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?

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Being called "divine" is not the same as being called, unambiguously and clearly called "God".

I believe that Jesus was regarded as divine by his earliest Jewish monotheist followers. How "divine"?

Both the Synoptics and John refer to Jesus as "the Son of Man", who was in Judaism (in the book of Daniel and in Second Temple Judaism) a pre-existent, divine, celestial, ancient heavenly being who is presented before Yahweh, "the Ancient of Days", who sits before or next to Yahweh's throne, and whose native realm is the clouds of heaven. The Gospels identify Jesus with this pre-existent, divine figure - Jesus himself claims this at his Sanhedrin trial, right down to coming on the clouds of heaven, accompanied - no less - by "Power" (God's vitalizing Presence itself). THAT is why the priest tore his robes and charged Jesus with blasphemy. Not for claiming to be God the Father/Creator, but rather for claiming to be God's pre-existent heavenly "assisting angel" who in the Jewish Bible carried God's own Name and was charged with God's own divine Judgment. The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus for saying that he, whom they thought was a mere man, was making himself not only the divine Son of Man, but also a "Second Power in Heaven", a heresy which the rabbis were to condemn as blasphemy and idolatry.

Thus, Jesus became divine - not ontological "God" - in his own ministry, and the first person to believe in the Christ of Faith, and pre-existent Son of Man, was likely Jesus himself. That's the earliest "divine Jesus" christology.

[liamconnor]

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?

It is impossible to say when he "first" was considered "divine", since all we can go by are documents. By 50 AD (about when 1 Cor. was written) it had become common place theology, though communicated not through Greek categories but Jewish ones: Though the pagans have many gods and lords, "we" (Christians) have only One God and Lord, the Father and Jesus. Given how Paul writes this so casually, the belief was part of the Corinthian theological education.

[TripleZ]

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?

Suppositions, who said these things ? Who actually believes these things ?
The Son Of God actually means " the Son of God " as in, God has a flesh and blood son, like, we are created in Gods Image and Likeness and so, God has a real Son...

Job 1:6 It happened one day that the sons of God came to serve Adonai, and among them came the Adversary [Hebrew: Satan]. do you actually fully understand verse 6 ?

Exo 4:22 Then you are to tell Pharaoh: 'Adonai says, "Isra'el is my firstborn son.
Do you know who Israel is and why God considers HIM His " firstborn son " ? As in Yeshua is God only flesh and blood SON ?

Also;
Rom 9:1 I am speaking the truth — as one who belongs to the Messiah, I do not lie; and also bearing witness is my conscience, governed by the Ruach HaKodesh:
Rom 9:2 my grief is so great, the pain in my heart so constant,
Rom 9:3 that I could wish myself actually under God's curse and separated from the Messiah, if it would help my brothers, my own flesh and blood,
Rom 9:4 the people of Isra'el! They were made God's children, the Sh'khinah has been with them, the covenants are theirs, likewise the giving of the Torah, the Temple service and the promises;
Rom 9:5 the Patriarchs are theirs; and from them, as far as his physical descent is concerned, came the Messiah, who is over all. Praised be Adonai for ever! Amen.

[Elijah John]

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?

If by "Divine" you mean co-equal, and co-eternal with God the Father, I think the claim was made official at the council of Nicea.

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.

Seems it was the Pauline and Johannine Christians who came closest to actually calling Jesus "God".

Their views, of course won out, and became orthodoxy.

[TripleZ]

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?

and your point is ?

[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?

[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?

and your point is ?

RESPONSE: It's a question. When..?

[polonius]

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

Mashiach: The Messiah

The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept. The word "mashiach" will be used throughout this page.

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

Numbers 23:19 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
19 God is not a human being, that he should lie,
or a mortal, that he should change his mind.
Has he promised, and will he not do it?
Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

[Elijah John]

[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.