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?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 48 by onewithhim]

Not so. Jesus was not deified by John in any sense, and Paul did not suggest in any way that Jesus was God. That whole mess was started up by "wolves" that entered among the flock and twisted Scriptures to get the disciples to go with them....the Great Apostacy (Acts 20:29,30), which took hold at the end of the first century when all the Apostles were gone

In view of this, what do you do with what Paul wrote in Titus 2:13?

waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

I look at that and I can see an obvious attempt to have Paul say something that would contradict every other thing he had said about the Father and Jesus. He always spoke of Jesus as God's Son and not God, differentiating the two, time and time again. The verse is written in the KJV as if it was talking about one individual, Jesus Christ. Paul was referring to TWO individuals...the Father, God AND the Savior Jesus Christ. Can you see how easy it is to go along with the bias of that attempt at categorizing Jesus as both God and Savior? What have other versions done with this verse? (One little word can give it a whole different meaning.)

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE: "As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God AND OF our savior Jesus Christ." Two Persons referred to. Paul always gave the Father, Jehovah, the credit for being the "great God."

JAMES MOFFATT TRANSLATION: "Awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God AND OF our Saviour Christ Jesus."

21ST CENTURY NEW TESTAMENT: "Yet we also look forward to that marvelous hope of the majestic manifestation of the magnificent God AND OF our Saviour Christ Jesus."


I could go on, with more versions that distinguish between the two, God AND Jesus Christ.

[2timothy316]

The result is the concept of the Trinity which may well have holes in it, as reason goes, but is taken as a mystery, so the holes need not worry believers.

Anyway, as I said, if a person accepts the three entities then it's a tiny journey from there to the Trinity.

That's just it. I do not accept it because of the holes. That tiny journey is unsupported by the Bible.

I have always found this term 'I am a believer' interesting. That 'believers' need not worry. As if believing something makes it ok to accept. It like a get out of jail free card in the person's mind. It's pointed out that a belief is not supported in the Bible or full of holes but hey they believe it and what I am supposed to see? A halo appear over their head? Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. Frankly I feel a person that only says, 'it's what I believe' is a scapegoat or somehow it lets them off the hook as to showing Biblical support. Perhaps so as not to face the possibility what they believe is wrong...but that's impossible right? Because they Believe it and forget the holes...

'I Believe I can flap my arms and fly, after all it's only a tiny journey from the top of a building and the ground.'

Truth and accuracy > Belief

[marco]

'I Believe I can flap my arms and fly, after all it's only a tiny journey from the top of a building and the ground.'

And you would successfully get to your destination, though perhaps not comfortably. People who say they believe in divinities do precisely what you are humorously lampooning: they simply accept. Some folk believe that a coach will come and take exactly 144,000 happy souls to a new Eden. Yes, I know the details of taxi-ing might differ. This seems an absurdity but still folk believe it and others believe just as earnestly that they bite God every Sunday morning in the eucharist.

So is belief that Jesus is God any stranger? Belief is just acceptance based on nothing more than an interpretation of words from some anonymous scribes. It is both amusing and sad to hear the extent of which people do believe, and your aspiring aeronaut is no worse.

Truth and accuracy > Belief

I read this as truth and accuracy are geater than belief. True.

[2timothy316]

People who say they believe in divinities do precisely what you are humorously lampooning: they simply accept.

This is a not a true statement. It was not simple for me at all. I did a lot of research into the matter before I accepted there is a divine being. How can you possibly know what people simply accept or don't? Are you always prone to such snap judgements of how people come to the conclusion what they accept as true? Is it because you can't accept it that you think certainly no one else can? What is the formula for the stereotyping statement 'people who say the believe in divinities...simply accept'?

[William]

[Replying to post 54 by 2timothy316]

I did a lot of research into the matter before I accepted there is a divine being.

There is far more to there being a divine being than limiting your research to the bible, based on the belief that the bible is the word of that supposed divine being.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 54 by 2timothy316]

I did a lot of research into the matter before I accepted there is a divine being.

There is far more to there being a divine being than limiting your research to the bible, based on the belief that the bible is the word of that supposed divine being.

I agree. Who said I limited it to the Bible only? Sounds like am I being stereotyped again. People are assuming I limited myself to only certain sources. They are wrong. The Bible was only one source and it was not the only one. Most of those I've met that accept that there is a higher being didn't just use the Bible as an only source to draw their conclusion. Most figure it out before they even read the Bible. It has been my experience that a person accepts there is a higher power first then start searching out who and what that higher power is and what they have to do with mankind.

[marco]

This is a not a true statement. It was not simple for me at all. I did a lot of research into the matter before I accepted there is a divine being. How can you possibly know what people simply accept or don't? Are you always prone to such snap judgements of how people come to the conclusion what they accept as true? Is it because you can't accept it that you think certainly no one else can? What is the formula for the stereotyping statement 'people who say the believe in divinities...simply accept'?

Belief in a happy, merciful, forgiving, attentive deity is simple acceptance. The tiresome Augustine in his Confessions moans about his past dissolute life and hails the dawn of belief. There is no mathematical process here, just somebody saying "I do," and willingly swallowing the absurdities. Tertullian had the audacity to say he believed because "it is absurd." And how else does one reach belief but through an Act of Faith?

Reading the Bible at bedtime, if it does not induce sleep, may simply act as a persuasive force. The mind of man is a wonderful instrument, allowing us to see cities in the desert and water-filled meadows where none exist. I can see that once hooked, we can spin lovely stories, even good poetry such as that of Manley Hopkins on the grandeur of God. But I think one can paint beautiful pictures even when we know Yahweh is a fiction. I am in awe of the renaissance artists but I'm sure Caravaggio didn't believe young David killed a giant and held his head. Christ obviously did but in preaching goodness and mercy he was contradicting the picture we have of Yahweh. I think Christ would make a better God model and perhaps that is why he was deified. Sadly, many still cling to the original flawed item.

[2timothy316]

This is a not a true statement. It was not simple for me at all. I did a lot of research into the matter before I accepted there is a divine being. How can you possibly know what people simply accept or don't? Are you always prone to such snap judgements of how people come to the conclusion what they accept as true? Is it because you can't accept it that you think certainly no one else can? What is the formula for the stereotyping statement 'people who say the believe in divinities...simply accept'?

Belief in a happy, merciful, forgiving, attentive deity is simple acceptance. The tiresome Augustine in his Confessions moans about his past dissolute life and hails the dawn of belief. There is no mathematical process here, just somebody saying "I do," and willingly swallowing the absurdities. Tertullian had the audacity to say he believed because "it is absurd." And how else does one reach belief but through an Act of Faith?

Reading the Bible at bedtime, if it does not induce sleep, may simply act as a persuasive force. The mind of man is a wonderful instrument, allowing us to see cities in the desert and water-filled meadows where none exist. I can see that once hooked, we can spin lovely stories, even good poetry such as that of Manley Hopkins on the grandeur of God. But I think one can paint beautiful pictures even when we know Yahweh is a fiction. I am in awe of the renaissance artists but I'm sure Caravaggio didn't believe young David killed a giant and held his head. Christ obviously did but in preaching goodness and mercy he was contradicting the picture we have of Yahweh. I think Christ would make a better God model and perhaps that is why he was deified. Sadly, many still cling to the original flawed item.

So which question is this post supposed to be answering? It looks like a monologue about things I didn't ask about or is this more of your assumptions of how I draw my conclusions? Sorry but I no idea where you're going with all of this.

[onewithhim]

'I Believe I can flap my arms and fly, after all it's only a tiny journey from the top of a building and the ground.'

And you would successfully get to your destination, though perhaps not comfortably. People who say they believe in divinities do precisely what you are humorously lampooning: they simply accept. Some folk believe that a coach will come and take exactly 144,000 happy souls to a new Eden. Yes, I know the details of taxi-ing might differ. This seems an absurdity but still folk believe it and others believe just as earnestly that they bite God every Sunday morning in the eucharist.

So is belief that Jesus is God any stranger? Belief is just acceptance based on nothing more than an interpretation of words from some anonymous scribes. It is both amusing and sad to hear the extent of which people do believe, and your aspiring aeronaut is no worse.

Truth and accuracy > Belief

I read this as truth and accuracy are geater than belief. True.

We do not "simply accept" something.

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Heb.11:1)

We have been convinced by observing the creation that it is the evidence of the hand of an intelligent Creator. We have reasoned that if this universe has been created by an intelligent Being, he certainly would want to communicate with his creations. We have examined all of the sacred books that have become available, and of them all, the Bible makes the most sense to us. We take it seriously and strive to apply it in our lives, which shows us that when we follow it, we have success in our daily living. This strengthens our faith, which has always been based on evident demonstrations.

[onewithhim]

This is a not a true statement. It was not simple for me at all. I did a lot of research into the matter before I accepted there is a divine being. How can you possibly know what people simply accept or don't? Are you always prone to such snap judgements of how people come to the conclusion what they accept as true? Is it because you can't accept it that you think certainly no one else can? What is the formula for the stereotyping statement 'people who say the believe in divinities...simply accept'?

Belief in a happy, merciful, forgiving, attentive deity is simple acceptance. The tiresome Augustine in his Confessions moans about his past dissolute life and hails the dawn of belief. There is no mathematical process here, just somebody saying "I do," and willingly swallowing the absurdities. Tertullian had the audacity to say he believed because "it is absurd." And how else does one reach belief but through an Act of Faith?

Reading the Bible at bedtime, if it does not induce sleep, may simply act as a persuasive force. The mind of man is a wonderful instrument, allowing us to see cities in the desert and water-filled meadows where none exist. I can see that once hooked, we can spin lovely stories, even good poetry such as that of Manley Hopkins on the grandeur of God. But I think one can paint beautiful pictures even when we know Yahweh is a fiction. I am in awe of the renaissance artists but I'm sure Caravaggio didn't believe young David killed a giant and held his head. Christ obviously did but in preaching goodness and mercy he was contradicting the picture we have of Yahweh. I think Christ would make a better God model and perhaps that is why he was deified. Sadly, many still cling to the original flawed item.

Well, despite whatever you may thing, Jesus is 100% in tune with the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. You scoff at Jehovah and say that Jesus would be a better God, but you know---Jesus is going to come back in the name of Jehovah and wipe the wicked right off the face of the earth. How is that different from what Jehovah did in the O.T.? Jesus is not a timid little teddy bear. He is "The Lion of Judah."