesus’ death, Christians did not speak with one voice. Belief in who Jesus was—prophet, messiah, divine logos, or enlightened teacher—varied wildly across geography and community. Today, we explore how this diversity shaped Christian origins. To begin, what does the historical evidence reveal about the range of early Christian views on Jesus?

Walter Bauer:
Our evidence shows that what we now call “heresy” often preceded what became “orthodoxy.” In regions like Egypt and Syria, communities believed in wildly different interpretations of Jesus. Some rejected his divinity. Others claimed he was a divine spirit who only seemed human. The idea that there was one original “correct” belief is a later fiction.

Elaine Pagels:
Indeed. When you look at the texts from Nag Hammadi—like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary—you see a spiritual Jesus, a revealer of wisdom, not a crucified savior. These communities emphasized gnosis, inner knowing, and treated Jesus as a guide, not a sacrifice. That tells us Christianity was never a single stream, but a whole river delta of ideas.

Robert M. Price:
We can go further: many early Christianities were influenced more by mythology than history. You had cosmic Christ figures, descending redeemers, and even allegorical interpretations of resurrection. These weren’t just fringe ideas—they were mainstream in certain circles. The church later chose one version to survive.

Bart D. Ehrman:
That’s what I’ve documented over and over—diversity was the rule, not the exception. Paul’s letters, the Gospel of Mark, the Gnostics, even the Ebionites—all held different Christologies. The belief that Jesus was God in the flesh was one view, not the view. But once the Roman Empire got involved, unifying doctrine became politically useful.

Helmut Koester:
From a textual standpoint, you can see the struggle play out. Canonical texts were selected for consistency and authority. Others were buried—literally. But the theological debates in those early centuries weren’t minor quibbles. They were foundational disagreements about who Jesus was and what salvation meant.

Karen Armstrong:
If Christianity began as a multi-voiced movement, let’s explore how it became a single voice. What were the driving forces behind the suppression of alternative views and the establishment of orthodoxy?

Bart D. Ehrman:
A major force was institutional power. Once bishops started to gain influence, especially in places like Rome and Alexandria, they needed theological unity to maintain control. Diversity was threatening. So “heresy” became not just theological error—but rebellion.

Walter Bauer:
Exactly. Heresy and orthodoxy were political categories. The group that won defined themselves as the original. But in truth, they became the majority. They didn’t start that way.

Elaine Pagels:
The suppression was also literary. Alternative texts weren’t merely disagreed with—they were destroyed, excluded from canon, and their followers exiled or executed. Women played prominent roles in many of these Gnostic communities, and that too was erased by the emerging male hierarchy.

Helmut Koester:
Let’s not forget the role of Constantine. With the Edict of Milan and later the Council of Nicaea, Christianity became entangled with imperial politics. It needed a single God, a single creed, and a single authority. That’s when theological consolidation accelerated.

Robert M. Price:
And the theological stakes were high. Was salvation from sin, or from ignorance? Was Jesus a divine blood sacrifice, or a revealer of hidden truths? These weren’t abstract questions. They shaped liturgy, practice, and identity. And the “orthodox” version was more compatible with empire-building.

Karen Armstrong:
Given this suppressed diversity, let me ask: If those early alternative voices had been allowed to flourish, how might Christianity—and our world—look different today?

Robert M. Price:
We’d probably have a more mystical, inner-focused Christianity. One that values consciousness, spiritual awakening, and symbolic interpretation over dogma. Perhaps fewer inquisitions, more introspection.

Elaine Pagels:
We might also have a faith with greater gender balance. The Gospel of Mary portrays a woman as Jesus’ closest disciple. That voice was silenced. Imagine the empowerment that could’ve meant for centuries of women.

Walter Bauer:
Theological humility may have flourished too. When multiple views are allowed, arrogance retreats. Dogma hardens when it thinks it’s the only truth. Diversity forces dialogue, and dialogue prevents domination.

Helmut Koester:
It would also reshape our reading of scripture. We'd interpret metaphorically rather than literally. The resurrection, for instance, could be seen as spiritual transformation rather than biological miracle—deeply meaningful, but not literalist.

Bart D. Ehrman:
And frankly, Christianity might have looked less imperial and more personal. Less focused on converting the world and more on transforming oneself. That’s not a threat to faith—it might be its salvation.

Karen Armstrong:
A powerful thought. Today, we’ve seen that the early Christian world was not born unified, but wrestled with what truth meant, who Jesus was, and how salvation was experienced. Perhaps remembering that early diversity can help us rediscover not what divides us—but what opens us.

Topic 4: Jesus as a Jewish Messiah, Not a Deity

Moderator: Karen Armstrong
Guests:

• Geza Vermes

• Amy-Jill Levine

• Paula Fredriksen

• E.P. Sanders

• Hyam Maccoby

Karen Armstrong (moderator):
Today, we turn to the question of Jesus' identity in his own Jewish context. Many scholars argue that Jesus never intended to start a new religion, nor saw himself as divine. Rather, he fit into the long tradition of Jewish prophets and messianic expectations. Let's begin here: How would a first-century Jew have understood someone like Jesus calling himself the Messiah?

E.P. Sanders:
In Second Temple Judaism, the Messiah was expected to be a political or military figure—someone who would liberate Israel from Roman rule. There was no expectation that the Messiah would be divine. Jesus may have seen himself as playing a messianic role, but not as God. That concept would’ve been foreign—and even offensive—to most Jews at the time.

Geza Vermes:
Yes, Jesus’ actions—healing, teaching, challenging temple practices—fit the profile of a charismatic Jewish holy man, not a divine being. He likely saw himself as a prophet, maybe even a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. But calling himself equal to God? That would have contradicted everything he believed about monotheism.

Amy-Jill Levine:
We have to remember: Jesus was thoroughly Jewish. His teachings on love, justice, and Torah were in line with other rabbis of his time. When he debates Pharisees, it’s not rebellion—it’s participation in Jewish discourse. The idea that he was offering a brand-new religion comes more from post-resurrection theology than from Jesus himself.

Paula Fredriksen:
Exactly. Jesus preached the imminent arrival of God’s Kingdom—not a new theology. His message was urgent and local. He wasn’t trying to become a deity. He was trying to warn, awaken, and prepare. What happened later was that followers had to reinterpret his failure to deliver political liberation, and in doing so, they spiritualized his role.

Hyam Maccoby:
And we can’t ignore Paul’s influence here. Paul, who never met Jesus, reimagined him using Greco-Roman frameworks. He introduced ideas about atonement, cosmic redemption, and divine sonship. But that wasn’t what Jesus himself preached. Jesus’ own vision was thoroughly Jewish—and very human.

Karen Armstrong:
Thank you. So, if Jesus didn’t see himself as divine, how did this theological transformation happen? What forces—cultural, political, or theological—led to his evolution from Jewish prophet to divine figure in Christianity?

Amy-Jill Levine:
After Jesus’ death, his followers had to make sense of what had happened. A crucified Messiah didn’t fit Jewish expectations. So they began to reinterpret Scripture and find new meanings in Jesus’ life and death. This wasn’t dishonesty—it was grief turned into theology.

Paula Fredriksen:
And as the movement spread beyond Jewish communities into the Greco-Roman world, the cultural lens shifted. Gentiles were used to divine heroes—sons of gods, miracle workers. For Jesus to be accepted, his story had to evolve in that direction. That’s when titles like “Son of God” took on divine connotations.

Hyam Maccoby:
We also must see the role of institutional theology. As Christianity grew, it needed theological cohesion. Making Jesus divine gave authority to Church teachings and leaders. It wasn’t just about honoring Jesus—it was about power.

Geza Vermes:
Yes, and over time, the Jewishness of Jesus faded in Christian memory. The more divine he became, the less relatable he was as a human rabbi. That shift distanced Christianity from its Jewish roots—tragically, it also fueled centuries of antisemitism.

E.P. Sanders:
It’s worth stressing again: the earliest disciples were Jews who believed God was working through Jesus. They didn’t think he was God. That shift came later and gradually. But it’s one of the most significant theological developments in human history.

Karen Armstrong:
Given this, let me ask each of you: What would reclaiming Jesus as a Jewish teacher and Messiah—not a divine figure—mean for modern faith and interreligious understanding today?

Hyam Maccoby:
It could heal deep wounds. Recognizing Jesus as part of Jewish history—not apart from it—could restore a sense of continuity and mutual respect between Jews and Christians.

Amy-Jill Levine:
It would invite Christians to read the New Testament with fresh eyes—not as a rejection of Judaism, but as part of it. That could profoundly reshape Christian ethics and humility.

E.P. Sanders:
It could also help believers move beyond metaphysical debates and focus on Jesus’ moral vision: mercy, justice, and radical inclusion.

Geza Vermes:
Reclaiming the Jewish Jesus makes him more accessible, not less. He becomes a model of faithfulness, courage, and spiritual depth within the human condition—not above it.

Paula Fredriksen:
It allows us to appreciate both Jesus and Judaism more fully. And it reminds us that theology must serve humanity, not divide it. Returning to Jesus’ roots can be a step toward peace.

Karen Armstrong:
Thank you. What we’ve uncovered today is that Jesus was not born a Christian, nor a God, but a passionate Jewish visionary. To understand him on his own terms is not to diminish him—but to honor the truth he lived and the tradition he never meant to abandon.

Topic 5: The Deification Process Was Political and Evolving

Moderator: Karen Armstrong
Guests:

• Dolores Cannon
• Bart D. Ehrman (returning guest)
• Richard Rubenstein
• Elaine Pagels (returning guest)
• Karen King

Karen Armstrong (moderator):
Today we explore a bold and necessary question: Was Jesus’ deification a spiritual recognition—or a political strategy? The doctrine that Jesus is God wasn’t finalized until centuries after his death, amid councils, imperial alliances, and theological battles. Let’s begin here: How did Jesus go from a Jewish teacher to a figure worshiped as God by millions?

Dolores Cannon:
From the metaphysical side, many of my clients under hypnosis spoke of Jesus as an advanced soul—not God, but a teacher sent to awaken humanity. The deification, they said, was added later by people who didn’t understand the depth of his vibration. They needed a savior outside of themselves, so they turned a spiritual example into an object of worship.

Richard Rubenstein:
Historically, I’d agree. After Constantine legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, the church moved from persecuted minority to imperial partner. With that shift came a need for unified doctrine. Declaring Jesus as God helped consolidate power and gave divine legitimacy to church authority. It wasn’t just theology—it was governance.

Elaine Pagels:
And when you look at the Gnostic texts that were excluded from the canon, many portray Jesus as a revealer of hidden truths—not as a deity. These views were widespread in the first two centuries. But as the orthodox church grew stronger, it began branding these other interpretations as heresy and eliminating them. The idea of Jesus as God was enforced, not organically agreed upon.

Karen King:
Yes, and it’s critical to see that early Christianity was diverse. The idea that Jesus was divine in a literal, Trinitarian sense didn’t emerge fully until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. That council wasn’t just about beliefs—it was about drawing boundaries. Once theology became tied to empire, it served political ends as much as spiritual ones.

Bart D. Ehrman:
The theological evolution is traceable. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet. By the time we reach John’s Gospel—written decades later—he’s portrayed as the pre-existent Word made flesh. That’s not accident—it’s development. Early Christians were wrestling with who Jesus was and how he could be the Messiah if he died like a criminal. Making him divine resolved the dissonance.

Karen Armstrong:
So if the divinity of Jesus was a gradual construction shaped by empire, theology, and spiritual need—why did it take hold so powerfully? Why did people embrace it so deeply and defend it so fiercely?

Bart D. Ehrman:
Because it answered big questions: Why did Jesus die? How can humans be saved? How can we be close to God? The idea that God became flesh and died for our sins is emotionally powerful. It gave meaning to suffering and hope for redemption. Once that theology was in place, it stuck.

Elaine Pagels:
And also because it created a cosmic drama—Jesus as God battling evil, defeating death. That narrative gave people a reason to stay loyal even in persecution. But let’s not forget: other narratives existed too, like spiritual awakening through knowledge. Those were silenced.

Dolores Cannon:
People also needed an external figure to worship. It’s easier to bow before a savior than to activate the divinity within yourself. But Jesus came to remind us of our connection to God, not to become a gatekeeper to it.

Richard Rubenstein:
Once Christianity became institutionalized, theology turned into law. Believing the right things became more important than living the right way. The divinized Jesus became the cornerstone of a power structure—one that would shape Europe, colonialism, and even modern politics.

Karen King:
And those who didn’t conform—women, mystics, alternate sects—were erased or persecuted. The divine Jesus became a tool to control access to God. That was never his intention.

Karen Armstrong:
Let me ask this final question: If the deification of Jesus was at least partly political, what does that mean for modern faith? Can we separate spiritual truth from historical construction—and should we?

Dolores Cannon:
We must. Truth is eternal, but doctrines are temporary. Jesus didn’t want worship—he wanted awakening. We honor him not by reciting creeds, but by embodying the love he lived.

Richard Rubenstein:
I believe faith can survive without myth. In fact, it becomes stronger. When we recognize how theology was shaped by human hands, we’re free to rediscover its human heart.

Karen King:
Recovering the historical Jesus doesn’t weaken faith—it roots it. It invites us into a deeper, more personal spirituality. We don’t need to deny the divine—we need to reimagine it.

Bart D. Ehrman:
If we acknowledge that doctrines evolved, we can focus less on “what to believe” and more on “how to live.” That shift might be the most Christlike thing we could do.

Elaine Pagels:
Yes. The Jesus of history and the Christ of faith don’t have to be enemies. They can be companions—one showing us how to live, the other giving us hope that it matters.

Karen Armstrong:
Beautifully said. The story of Jesus is not only sacred but deeply human—shaped by longing, loss, and love across centuries. Whether divine or not, his life remains a mirror. And perhaps, the real question is not “Was Jesus God?” but “How can we live as he did?”

Final Thoughts by Karen Armstrong

“What we’ve heard today is not a debate to declare winners, but a chorus of voices seeking deeper understanding. Some have pointed out how Jesus may never have claimed to be God. Others have shown how early followers viewed him in vastly different ways. And some have invited us to see his divinity not in ontological definitions, but in the radical power of love he embodied.

Whether Jesus was God in flesh or the mirror of the divine in humanity, his message remains: compassion, forgiveness, the transformation of suffering into love.

In the end, the value of these conversations is not to win an argument—but to open our hearts. And perhaps that, more than anything, is what Jesus would have wanted.”

Short Bios: