And yet I do not think that Jesus spoke of himself with these grand terms and phrases.

Together with most mainstream scholars, I see the gospels as containing earlier and later layers of Christian traditions about Jesus as they developed during the first century. The gospels (and to some extent, the New Testament as a whole) contain the early Christian movement’s memory of Jesus and their testimony to what Jesus had become in early Christian experience, conviction and thought.

In shorthand that I often use, the gospels are about both the pre-Easter Jesus (Jesus as a figure of history before his death) and the post-Easter Jesus (what Jesus became after his death).

As a historian who is also Christian, I do not think that the pre-Easter Jesus spoke about himself as the Son of God, or as Lord, or as the Light of the World, and so forth. Of course, I know that the gospels attribute this kind of language to him, so it is not a refutation of this position to quote the gospels against it.

But – again with the majority of mainstream scholarship, a point that I repeat not to give my perception authority, but to indicate that it is not eccentric or peculiar to me - I see this language as the early Christian movement’s testimony, their witness, to what Jesus had become in their lives.

I see the pre-Easter Jesus as a Jewish mystic who knew God, and who as a result became a healer, wisdom teacher, and prophet of the kingdom of God. The latter led to his being killed by the authorities who ruled his world. But I do not think he proclaimed or taught an extraordinary status for himself. The message of the pre-Easter Jesus was about God and the kingdom of God, and not about himself.

Rather, I see the grand statements about Jesus – that he is the Son of God, the Light of the World, and so forth - as the testimony of the early Christian movement. These are neither objectively true statements about Jesus nor, for example in this season, about his conception and birth. To speak of him as the Son of God does not mean that he was conceived by God and had no biological human father. Rather, this is the post-Easter conviction of his followers.

Is that enough for me as a Christian? Yes, yes it is. To be Christian is to affirm that Jesus is the Son of God and Lord, and that the would-be lords of this world are not.

So, even as I do not think that Jesus’ status as Son of God is because of his conception, I affirm the early Christians conviction that he is, for those of us who follow him the Son of God, the Lord, the Light of the World.

He is all of this for Christians – and we do not need to negate the other enduring religions of the world in order to say: for those of us who are Christian, he is the decisive revelation of God’s character and passion. He is for us the Son who discloses the Father, the light who shines in our darkness, the Lord who comes each Christmas. And there are other revelations of God. But affirming Jesus as the Son of God means: this is who he is for those of us who follow him.