When was Jesus first considered to be God?

[polonius]

Many misunderstand the term "son of God" to mean Jesus. But actually, "son of God" was a common expression in the Old Testament which did not mean divinity.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In the Old Testament

The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship.

Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc.

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

So when was it claimed that Jesus was actually divine?

[polonius]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

Ebionites – a very early Christian sect

“Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law�

“The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18),…�

[Elijah John]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

Ebionites – a very early Christian sect

“Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law�

“The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18),…�

And they considered Jesus to be the Messiah, but not God.

[polonius]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

Ebionites – a very early Christian sect

“Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law�

“The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18),…�

And they considered Jesus to be the Messiah, but not God.

RESPONSE: Wiki has a rather complete list of the claimed messiahs of the three major faith groups. I don;t think that any of them claimed to be God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _claimants

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

But that claim seems to have been circulating even before that event. As well as the opposing claim that Jesus was not Divine, but simply was the risen Messiah. That opposing claim by the communiity which wrote the Didache, also the Jewish-Christian sects such as the Ebionites, and James own circle of disciples.

I am curious as to your reasons for two of these: the Didache (which consists almost entirely of behavioral instructions) and James' circle.

As for a book that prescribes behavior, beliefs are not behaviors, and so we should not expect the Didache to be focused on Jesus' divinity or lack thereof.

As for James' beliefs, where are we getting these?

The Didache, though an instruction manual, makes no mention at all of Christ's supposed Divinity, not even in passing. If my recollection is accurate, Jesus is not even referred to as "Lord" but only as the servant of the Father.

Also, where in the letter of James is Jesus said to be God? No allusions to the Trinity there either, in that epistle. If the author of James believed Jesus to have been "God" isn't it reasonable to assume there would have been at least a passing reference to Jesus under that title?

So it seems reasonable to conclude that the community behind the epistle of James did not consider Jesus to have been God, either.

The Didache, though an instruction manual, makes no mention at all of Christ's supposed Divinity, not even in passing. If my recollection is accurate, Jesus is not even referred to as "Lord" but only as the servant of the Father.

I do not put as much value in this argument from silence. One would need to show specific passages where Jesus' divinity ought to have been mentioned but isn't. God, after all, is not mentioned in the book of Esther. Do we conclude that the author of Esther knew nothing of Israel's God?

Also, where in the letter of James is Jesus said to be God? No allusions to the Trinity there either, in that epistle. If the author of James believed Jesus to have been "God" isn't it reasonable to assume there would have been at least a passing reference to Jesus under that title?

Once again, an argument from silence. where would it have been appropriate in the letter (which is almost all moral exhortation) to refer to Jesus' divinity? The only place is in the introduction, as that is the only place where Jesus is mentioned at all. And there Jesus is referred to as "Lord". And Lord (as mentioned above) is the preferred Greek term for YHWH. The formula "God the father and the Lord Jesus Christ" is in fact 'trinitarian' (or at least binitarian) as we see in 1 Cor. and Phil..

So it seems reasonable to conclude that the community behind the epistle of James did not consider Jesus to have been God, either

It was fashionable among scholars to assume distinct communities behind every letter, and to assume their theology had to be different and even opposed to every other community. As I see it, we have a letter from James with moral exhortations. There is nothing in it explicitly opposed to Pauline theology (James' defense of "works" is not a defense of Paul's "works of the law").

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 14 by liamconnor]

Argument from silence? Sometimes silence is telling. OK here's a more specifc instance. "You believe that God is one, you do well". Note the passage does not read: "you believe that God is Triune, you do well".

By all accounts, James like many if not most of the first Christians, was a Shema-believing absolute Monotheist, and not a Trinitarian.

Even Paul, at best (best from the Trintarian's perspective) never goes so far as to call Jesus "God". He does say that Jesus is first born of all Creation. But the created (by definition) can never be God. God is eternal.

And in those apostolic salutations that you refer to, Paul always makes the distinction between Jesus and God. He always identifies God as "the Father" and Jesus as the "Lord". Small "Lord", not "LORD". Paul in so doing was not invoking the Tetragrammaton, but was using the word "Lord" in it's lesser sense, as it applies to human kings, etc.

When did Jesus come to be considered "God"? In the Bible, never. Except perhaps in the mind of the Evangelist John.

Even Paul says only that Jesus was declared (designated?) Son of God by virtue of the Resurrection. (Romans 1.3) But the Son is not the Father, and the Father alone is God. And as has been pointed out many times on this site, the term "Son of God" means a myriad of different things. None of which in the mind of those first century Hebrews mean "God Himself".

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

Nice, precise thinking here, EJ!

[marco]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

Nice, precise thinking here, EJ!

Moderator Comment

That's a generous comment, stevenb1 but we try to avoid non-contributing one liners. You have already raised EJ's spirits so that will suffice. A warm welcome to the forum. Enjoy your discussions.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

Nice, precise thinking here, EJ!

Moderator Comment

That's a generous comment, stevenb1 but we try to avoid non-contributing one liners. You have already raised EJ's spirits so that will suffice. A warm welcome to the forum. Enjoy your discussions.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Oops. Thanks for the kindly correction, happily received.

[bjs]

Many misunderstand the term "son of God" to mean Jesus. But actually, "son of God" was a common expression in the Old Testament which did not mean divinity.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In the Old Testament

The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship.

Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc.

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

So when was it claimed that Jesus was actually divine?

I find the comments about the Old Testament use of the title “Son of God� to be misleading at the very least.

“Sons of God� (plural) was a common title in the Old Testament, used (almost?) exclusively to describe heavenly beings such as angles. There is a passage in Genesis six where the phrase “sons of God� is used in an ambiguous form, and it is uncertain if this was aimed at humans or angles. Other than this ambiguous passage the phrase “sons of God� is always attached clearly angelic beings in the OT.

The concept of the nation of Israel being the son of God existed in the Old Testament, though the specific phrase “son of God� was never applied to the Israelites. The closest is a single example from Hosea 1:10 where it is said that the Israelites will be called “the sons of the living God.�

What set Jesus apart was the he claimed to personally be the Son of God. Before then the concept had been applied to groups, but Jesus said he personally and apart from any other people is the Son of God. I do not know of individual in the Old Testament who was called the son of God. (If someone knows of such an example in the OT, please share it.)

In the Jewish society at the time, for an individual to claim to be the Son of God would be a claim at being God. When Jesus said that he is the son of God the people who heard him understood that as a claim of being God himself, of being equal with God the Father (Mark 14:61-62; John 5:18).

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 14 by liamconnor]

Argument from silence? Sometimes silence is telling. OK here's a more specifc instance. "You believe that God is one, you do well". Note the passage does not read: "you believe that God is Triune, you do well".

By all accounts, James like many if not most of the first Christians, was a Shema-believing absolute Monotheist, and not a Trinitarian.

Even Paul, at best (best from the Trintarian's perspective) never goes so far as to call Jesus "God". He does say that Jesus is first born of all Creation. But the created (by definition) can never be God. God is eternal.

And in those apostolic salutations that you refer to, Paul always makes the distinction between Jesus and God. He always identifies God as "the Father" and Jesus as the "Lord". Small "Lord", not "LORD". Paul in so doing was not invoking the Tetragrammaton, but was using the word "Lord" in it's lesser sense, as it applies to human kings, etc.

When did Jesus come to be considered "God"? In the Bible, never. Except perhaps in the mind of the Evangelist John.

Even Paul says only that Jesus was declared (designated?) Son of God by virtue of the Resurrection. (Romans 1.3) But the Son is not the Father, and the Father alone is God. And as has been pointed out many times on this site, the term "Son of God" means a myriad of different things. None of which in the mind of those first century Hebrews mean "God Himself".

Very nice, EJ.

I have, however, many times explained that John never meant to imply that Jesus was God. Nowhere in his Gospel. His words have been twisted and misrepresented over and over, and many modern scholars have caught the discrepancies. John clearly stated his view at the end of his chapter 20:

"These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." (John 20:31)

After all was said and done, after all that he wrote about Jesus, don't you think that if he thought Jesus was God Almighty he would have said as much? But he didn't say that. He said what everyone thought about Jesus and what Jesus claimed to be: THE SON of God. It is very clear.