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]

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.

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, be 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 made 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).

That's pretty contorted of Jewish society, I would say. They were mistaken. Jesus did not claim to be God. The Jews were accusing him of that, but they were wrong. Why should we assume that Jesus meant that he was God when he said "I am God's Son"? That doesn't hold water.

He always placed himself in a subordinate position to his Father. The Scriptures repeatedly call the Father, Jehovah, Jesus' God and Father. It's as plain as the nose on your face what Jesus' relationship to God is.


Jesus said to Mary: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." (John 20:17)

"About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying:...'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" (Matthew 27:46)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 1:3)

"There is actually to us one God, the Father, out of whom all things are... AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are." (I Corinthians 8:6)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 1:3)

Saying of Jesus: "You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, YOUR GOD, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your partners." (Hebrews 1:9)

"Next, the end, when he [Jesus] hands over the kingdom to his God and Father." (I Corinthians 15:24)


Repeatedly Jesus is said to HAVE a God---someone over and above him, whom he worshipped. This is plainly seen. There is no mystery. There is no confusion. The only confusion is when someone drags in the Trinity Doctrine from the eons past of pagan religion. It doesn't belong in Christian thought. Throw it out and we have no confusion.

[/b]

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 20 by onewithhim]

"...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."

Very clear indeed. When his foes wanted to stone him for "claiming to be God" or "claiming to be God's equal", Jesus corrects their misunderstanding.
He tells them that they themselves call the ancient judges "gods", so he reprimands them for condemning him for making the much more modest claim of merely being God's son.

In John, Jesus explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead in 17:3, where he says, "You [Father] are the only true God". Not Zeus. Not Apollo. Not Jesus. God the Father alone.

Jesus also says that he is only a man who has heard God's word and obeys it -and that he can do nothing of his own will, but only by the Father's command. Finally, at the resurrection, he tells Mary that he will be ascending to "my God" and to "your God". Thus identifying himself as a man, who along with Mary, has the same God.

And in any case, God does not ascend to God, hear God's word, obey God's word and exist utterly depedent on God.

God dependent and obedient to Himself? The notion that the Johannine Jesus was claiming to be God is replete with such absurdities.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 22 by steveb1]

I too must admit the "Trinity doctrine" is full of holes. Once I decided to examine my religion, I realized we are misled for the most part. I believe in the Father, son and holy spirit, I don't believe they are the same persona anymore.

[bjs]

That's pretty contorted of Jewish society, I would say. They were mistaken. Jesus did not claim to be God. The Jews were accusing him of that, but they were wrong.

So you think that I have contorted Jewish society and that the Jews, who were a part of that society, were wrong with they thought Jesus was claiming to be God.

You are claiming to know first century Jewish culture better than first century Jews. This is immensely unlikely. A far more likely and less convoluted explanation is that in first century Jewish culture claiming to be the son of God was claiming to be equal to God.

According the gospels that is what the first century Jews actually thought.

[2timothy316]

That's pretty contorted of Jewish society, I would say. They were mistaken. Jesus did not claim to be God. The Jews were accusing him of that, but they were wrong.

So you think that I have contorted Jewish society and that the Jews, who were a part of that society, were wrong with they thought Jesus was claiming to be God.

You are claiming to know first century Jewish culture better than first century Jews. This is immensely unlikely. A far more likely and less convoluted explanation is that in first century Jewish culture claiming to be the son of God was claiming to be equal to God.

According the gospels that is what the first century Jews actually thought.

Here is what the Jewish people were saying who Jesus was.

Matthew 16:14 says, "“Some say John the Baptist, others E·liʹjah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.�

I see no mention of God in there.

"So the high priest said to him: “I put you under oath by the living God to tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God!� Jesus said to him: “You yourself said it. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.� - Matthew 26:63, 64.

No mention they thought he was Almighty God here either.

[polonius]

That's pretty contorted of Jewish society, I would say. They were mistaken. Jesus did not claim to be God. The Jews were accusing him of that, but they were wrong.

So you think that I have contorted Jewish society and that the Jews, who were a part of that society, were wrong with they thought Jesus was claiming to be God.

You are claiming to know first century Jewish culture better than first century Jews. This is immensely unlikely. A far more likely and less convoluted explanation is that in first century Jewish culture claiming to be the son of God was claiming to be equal to God.

According the gospels that is what the first century Jews actually thought.

QUESTION: Where in Matthew,Mark,or Luke, do you find Jesus claiming to be God?

But Jesus does admit that "The Father is greater than I." Hence Jesus in not coequal with God.

[marco]

Here is what the Jewish people were saying who Jesus was.

Matthew 16:14 says, "“Some say John the Baptist, others E·liʹjah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.�

I see no mention of God in there.

And given the stupidity of the the reply we can deduce zero from it.

"So the high priest said to him: “I put you under oath by the living God to tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God!� Jesus said to him: “You yourself said it. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.� - Matthew 26:63, 64.

No mention they thought he was Almighty God here either.

There are men and there are gods. Someone who comes from the clouds of heaven would be like someone in the Roman or Greek pantheon. Christ's reply is needlessly evasive. "I am not a god," would have sufficed. You will find no denial of his divinity from the lips of Christ. Is it a wonder, then, he was deified?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

But this is not a Greco Roman pantheon. The lines in Hebrew thinking between God and man are far more distinct.

No affirmatation from Jesus lips that he was God either. And regarding the denial, why refute something that was widely (or uinversally) assumed and considered a "given" by first century Jews in Palestine? Namely, that humans are not gods.

There would have been no need for a refutation before the doctrine of Jesus Divnity was formulated later, by the Church.

"Son of God" does not mean "God". Especially in New Testament times and before.

[marco]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

No affirmatation from Jesus lips that he was God either. And regarding the denial, why refute something that was widely (or uinversally) assumed and considered a "given" by first century Jews in Palestine? Namely, that humans are not gods.

There would have been no need for a refutation before the doctrine of Jesus Divnity was formulated later, by the Church.

"Son of God" does not mean "God". Especially in New Testament times and before.

The dominant culture, that of Rome, was deifying the top people. Talk of coming on the clouds, like Mercury, is confusing but then who witnessed him saying this precisely? I believe he was deified simply to grant him status and this created a problem for monotheism. Ergo Trinitas.

His position as a divinity probably gave power to the emerging Church though that power was many times multiplied when it had the weight of Rome behind it; then later the Spanish and British Empires spread the Good News. Were Jesus simply Billy Graham I doubt if we'd have such strong Christianity today.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

No affirmatation from Jesus lips that he was God either. And regarding the denial, why refute something that was widely (or uinversally) assumed and considered a "given" by first century Jews in Palestine? Namely, that humans are not gods.

There would have been no need for a refutation before the doctrine of Jesus Divnity was formulated later, by the Church.

"Son of God" does not mean "God". Especially in New Testament times and before.

The dominant culture, that of Rome, was deifying the top people. Talk of coming on the clouds, like Mercury, is confusing but then who witnessed him saying this precisely? I believe he was deified simply to grant him status and this created a problem for monotheism. Ergo Trinitas.

His position as a divinity probably gave power to the emerging Church though that power was many times multiplied when it had the weight of Rome behind it; then later the Spanish and British Empires spread the Good News. Were Jesus simply Billy Graham I doubt if we'd have such strong Christianity today.

Points well taken. I often forget that by this time Jewish culture was contaminated by Roman culture, and no doubt was already expriencing the compromise of subtle Paganism. This seems to have happened even before Paul' spread his watered down version of ethical monotheism to the Mediterranean masses.