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?

[marco]

[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.

They are not regarded as the same person in the Trinity doctrine. They are three separate persons in one God. If you accept the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit I don't see your problem with the Trinity.

[2timothy316]

If you accept the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit I don't see your problem with the Trinity.

Accepting them to to describe a trinity is not the issue. It's that I do not accept those terms to describe Almighty God. Holy Spirit wasn't even considered a person until the after the 3rd century. Like brianbbs67 said the Trinity doctrine to describe Almighty God 'is full of holes'.

[polonius]

[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.

They are not regarded as the same person in the Trinity doctrine. They are three separate persons in one God. If you accept the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit I don't see your problem with the Trinity.

RESPONSE: The problem is that these are three unequal and therefore different persons.

One must be a little more Divine than the other two.

Lets see: one was unbegotten, the second was begotten and proceeded from the Father God, and the third was begotten and proceeded from the Father and the Son.


The Son and Holy Ghost were thus begotten and proceeded so these two were not only unequal to the Father but not coeternal either.


The Trinity "mystery" remains a story which began Photos of Azores
when the Christians tried to argue that Jesus was actually a God too. Until about 85 AD he was only the Messiah and the Christians remained one of the orthodox Jewish sects.

[polonius]

[SORRY. Major typo on last post]


RESPONSE: The problem is that these are three unequal and therefore different persons.

One must be a little more Divine than the other two.

Lets see: one was unbegotten, the second was begotten and proceeded from the Father God, and the third was begotten and proceeded from the Father and the Son.


The Son and Holy Ghost were thus begotten and proceeded so these two were not only unequal to the Father but not coeternal either.


The Trinity "mystery" remains a story which began about 85 AD. See 12 Benediction.
when the Christians tried to argue that Jesus was actually a God too. Until about 85 AD he was only the Messiah and the Christians remained one of the orthodox Jewish sects.[/quote]

[bjs]

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.

I agree that Matthew 16:14 doesn’t mention God. In that instance the disciples did not mention that the people thought Jesus was the son of God, or the Christ for that matter. Do you believe that this negates the verses where Jesus did claim to be the son of God?

In this thread I have argued that in a first century Jewish context claiming to be the son of God was claiming to be God or to be equal to God (blasphemy).

You have suggested that you know more about first century Jewish culture than first century Jews. Are you sticking with that claim?

You have brought up other verses that don’t address that topic. I do not see that as significant to this discussion.

[2timothy316]

I agree that Matthew 16:14 doesn’t mention God. In that instance the disciples did not mention that the people thought Jesus was the son of God, or the Christ for that matter. Do you believe that this negates the verses where Jesus did claim to be the son of God?

What verses did Jesus claim to be Almighty God?

[2timothy316]

You have suggested that you know more about first century Jewish culture than first century Jews. Are you sticking with that claim?

Where did I claim this? I have merely been quoting the Bible.

[2timothy316]

You have brought up other verses that don’t address that topic. I do not see that as significant to this discussion.

Matthew 26:63, 64 when they said, "I put you under oath by the living God to tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God!"

(Note the accusation is not 'are you God' but are the 'Son of God')

Who was talking here? Was it a Roman? A Christian? A Jew?

[bjs]

You have suggested that you know more about first century Jewish culture than first century Jews. Are you sticking with that claim?

Where did I claim this? I have merely been quoting the Bible.

Sorry, that was onewithhim who made that claim.

[marco]

Like brianbbs67 said the Trinity doctrine to describe Almighty God 'is full of holes'.

It's a way of reconciling the three apparently divine entities: the Father, Christ who rose and ascended and the Paraclete who would arrive in mystical form. Technically they enter a panthon of gods but since the ruling is that there's but one God, then in some mysterious way Father, Son and Spirit must be divinely interwoven. 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.